|
withak posted:I can't be bothered to read the constitution, can someone be elected VP for >2 terms? Yes. The amendment only applies to President.
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 02:41 |
|
|
Specifically, the electors may not vote for someone for President who has already been elected to two terms. Biden could (and should) be Vice President for life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 03:26
|
|
|
Well no one can run for VP who isn't eligible to be President but serving as VP for 8 years doe not make you ineligible to be President so have at it ???/Biden 2016.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 04:18
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Well no one can run for VP who isn't eligible to be President but serving as VP for 8 years doe not make you ineligible to be President so have at it ???/Biden 2016.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
So write in votes for Obama in 2016 are unconstitutional? Are there punishments for infringing on the constitution that can apply to Joe Anybody?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 04:47
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:So write in votes for Obama in 2016 are unconstitutional? Are there punishments for infringing on the constitution that can apply to Joe Anybody? They are not! In fact, Obama could run for President in 2016 and qualify for the ballot in most states, he simply could not be elected President for a third term.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 04:51
|
|
|
Joementum posted:They are not! In fact, Obama could run for President in 2016 and qualify for the ballot in most states, he simply could not be elected President for a third term. That's a different wording than your last post. I was hoping the two terms clause was that 'electors can not vote for a president who had been elected two terms', rather than 'a president can serve only two terms'. Big difference there if you live in a sitcom, or an episode of Futurama, or a reality where the president can only save the veterans and old people if he mints a trillion dollar coin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Specifically, the electors may not vote for someone for President who has already been elected to two terms. Could we create a position that's basically "court jester," but democratic-sounding and give him that for life, on the stipulation that said position disappears when he dies unless there's someone equally hilarious to give it to (that isn't terrible)? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
The wording in the amendment in question is "cannot be elected", which means my earlier post about electors not being allowed to vote for them is incorrect. Electors are, of course, different than normal votes. This year the Party for Socialism and Liberation put a 28 year old and a Venezuelan national on the ballot. In some states they were forced to run proxy candidates since neither of those people were constitutionally eligible, but in most states they were not. If Obama ran again in 2016 and the voters in Democratic primaries were somehow silly enough to nominate him, he could get listed on most ballots and those votes would be counted. This is a sort of "Air Bud" scenario where "there's no rule against it" so it could happen, but only because neither of the two major parties have been silly enough to try.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 05:04
|
|
|
Joementum posted:If Obama ran again in 2016 and the voters in Democratic primaries were somehow silly enough to nominate him, he could get listed on most ballots and those votes would be counted. So, what would *actually* happen if this scenario was to be played out? I'm legitimately curious. He's unelectable, even if hypothetically he was nominated and put on the ballot. If he won most of the votes, then what? Second place wins? Vice president gets to be president instead? vv Oh, I agree. I just find it fun to play the 'what if' game now and then. Rorac fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Jan 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 06:00
|
|
|
Rorac posted:So, what would *actually* happen if this scenario was to be played out? I'm legitimately curious. He's unelectable, even if hypothetically he was nominated and put on the ballot. If he won most of the votes, then what? Second place wins? Vice president gets to be president instead? We'd have a constitutional crisis and a ruling by SCOTUS on what happens, I reckon. It's such a silly thing that it'd never come up because it's that silly a thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 06:21
|
|
|
I thought what would happen is that a bunch of electors would be elected that vote for Mr. Third Term, Mr. Third Term is deemed ineligible, and another ballot is held. Process repeats until either a sufficient number of electors choose another candidate, or the nation collapses. I'm pretty sure the legislature steps in SOMEWHERE, I think after the new Congress is convened? But at no point does it have any real chance of being a point of contention before the Supreme Court
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
After all the birth certificate nonsense, it would be fun if Obama ran in 2016, this time actually being constitutionally forbidden to become president.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 12:25
|
|
|
withak posted:I can't be bothered to read the constitution, can someone be elected VP for >2 terms? 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution posted:Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 13:49
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:Yes, the 22nd amendment only refers to the president. The way it is worded, it may even be possible for Obama to run for VP, and take over as president again if needed, since it only talks about electing the president, but I am not a constitutional scholar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 13:56
|
|
|
Likewise, you can't cheese it by having him be speaker of the house or secretary of state or someone else in the order of succession. It would simply skip over him, just like the occasional non-native born secretaries.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 15:29
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:Are there punishments for infringing on the constitution that can apply to Joe Anybody?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
Get Bill Clinton as Secretary of State and then have everyone in front of him in the line of succession suffer unfortunate accidents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
twoot posted:Get Bill Clinton as Secretary of State and then have everyone in front of him in the line of succession suffer unfortunate accidents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
NBC News reporting that Sen. Lautenberg (D-NJ) won't run for 2014 (at age NINETY). This should be obvious to anyone but Lautenberg and Booker haters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Lycus posted:Nope. That would violate the 12th amendment. You cannot become Vice President if you're not eligible to become President. Actually the amendment technically only states "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice", it doesn't say you can't ascend via succession.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
ufarn posted:NBC News reporting that Sen. Lautenberg (D-NJ) won't run for 2014 (at age NINETY). Lautenberg's office denied it last night.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Actually the amendment technically only states "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice", it doesn't say you can't ascend via succession. The Constitution presents no impediment to ineligible ascension via succession, but the Presidential Succession Act does: quote:3 USC § 19. (d) (1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is no President pro tempore to act as President under subsection (b) of this section, then the officer of the United States who is highest on the following list, and who is not under disability to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President shall act as President
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 21:25
|
|
|
Did you quote the wrong part of the law? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
I think that it's fairly clear, but to eliminate any confusion: Failure to qualify as a president triggers the so-called "bump" mechanism, bestowing the presidency upon the next highest-ranking officer who is able to act as president. As the laws are written, the closest one could come to an eternal presidency would be by abusing the vice-presidential loophole which allows for two years of rule before it counts as a full term. And even that would only be for only two out of every four years, and no one who had already had two terms would be able to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
Bt the entire point is that he wouldn't be disqualified constitutionally because he would not be elected to the position.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Bt the entire point is that he wouldn't be disqualified constitutionally because he would not be elected to the position. How he/she might become acting-president has no impact on their eligibility to be president. And it's the latter issue that matters. If they are ineligible, then they get skipped.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
Kaal posted:How he/she might become acting-president has no impact on their eligibility to be president. And it's the latter issue that matters. If they are ineligible, then they get skipped. The Constitution doesn't have much to say on who can be President, apart from 35+ and a natural-born citizen. The 22nd amendment regards eligibility for election of Presidents, not holding of the office. It wouldn't, say, forbid a Biden/Obama ticket with Obama succeeding after Biden dies. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Jan 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The Constitution doesn't have much to say on who can be President, apart from 35+ and a natural-born citizen. The 22nd amendment regards eligibility for election of Presidents, not holding of the office. It wouldn't, say, forbid a Biden/Obama ticket with Obama succeeding after Biden dies. Obama wouldn't be an eligible vice-presidential candidate because he would not be eligible for the office of president, according to the 12th Amendment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Obama wouldn't be an eligible vice-presidential candidate because he would not be eligible for the office of president, according to the 12th Amendment. But he could assume a position elsewhere in the line of succession and could become President in the event that all people ahead of him in the line of succession became incapacitated before replacement appointments could be made. In such an event, he'd be eligible to assume office under a very strict reading of the constitution, though there'd obviously be enormous pressure for him to step aside in favor of a Congressional appointment or the next person in line.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
Joementum posted:But he could assume a position elsewhere in the line of succession and could become President in the event that all people ahead of him in the line of succession became incapacitated before replacement appointments could be made. In such an event, he'd be eligible to assume office under a very strict reading of the constitution, though there'd obviously be enormous pressure for him to step aside in favor of a Congressional appointment or the next person in line. The constitution wouldn't raise objection, but the Presidential Succession Act would prohibit that because he is not eligible for the office.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The constitution wouldn't raise objection, but the Presidential Succession Act would prohibit that because he is not eligible for the office. Your problem seems to be that you don't recognize that being eligible to hold the office of President and being eligible to be elected to the office of President are two different things. They are clearly different things: Obama is eligible to hold the office of President, but he is not eligible to be elected at this point (having been elected twice before). To put it in math terms, "eligible to be elected to the office" is a subset of "eligible to hold the office". Again: the 12th amendment regards the election of Presidents. It has no bearing whatsoever on holding or assuming the office of President. If you're not elected then the 12th has no legal effect. It's right there in black and white, it's a fine but technical difference (the best kind of difference). Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Jan 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 03:54
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't buy it and can't imagine any court would either, eligible and electable are for all intents and purposes synonyms and the Presidential Succession Act is clear that you cannot be elevated to the Presidency if you are not constitutionally eligible for that office, the 22nd amendment would certainly effect that ineligibility. Of course this argument is just pissing in the wind, no one is ever going to try it, ex-presidents don't serve in Cabinets and the 4 or 5 of highest members of of government don;t die all at once very often.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 04:08
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Yeah, I don't buy it and can't imagine any court would either, eligible and electable are for all intents and purposes synonyms and the Presidential Succession Act is clear that you cannot be elevated to the Presidency if you are not constitutionally eligible for that office, the 22nd amendment would certainly effect that ineligibility. There is a reason de facto is contrasted with de jure. Courts don't count 'very nearly synonymous in common parlance'
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 06:37
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Your problem seems to be that you don't recognize that being eligible to hold the office of President and being eligible to be elected to the office of President are two different things. They are clearly different things: Obama is eligible to hold the office of President, but he is not eligible to be elected at this point (having been elected twice before). To put it in math terms, "eligible to be elected to the office" is a subset of "eligible to hold the office". Again and for the last time, the 12th and 22nd are extremely clear about the mandate for presidential eligibility, and the PSA does not acknowledge any caveats upon the definition of eligibility. No distinction is made between being eligible to be elected, and being eligible to hold the office of president. You might seek to define the two as being separate issues, but the law seeks only universal "eligibility" and offers no loophole beyond judicial appeal. The process has been upheld through tradition, and would be upheld by any Supreme Court that respected precedent. Now if you want to get into completely hypothetical territory where a conspiracy attempts to warp the text of the Constitution to create a king, the solution is not to quibble over eligibility requirements for the office of President, but simply to assume the role of "Acting President" - a vague role that is alluded to in the Constitution but suffers no restrictions at all. the JJ posted:There is a reason de facto is contrasted with de jure. Courts don't count 'very nearly synonymous in common parlance' Actually Constitutional law is treated differently than statutory law, and there is much more attention paid to the meaning and past implementation of constitutional writ than the specificity of the wording. It absolutely takes "common parlance" into consideration where appropriate. If you took this issue to SCOTUS and tried to argue technicalities, they'd label it a political question and either reject the claim based on tradition, or remand it for Congressional clarification.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 07:59
|
|
|
And here I thought we were only risking one Bush with Jeb, but it looks like another Bush is getting groomed for a political career.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
ufarn posted:And here I thought we were only risking one Bush with Jeb, but it looks like another Bush is getting groomed for a political career. He's eligible in 2016 and so is Chelsea Clinton. We can reuse all the bumper stickers from 1992.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
So will Hillary's recent health issues have any impact on a potential 2016 run? Normally I'd say no, but she'll be 69 by then and if she's up against someone much younger (either in the primary or the general), I could see someone trying to use it to call attention to the age difference. Also, from a medical perspective, how likely is this to cause recurring problems? Are concussion-induced clots just a one-off thing, or do they make future complications more likely?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
My understanding is that they can lay low for years and become a problem, but once dealt with it's over. Hopefully her health problems from that one incident are over. But it may very well make her more hesitant to get back into the race in two years. She's already exhausted from jetting around the world and this incident probably doesn't make her any more eager to spend months on a bus in Iowa.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 02:41 |
|
|
She should just buy a mcmansion somewhere in Iowa with her own personal money. She can campaign and then be driven home at night.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 04:42
|
|
