BamaD
Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
Surely it would be unconstitutional for him to be on the ticket in the veep slot.
No ?
I agree.
The VP has to meet the requirements to be President.
Since he couldn't run for President he couldn't run for VP
irregardless of any wording of the 22nd this would have to be true...if one isn't eligible under the 22nd than one can't be a heartbeat away from assuming an office to which the 22nd bars their election
Thats just fucking common sense
It's also common sense to see that the 22nd Amendment doesn't prevent anyone from being President. It only prevents them from being elected to the position.
How did Bush 41 run for President since he was "elected" twice to the Presidency (as VP to Reagan), then?
Because the 22nd does not set term limits for VP.
someone could technically serve 20 terms as VP without violating the 22nd.
Most likely so as to not make being VP disqualifying a person from being president. I mean who would take the job if it was automatically the end of the line for them.
Remember it allows for two years of someone else's term and 8 years of your own.
Bush 41 had not used up any of his Presidential time prior to his election.
This is certainly a murky subject.
Many articles maintain that a 2-term President can not run as a VP because of the 12th Amendment, citing the very last line of the Amendment:quote:
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
But, again, the 12nd Amendment only refers to someone ineligible to serve as President, not to those who can't be elected President. This, if Arnold Schwarzenegger wanted to run as a VP, he couldn't because he wouldn't be eligible to be President. And, no one could appoint someone ineligible to be President to replace a VP.
From what I could find, it's not even something legal minds know.
There is this (full article requires membership to LexisNexis, which I do not have, so I'm only going to quote what's available for free):quote:
INTRODUCTION
It appears to be a commonly held view that when Bill Clinton's second term expires, he will be constitutionally prohibited from serving again as President of the United States. 1 This, we believe, is decidedly incorrect. The Twenty-Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice." 2 Although a twice-elected President may not again be "elected" to that Office, there are a number of circumstances in which such a person may still "serve" as President. We examine these circumstances in this Article. While distinguishing between "election" and "service" may seem a matter of semantic parsing, we believe this differentiation is constitutionally significant and consequently, we contend that the Twenty-Second Amendment proscribes only the reelection of an already twice-elected President. 3
The widespread misunderstanding about what the Twenty-Second Amendment actually prohibits 4 is in large measure due to the fact that it has been infrequently examined by courts and academicians. And who can blame them? Since the Amendment was ratified in 1951, only three Presidents before Clinton (Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan) have been elected to a second term, 5 and none of them ever expressed any genuine interest in testing its legal parameters. Moreover, the relatively straightforward text of the Amendment seemingly provides little material for scholars to probe. As a result, there is a dearth of legal scholarship about the Amendment, 6 and the infrequent references to it tend to ...
Heritage article about Presidential Term Limits:quote:
Although the Twenty-second Amendment was clearly a reaction to Franklin D. Roosevelt's service as President for an unprecedented four terms, the notion of presidential term limits has long-standing roots in American politics. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 considered the issue extensively, although it ultimately declined to restrict the amount of time a person could serve as President. But following George Washington's decision to retire after his second elected term, numerous public figures subsequently argued he had established a "two-term tradition" that served as a vital check against any one person, or the presidency as a whole, accumulating too much power. Congress expressed its interest in presidential term limits by introducing 270 measures restricting the terms of office of the President prior to proposing the Twenty-second Amendment.
Nonetheless, sustained political attention to this matter only developed with Roosevelt. In 1946, lawmakers made the President's four terms an issue in congressional election campaigns, pledging to support a constitutional amendment that would prevent a similarly lengthy presidency in the future. In January of 1947, prominent House leaders acted on these campaign promises, introducing an initiative that ultimately became the Twenty-second Amendment.
The turning point in the debates on the measure occurred when Senator Warren Magnuson argued for an amendment that would simply bar someone from being "elected to the office of President more than twice." Magnuson claimed that other proposals being considered were too "complicated" and comprehensive and might unfairly restrict a person who assumed the office of President "through circumstances beyond his control, and with no deliberation on his part...but because of an emergency," such as the death of an elected President. When some legislators countered that Magnuson's proposal provided insufficient controls on those who assumed the presidency through these "unfortunate circumstance[s ]," a compromise was struck. The final proposal provided a general prohibition against a person being elected to the office of the President more than twice while imposing additional restrictions on some individuals who attained the office of President through nonelectoral means, such as succession. The resulting language is what we now know as the Twenty-second Amendment.
We can safely conclude that those who drafted the amendment sought somehow to prevent the emergence of a President with a tenure as lengthy as Roosevelt's. Many proponents of the measure further argued that they sought to codify the two-term tradition associated with Washington. But although these observations surely point us to the general aspirations of the amendment's authors, they do not establish a specific picture of how the framers intended their proposal to apply.
To begin with, congressional deliberations about the amendment were curtailed. For example, the House restricted debate to two hours. Furthermore, the discussions leading up to the proposing of the Twenty-second Amendment did not obviously suggest a consistent, clear legislative purpose. Lawmakers expressed, at various times, their interest in limiting a President's "service," "terms," "tenure," and "[eligibility for] reelection," without elaborating exactly how they understood these terms. Moreover, when Congress dropped early proposals to foreclose a person's eligibility for office if he had served in two prior terms and instead adopted the current text that focuses on limiting individuals twice elected to the presidency, it provided little explanation for this important shift beyond needing "compromise" as part of the lawmaking process. One should also note that the framers of the amendment did not obviously intend to create a two-term tradition in any narrow sense, because they specifically discussed allowing someone who became President through an "emergency" within the first two years of one term to secure election for two additional terms. We are therefore left with some uncertainty about the precise goals of the Twenty-second Amendment's creators.
The ratification debates over the amendment do not provide much additional insight into the particular wishes of those who supported the proposal in the states. In general, the amendment does not appear to have prompted a great deal of public or legislative discussion once proposed by Congress.
Although numerous court opinions make passing reference to the Twenty-second Amendment, its parameters have not been systematically examined by the judiciary. No doubt the low profile of the amendment in the courts reflects limited interest in and opportunity for testing the provision. Since the amendment was ratified, only five Presidents have been technically limited by it (Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan, William Jefferson Clinton, and George W. Bush were all twice elected), and, to date, none of these individuals seriously considered challenging the amendment's legal restrictions or meaning.
These facts should not lead one to conclude that the Twenty-second Amendment is so straightforward that it requires no further interpretation. Among other unresolved questions, the amendment seems to leave open the possibility that a twice-elected President could still become President through nonelectoral means. For example, such a person might still be elevated to the presidency after serving as Vice President, or, if authorized, to act as President through a presidential-succession statute.
Bruce Peabody
Professor of Political Science
Fairleigh Dickinson University
My guess is that a Professor of Political Science thinks the question is unresolved, there may be something to that point.
If you are ineligible to serve that pretty much kills your eligibility to run.
_____________________________
Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine
People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.
|
RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread