Is Obama about to legally slither back as president?

[Elderberry]

WND

'Each new outrage outstrips the one before it'

Ever since Barack Obama's recent visit to the White House in which he was given the star treatment while Joe Biden was seemingly ignored as he wandered aimlessly, there has been talk that Biden's presidency is over and that Obama himself could slither his way back into the Oval Office.

Although the 22nd Amendment precludes Obama from being "elected to the office," a self-admitted "wild theory" proffered at American Thinker could have him regaining the presidency by another legal route.

"Obama's aiming to get back into the Oval Office," asserts Andrea Widburg.

"My premise is that Obama fully understands that, if Biden is ousted immediately under the 25th Amendment, there are only idiots and incompetents to take his place.

"If it's not Kamala Harris, then it's Nancy Pelosi and, if not her, then Patrick Leahy, Antony Blinken, Janet Yellen, Lloyd Austin, Merrick Garland ... Obama knows none of these nonentities will secure the transformation he promised America. Instead, there are three steps to return Obama to the presidency:

"1. Have the Democrat establishment remove Kamala Harris from office, whether through threats or bribes.

"2. Have the Democrats declare that, because world instability (Ukraine, Putin, China) puts us at unprecedented risk, only a politically seasoned person can be vice president, with Obama graciously accepting that role.

More: https://www.wnd.com/2022/04/obama-legally-slither-back-president/

[Free Vulcan]

You would have to suspend the Constitution to do it. It is impossible to suspend the document that creates your office.

To do it would be a coup, and the govt illegitimate.

Participating in that would be treason.

[mountaineer]

Democrats don't need no steenkin' Constitution.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

You would have to suspend the Constitution to do it. It is impossible to suspend the document that creates your office.

To do it would be a coup, and the govt illegitimate.

Participating in that would be treason.

Yes Yes and Yes

[Smokin Joe]

Why? Why risk the Constitutional mayhem which would result (and maybe a real "insurrection" to restore the Constitution)?

No matter which incompetent Democrat is in office, they will take their marching orders from whomever is pulling the strings, be it Bammy or whoever. Anyone who doesn't will get removed. For now, Biden is a fine scapegoat for the Communists to blame if things go wrong, while they just keep on keeping on with their agenda in ways large and small.

For instance, no POTUS has the Constitutional authority to issue gun control laws, either--wrong on two counts (Separation of Powers and Second Amendment) but that hasn't stopped that slackjawed liar from doing it.

They lose in court, they can blame Biden and keep pushing the agenda.

[Free Vulcan]

The other thing I see here is that the problem DC has in attempting to 'suspend the Constitution' is that 160 years ago it chose the position that it was not legal to walk away from the Constitutional pact.

Good, bad, or ugly they are stuck with that. If Joe Skeezy and his goons did try it, he would simply be vacating his office. Taking over the govt would be a coup, and anyone following would be seceding from the union. No one would be obligated to go along with it.

In fact it would solve a lot of problems if DC took that step instead of the states.

[Smokin Joe]

The other thing I see here is that the problem DC has in attempting to 'suspend the Constitution' is that 160 years ago it chose the position that it was not legal to walk away from the Constitutional pact.

In the process, a State was invaded by the armies of other states, Habead Corpus was suspended, and the Constitution generally shat upon.

Good, bad, or ugly they are stuck with that. If Joe Skeezy and his goons did try it, he would simply be vacating his office. Taking over the govt would be a coup, and anyone following would be seceding from the union. No one would be obligated to go along with it.

We have reached an era in which the political divisions in this country are as severe as those leading up to the election of 1860. Those in power are disregarding the Constitution in favor of wealthy oligarchs and making law by decree, rather than legislation. Unconstitutional legislation (regulations by decree) are void.
We have not learned from history.

In fact it would solve a lot of problems if DC took that step instead of the states.

DC will not remove itself from the compact, any more than any other ravenous parasite would leave a productive host. However, we are reaching the point where the parasite is destroying the host. Nothing good can come of that.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

We have not learned from history.DC will not remove itself from the compact, any more than any other ravenous parasite would leave a productive host. However, we are reaching the point where the parasite is destroying the host. Nothing good can come of that.

DC is not a signatory of that compact.  Only the individual states are.

[libertybele]

DC is not a signatory of that compact.  Only the individual states are.

There was talk about Bammy running a third term while he still was in office.  We have entered uncharted territory with having an election stolen, which IMO was a coup all in itself.

Who knows what will happen. The DEMS are desperate.

Let's see ... how many conservative governors and states do we have and how many liberal governors and states do we have?

What kind of push back would we really see??

Abbot, DeSantis, Noeme .... any other governors, I'm truly not sure of.

[LMAO]

Obama is not gonna be president again nor is he going to be vice president. As desperate as the Democrats are, this is simply not gonna happen

[berdie]

Obama is not gonna be president again nor is he going to be vice president. As desperate as the Democrats are, this is simply not gonna happen

I agree. But he could well be the "First Husband".

[Free Vulcan]

Who knows what will happen. The DEMS are desperate.

And that's the whole trip wire. You look at what they are doing. A great deal of it eventually gets slapped down in court, but they still try to bum rush us with it, flip the script and accuse us of their deeds, then talk past their contradictions and shout down the opposition till we just accept it. And they don't ever stop.

They would do the same thing if they attempted to 'suspend' the Constitution. It would essentially mean them becoming the Confederates and attempting to secede from the Union by illegally forming a new govt. They of course would accuse the red states of that very thing if they didn't go along, then try to shut everyone down with screeching, burning and jackboots.

The irony is that the states would be required to do absolutely nothing other than put down the new insurrectionist Dem dictatorship with extreme prejduice.

Would they make that gambit just to get Obama back in there? I don't rule anything out, because as you said they are desperate.

[jmyrlefuller]

There's only one way to legally, constitutionally do it.

If appointed under the 25th, he can only serve for up to exactly two years after appointment (since he has already been elected twice and the 22nd prohibits any person from both serving more than two years and being elected more than once). Now you can try and argue contrapositive vs. converse, etc. but I doubt that it would fly, even with the left being the left, and knowing full well Donald Trump would try the same stunt if re-elected.

[Free Vulcan]

There's only one way to legally, constitutionally do it.

If appointed under the 25th, he can only serve for up to exactly two years after appointment (since he has already been elected twice and the 22nd prohibits any person from both serving more than two years and being elected more than once). Now you can try and argue contrapositive vs. converse, etc. but I doubt that it would fly, even with the left being the left, and knowing full well Donald Trump would try the same stunt if re-elected.

I don't think Obama can be appointed because he is not in the line of succession.

[Fishrrman]

berdie observed:
"I agree. But he could well be the "First Husband"."

To paraphrase something I heard back in 1992:
"Vote for me, and you get him free!"

[Fishrrman]

Vulcan hammered out:
"I don't think Obama can be appointed because he is not in the line of succession."

If he got appointed to become Speaker of the House, he would be...

[LMAO]

I agree. But he could well be the "First Husband".

That’s not going to happen, either.  The Democrat Party is in the same position the Republican Party found itself in around the 2006 midterms and going into 2008. I knew the Republicans were going to get trounced in both those years. Jesus Christ himself could’ve ran as a Republican in 2008 and would’ve still lost because the Republican Party  was so toxic to voters that year.

The Democratic Party is in worse shape. It’s not just economic issues and issues of corruption that are hurting Democrats, but cultural issues such as transgenderism, censorship, and defunding the police.

[Free Vulcan]

Vulcan hammered out:
"I don't think Obama can be appointed because he is not in the line of succession."

If he got appointed to become Speaker of the House, he would be...

The line of succession if memory serves is legislative law + not in the Constitution. I'd have to verify that though. If so then that should preclude him, but that doesn't mean the Dems won't try bum rush it down our throats.

[jmyrlefuller]

I don't think Obama can be appointed because he is not in the line of succession.

Gerald Ford wasn't, either. (Nor was Nelson Rockefeller.)

[libertybele]

Gerald Ford wasn't, either. (Nor was Nelson Rockefeller.)

Regardless, Article XXII Limits the number of terms a President may serve .... "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...

[Kamaji]

Regardless, Article XXII Limits the number of terms a President may serve .... "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...

Technically, it limits the number of times a person can be elected president. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Technically, it limits the number of times a person can be elected president.

As stated, it limits the number of terms a person can serve as president, whether elected or not.

[Kamaji]

As stated, it limits the number of terms a person can serve as president, whether elected or not.

No, it doesn’t.

[Kamaji]

Section 1 of the 22nd Amendment states as follows:

“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.”

[Kamaji]

What it prohibits is multiple elections, not multiple terms. 

It is therefore theoretically possible that, through repeated replacement of the VP, followed by removal of the President, that a person could serve for three or even more terms as President, all without ever getting elected to the office.