Back door around two-term limit?

cthia wrote:

Annachie wrote:No Don. Being Presidentvand being elected to the Presidency are two different things, as 9 people prove.

I can run for President. I can even win and be elected. I just can't assume the office.


Language matters, and if your arguement is that two different things are the same, then you have no arguement.

Or to put it differently, if they ment it to be the way you think then they would not have refered to elections.

Absolutely. "Serve" and "elected" are two distinct concepts within the Constitution itself. So why shouldn't it be different concepts within this discussion.

The Constitution itself uses "serve" to explain the possibility of a president to be in office for ten years, if he has "served" no more than two years of a previous president's term, to still be eligible to be "elected" to two full terms.

Yes, language matters. But so does intent. To talk about a back door in this situation would take things down a path that the framers of the amendment were not wanting to go. Whether you are talking serving two terms or being elected to two terms, what the framers had in mind was they didn't want a president to serve more than two terms, the exception for the vp being noted.

To illustrate the point, consider Truman. After Roosevelt's death, he served all but a few months of Roosevelt's final term. As a consequence, he could only be elected once to a new term since he had already served his first term in office. That is what I am trying to get at.

As you say, language does matter. Lawyers parse it all the time. But taking language and applying it in ways that the originators did not intend ultimately reduces the discussion to absurdity.

I remember a joke we had back in seminary... Judas went and hanged himself.... Jesus said, "go and do likewise." That little joke illustrates the importance of intent and context.

Don

-

n7axw wrote:..snip..
Language matters, and if your argument is that two different things are the same, then you have no argument.

I just want to remind people that legalese and words used in such language can have radically different meaning when compared to everyday language.

With that said, I do think that even lawyers specializing in the constitution may have different opinions about the subject.

I've dealt with lawyers all of my life, even before I left H.S. My sister is my lawyer now. She's a corporate lawyer.

It is difficult to determine which way the chips will fall with cases of the spirit of the law vs the intent. In the case of the Constitution, one side could argue "hearsay" in the case of the designers.

More importantly, the letter of the law is upheld in most cases because the survival of the legal system depends on it. The letter of the law is the default winner until proven guilty.

It is difficult to rule against the letter of the law. This is why you are warned to read all contracts before you sign on the dotted line. Buyer beware. For very detailed and critical contracts, seek the advice of a good lawyer, or, it is "no step removed" from failing to read it -- he who represents himself has a fool for a lawyer.

If a business man cannot count on what's written, then business as we know it dies. The spirit of the law can and often does prevail in many cases. Especially when all parties are living and it is clear cut what was expected by, and of, any and all parties involved.

I disagree with Annachie that it is a "million" dollar question. She's being much too nice to lawyers, although I accept her spirit of intent. LOL

It would be a time consuming ruling because the ultimate decision could send ripples ahead in time. Thus, the decision cannot be made lightly. IMHO, there's a high probability it would be gotten away with the first time, before the loophole would be plugged.

BTW, @ Don:

This is not "my" illusion or my backdoor. One of my sister's most treasured friends brought it up for the second time just this past Saturday during halftime of Villanova's 70 - 69 defeat of Georgetown. She was rubbing salt into our wounds. Everyone was pulling for GT, except she. Her family are diehard Wildcats. So, until just this past Saturday, I wasn't even aware of the possible loophole. The conversation began at early breakfast when the messenger delivered it to you.

The way she introduced it was "Think Georgetown's defeat will be something to cry about? Try the fact that Donald Trump could end up serving for 10 years."

If you truly think I enjoyed hearing that at 5 AM in the morn, then you truly have another think coming.

I recall my sister saying once... "Just like there are ambulance chasers, there are loophole chasers. It is a very lucrative career for a reason."

I would say that if Trump was serving as VP and then became president a day less than 2 years before the term of the elected president was due to end, then Trump could serve as president for 2 full terms, and with the previous tenure the total would be a day less than 10 years.

However as he is currently the president and if he is elected president again then he would not be able to run for VP as he will have served as president for 2 terms and anyone who is ineligible to become president cannot run for VP.



It's not my nation or political scene but for what it is worth that is my uneducated guess at the meaning of the 2 amendments regarding the tenure of the presidency.

George J. Smith wrote:I would say that if Trump was serving as VP and then became president a day less than 2 years before the term of the elected president was due to end, then Trump could serve as president for 2 full terms, and with the previous tenure the total would be a day less than 10 years.

However as he is currently the president and if he is elected president again then he would not be able to run for VP as he will have served as president for 2 terms and anyone who is ineligible to become president cannot run for VP.


It's not my nation or political scene but for what it is worth that is my uneducated guess at the meaning of the 2 amendments regarding the tenure of the presidency.

I think you have got it straight. Some of people on this thread are missing Barack Obama. I don't blame them for that. In fact I feel that way myself. But It's not gonna happen and shouldn't happen. What we need to do is orient ourselves to the next election and take it from there.

Don

-

n7axw wrote:

George J. Smith wrote:I would say that if Trump was serving as VP and then became president a day less than 2 years before the term of the elected president was due to end, then Trump could serve as president for 2 full terms, and with the previous tenure the total would be a day less than 10 years.

However as he is currently the president and if he is elected president again then he would not be able to run for VP as he will have served as president for 2 terms and anyone who is ineligible to become president cannot run for VP.


It's not my nation or political scene but for what it is worth that is my uneducated guess at the meaning of the 2 amendments regarding the tenure of the presidency.

I think you have got it straight. Some of people on this thread are missing Barack Obama. I don't blame them for that. In fact I feel that way myself. But It's not gonna happen and shouldn't happen. What we need to do is orient ourselves to the next election and take it from there.

Don

-

Now that's not fair. Of course we miss Obama, but when it comes to Trump, I'd admit to missing any of the past presidents.

Truth is, the Constitution already provides a backdoor around the two-term limit, and Constitutionally allows for two extra years. Someone like Trump can sue to get his two extra years, by suing to become VP, whose job he can fully fulfill. He can argue that if a President is elected, the people expect he can last four years. Certainly two.

Of course, if it would work out for someone like Trump, would he later abdicate his throne? And what would be done if he didn't? Another impeachment debacle for half-a-term?

Again, I'm not exactly tickled pink that Americans possibly could have to endure a whole decade of Donald Trump. I'd start drinking tea for another two years of Obama. Heck, I'd start drinking coffee. One more year of Trump and I'd simply start drinking.

cthia wrote:
Now that's not fair. Of course we miss Obama, but when it comes to Trump, I'd admit to missing any of the past presidents.

Truth is, the Constitution already provides a backdoor around the two-term limit, and Constitutionally allows for two extra years. Someone like Trump can sue to get his two extra years, by suing to become VP, whose job he can fully fulfill. He can argue that if a President is elected, the people expect he can last four years. Certainly two.

Of course, if it would work out for someone like Trump, would he later abdicate his throne? And what would be done if he didn't? Another impeachment debacle for half-a-term?

Again, I'm not exactly tickled pink that Americans possibly could have to endure a whole decade of Donald Trump. I'd start drinking tea for another two years of Obama. Heck, I'd start drinking coffee. One more year of Trump and I'd simply start drinking.

Ah, c'mon, Cthia... ya gotta be missing Obama... I am! I think if Trump were king, our only hope would be that pure apoplexy would carry him away... Of course, our resident Trumpees will be yearning after him once He's gone. I think it's our duty to see to it that that day comes as soon as possible, don't you?

Don

-

Of course I miss Obama. More than there are words. I'm simply saying, in light of our current ball and chain, it isn't saying much.

I agree with our duty to vote him out. The only issue I agree with Trump on, is that Hillary should be arrested and jailed... FOR LOSING TO THE IDIOT!

Sigh. You, Americans, are too narrow-minded.

Learn how it's done in Russia:

* Make some new amendments into Constitution
* Argue that with those mew amendments, the Constitution is essentially new, and thus President technically never sworn to service on that Constitution
* And - viola! - you could put him into play two more times!

cthia wrote:

n7axw wrote:



I think you have got it straight. Some of people on this thread are missing Barack Obama. I don't blame them for that. In fact I feel that way myself. But It's not gonna happen and shouldn't happen. What we need to do is orient ourselves to the next election and take it from there.

Don

-

Now that's not fair. Of course we miss Obama, but when it comes to Trump, I'd admit to missing any of the past presidents.

Truth is, the Constitution already provides a backdoor around the two-term limit, and Constitutionally allows for two extra years. Someone like Trump can sue to get his two extra years, by suing to become VP, whose job he can fully fulfill. He can argue that if a President is elected, the people expect he can last four years. Certainly two.

Of course, if it would work out for someone like Trump, would he later abdicate his throne? And what would be done if he didn't? Another impeachment debacle for half-a-term?

Again, I'm not exactly tickled pink that Americans possibly could have to endure a whole decade of Donald Trump. I'd start drinking tea for another two years of Obama. Heck, I'd start drinking coffee. One more year of Trump and I'd simply start drinking.

I for one do not miss watching Obama get down on his knees to apologize to Arabs, Europeans and Chinese for America's alleged sins. In spite of all of the hype about "Russia hacked the election," it was Obama who was caught on camera urging a Russian dignatary to be patient because he would have more flexibility after he was reelected. it is far more entertaining to watch Europeans, Arabs and Chinese getting down on their knees to apologize to Trump and seek his favor. No spitting allowed. You have to swallow.