Is Obama about to legally slither back as president?

[libertybele]

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.

NO.  They cannot hold office for more than two years of a term. Period.

[Hoodat]

It is the line of secession law that is flawed here, not the Constitution.  In the event that the offices of both the President and Vice President become vacant, there would be a serious legal challenge as to whether the House Speaker would become President without a vote from the States.

[Kamaji]

NO.  They cannot hold office for more than two years of a term. Period.

That is not what the Constituion says.  It says that a person cannot be ELECTED to the office more than twice.  And if a person has occupied the office by appointment for more than two years to replace someone who was elected, then that appointed can only be elected once. 

It says nothing about number of terms, only number of elections.  Read the god-damned text that I conveniently quoted for y’all. 

[Smokin Joe]

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

True enough, and after years of gushing praise for the Mooch, the media would try to make her look like the Second Coming...

[jmyrlefuller]

That is not what the Constituion says.  It says that a person cannot be ELECTED to the office more than twice.  And if a person has occupied the office by appointment for more than two years to replace someone who was elected, then that appointed can only be elected once. 

It says nothing about number of terms, only number of elections.  Read the god-damned text that I conveniently quoted for y’all.

I did. There are two restrictions: the first is that a person cannot be elected more than twice. The other is that no person shall be elected more than once and serve more than two years by any other means. It does not make an exception for which order those two criteria occur. Ergo, because Obama has already been elected twice, he can only be appointed for two more years under any other means, then can never be President again.

Now, there would be a loophole if a President were elected once, then that person could continue to succeed to the Presidency as many times as they wanted. But practically, I don't know how workable that is unless we slide into despotism.

[Kamaji]

I did. There are two restrictions: the first is that a person cannot be elected more than twice. The other is that no person shall be elected more than once and serve more than two years by any other means. It does not make an exception for which order those two criteria occur. Ergo, because Obama has already been elected twice, he can only be appointed for two more years under any other means, then can never be President again.

Now, there would be a loophole if a President were elected once, then that person could continue to succeed to the Presidency as many times as they wanted. But practically, I don't know how workable that is unless we slide into despotism.

No, you have misread the language of the amendment itself.  It does not say "that no person shall be elected more than once and serve more than two years by any other means".

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.

The first clause says that no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.

The second clause says (and order is important here), if a person has previously held the office of president, or has acted as president, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected, then that person may not be elected more than once.

That second clause says that if a person reached the office through some means other than election, to fulfill a term to which some other person was elected, and that person was in the office for more than two years, then that person may only be elected to the office one more time.

What matters here to the second clause is the fact that the predicate to the clause is "no person who has held the office" - i.e., in the past, shall be elected to the office (i.e., subsequent to their first holding of the office through other than being elected to it).

The amendment places no limits on how often a person can hold the office, only on how often a person can be elected to the office.  That means - as a purely technical matter of the law itself - that if a person manages to get into the line of succession 100 times, and once in the line of succession, is elevated to the office of president, that person can serve for 100 terms.

Finally, the amendment does not limit further service based on the number of prior elections.  It only limits the number of elections and, in the second clause, only limits the number of elections based on prior service.

The language has to be read carefully.

[sneakypete]

What makes anyone think that a modest fellow like Bathhouse Barry would do something like that?

[Hoodat]

One could argue that electing Obama as House Speaker is in itself an "election" that would disqualify his ascention to the Presidency.  Like I said, the Constitution is ambiguous in regard to the Sucsession Act.  The only recourse would be to hold an emergency election to choose a new President, preferably one performed by the State Legislatures to select their electoral delegates.

[sneakypete]

One could argue that electing Obama as House Speaker is in itself an "election" that would disqualify his ascention to the Presidency.  Like I said, the Constitution is ambiguous in regard to the Sucsession Act.  The only recourse would be to hold an emergency election to choose a new President, preferably one performed by the State Legislatures to select their electoral delegates.

@Hoodat

I honestly don't get the whole "Obomber thing". His presidency was due to one thing,and one thing only,his skin color.  It automatically gave him 99 percent of the black vote,as well as all of the White Guilt Vote.

That has been done now. If he runs again,there is nothing special about him.

Now,if Manchelle were to run,I don't know what would happen. It would have ALL the homo/trans/undecided votes locked up,but the truth is there aren't as many of them as some people would like to think.

All this,of course,is based on stopping the traditional Dim voter fraud.

[Hoodat]

I'm not buying the Obama bit either.  The one thing he shares with Joe Biden is a complete lack of leadership ability.  Obama proudly "led from behind" (which means he didn't lead) while he let everyone else around him call the shots.  The problem for the Democrats is that if Obama replaced Biden today, the same idiots would still be running the show.

[Kamaji]

One could argue that electing Obama as House Speaker is in itself an "election" that would disqualify his ascention to the Presidency.  Like I said, the Constitution is ambiguous in regard to the Sucsession Act.  The only recourse would be to hold an emergency election to choose a new President, preferably one performed by the State Legislatures to select their electoral delegates.

How so?

[Hoodat]

How so?

Which part?  The Special Election part?  Or the loophole part?

[Kamaji]

Which part?  The Special Election part?  Or the loophole part?

The election part?  How would election to the office of Representative or Senator count as an "election" for the purposes of the 22nd Amendment?

[jmyrlefuller]

That second clause says that if a person reached the office through some means other than election, to fulfill a term to which some other person was elected, and that person was in the office for more than two years, then that person may only be elected to the office one more time.

What matters here to the second clause is the fact that the predicate to the clause is "no person who has held the office" - i.e., in the past, shall be elected to the office (i.e., subsequent to their first holding of the office through other than being elected to it).

The amendment places no limits on how often a person can hold the office, only on how often a person can be elected to the office.  That means - as a purely technical matter of the law itself - that if a person manages to get into the line of succession 100 times, and once in the line of succession, is elevated to the office of president, that person can serve for 100 terms.

It says—

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.
The way you are interpreting it is an IF clause, that IF a person has been President by means other than election, THEN said person can only be elected one more time.

However, it does not read like that. It says no person who has been President by means other than election shall be elected to the office more than once. So, let's say someone is elected twice, then ascends to the Presidency by some other means (the Obama scenario mentioned above). Two years and one day into that term, said president shall have been President by means other than election for more than two years, and elected more than once. A violation.

You are interpreting it as an IF logical statement. It is, in fact, an AND logical statement.

[Kamaji]

It says—

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.
The way you are interpreting it is an IF clause, that IF a person has been President by means other than election, THEN said person can only be elected one more time.

However, it does not read like that. It says no person who has been President by means other than election shall be elected to the office more than once. So, let's say someone is elected twice, then ascends to the Presidency by some other means (the Obama scenario mentioned above). Two years and one day into that term, said president shall have been President by means other than election for more than two years, and elected more than once. A violation.

You are interpreting it as an IF logical statement. It is, in fact, an AND logical statement.

No, that is not what it says.  Very simply, it says two things: (1) no person can be elected to the office twice, and (2) if a person held the office as President as the result of replacing someone else who had been elected, and that person held the office for more than two years, then that person cannot be elected more than once. 

Your interpretation makes the first clause completely irrelevant, and it is legal interpretation 101 that a legal provision is not to be interpreted in such a way that part of it becomes “mere surplusage” if there is any way to avoid that result. 

It is entrirely possible under the 22nd Amendment for a person to hold the office for more than two terms if he or she got there someway other than by election.

[Hoodat]

The election part?  How would election to the office of Representative or Senator count as an "election" for the purposes of the 22nd Amendment?

That is a point to be argued in court.  The fact is that a loophole does indeed exist.  And it will require the Supreme Court to close it.  The intent of the 22nd Amendment is to prevent anyone from serving more than two terms.  And it is the States that gave us that Amendment.  So in the event that we have no President or Vice President, the decision to select a new President should fall on them, not Congress.

[Kamaji]

That is a point to be argued in court.  The fact is that a loophole does indeed exist.  And it will require the Supreme Court to close it.  The intent of the 22nd Amendment is to prevent anyone from serving more than two terms.  And it is the States that gave us that Amendment.  So in the event that we have no President or Vice President, the decision to select a new President should fall on them, not Congress.

The language of the 22nd Amendment is fairly clear, and it is prior election to the office of president that triggers the limitation, not election to any other federal office.  So I very seriously doubt that the Amendment would be interpreted in such a way as to make election to Congress a disqualifying "election" for these purposes.

And whatever the intent of the drafters was, the language itself is quite clear and quite specific, so there would be no warrant to go behind the four corners of the amendment itself and seek out the "legislative intent" in order to limit an individual to two terms, rather than two elections (or one election plus prior unelected service for more than 2 years).

[Hoodat]

The language of the 22nd Amendment is fairly clear, and it is prior election to the office of president that triggers the limitation, not election to any other federal office.

The part that the 22nd Amendment does not address is a contingency for both the Presidency and Vice Presidency being vacant at the same time.  This is something that should be covered under our Constitution, but is not.  So the question becomes whether the Succession Act is Constitutional.  And that will be for the Supreme Court to decide.

[Kamaji]

The part that the 22nd Amendment does not address is a contingency for both the Presidency and Vice Presidency being vacant at the same time.  This is something that should be covered under our Constitution, but is not.  So the question becomes whether the Succession Act is Constitutional.  And that will be for the Supreme Court to decide.

Maybe so, but that doesn't change the fact that the 22nd Amendment only bars an individual from election to the office of president based on prior elections to that same office.

Regardless of whether the succession Act is Constitutional or not, that does not change the clear language of the 22nd Amendment.  Being elected to any other public office does not count as a disqualifying "election" for the purposes of that amendment.

[Hoodat]

Maybe so, but that doesn't change the fact that the 22nd Amendment only bars an individual from election to the office of president based on prior elections to that same office.

Regardless of whether the succession Act is Constitutional or not, that does not change the clear language of the 22nd Amendment.  Being elected to any other public office does not count as a disqualifying "election" for the purposes of that amendment.

And I agree with that. Your argument is certainly valid, that under current law, a Speaker Obama or Bush would become President in the event that both President and Vice President positions were vacant.  But the law itself is questionable.  It is still an argument for a court to decide.

There is a loophole with Amendment XXII, as you have pointed out.  Clearly our Founding Fathers did not envision a contingency where both offices were vacant.  Congress did recognize this.  But instead of amending the Constitution, they chose to pass a law instead - one in which the Presidency would effectively be handed to them.  Personally, I would consider that an affront to the ideals upon which our Constitution was based, first that the Executive Branch is a check upon the Legislative Branch, and secondly that the President is chosen by the States.

[Kamaji]

And I agree with that. Your argument is certainly valid, that under current law, a Speaker Obama or Bush would become President in the event that both President and Vice President positions were vacant.  But the law itself is questionable.  It is still an argument for a court to decide.

There is a loophole with Amendment XXII, as you have pointed out.  Clearly our Founding Fathers did not envision a contingency where both offices were vacant.  Congress did recognize this.  But instead of amending the Constitution, they chose to pass a law instead - one in which the Presidency would effectively be handed to them.  Personally, I would consider that an affront to the ideals upon which our Constitution was based, first that the Executive Branch is a check upon the Legislative Branch, and secondly that the President is chosen by the States.

I think you're arguing about a different amendment.  The 25th is the one that deals with vacancies in the office of president, and the vice president stepping in to act as president if the then-president is no longer able to act.

[Hoodat]

I think you're arguing about a different amendment.  The 25th is the one that deals with vacancies in the office of president, and the vice president stepping in to act as president if the then-president is no longer able to act.

My bad.  Should have caught this before.  It's in Article II, Section 1.

In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

Congress has provided by law the Successsion Act.  If it is found to be Constitutional, then a twice-elected President serving as Speaker can indeed become President by the Succession Act.  I withdraw my case.

[Kamaji]

My bad.  Should have caught this before.  It's in Article II, Section 1.

In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

Congress has provided by law the Successsion Act.  If it is found to be Constitutional, then a twice-elected President serving as Speaker can indeed become President by the Succession Act.  I withdraw my case.

No worries!




But it is an interesting lacuna - that the drafters of the 25th were very careful about specifying replacement of the president - and the drafters of the 20th were very careful about the failure of either a president or vice president to qualify for office at the start of the term - but nobody seems to have covered the replacement of the VP or the circumstance where both president and vice-president are dead or no longer capable of acting simultaneously - which one would have thought would have been addressed during the 1950s or 1960s with the rise of the threat of global thermonuclear war.

That being said, if that situation were to occur, I find it very hard to believe that the Supreme Court would hold the Succession Act invalid if the consequence would be to leave the U.S. without a President or Vice President.