Since a POTUS could technically serve for 10 years...

[brucejoel99]

No. Per the 22nd Amendment...

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.

The amendment limits the President to two terms, but only caps the service of a President at 10 years b/c, if a person succeeds to the office of President w/out election & serves less than 2 years, then he may run for 2 full terms; otherwise, a person succeeding to office of President can serve no more than a single elected term.

[brucejoel99]

A really interesting question on the 22th amendment is this on the possibility to serve more than ten years: I always use the example for Gerald Ford. If Reagan had chosen him for VP instead of Bush I (what has been considered in real life) in 1980 and Ford had to assume office again, what would have happend? Let's say be becomes prez again in March 1981. Reagan almost died during the assassination attempt. Could President Ford have run again in 1984? If so, Ford would have been prez for more than ten years in total: August 1974 to January 1977 and March 1981 to January 1989.

Ford would then have become President again &, yes, interestingly enough, he could've run for re-election in 1984 (Ford, having never been elected President in the first place, wouldn't have been affected by the 22nd Amendment, & could've served over 10 years in office).

There's also a theoretical way for a person to serve more than ten years and be elected twice as President themselves. I say theoretical as politically, I can't see it happening. the prohibition on running for a second full term applies if you have served two or more years of A term someone else was elected to be President. If someone were to serve eighteen months of one such term and eighteen months of a different such term, they'd have three years experience as President and still be able to run for two full terms of their own.

Yup, that's pretty much the same constitutional reasoning that means Ford would've been President had A) the 1980 "Dream Ticket" formed; & B) Hinckley successfully assassinated Reagan the following year.

Gerald Ford was President, via succession, from 1974-1977 (more than 2 years of the term which Nixon was elected to) & could've again been President, via succession, from 1981-1985 (for more than 2 years of the term which Reagan was elected to), & b/c the 22nd Amendment states that "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," he could've been elected as President for the first time in 1984 (unaffected by the 22nd Amendment b/c, while he succeeded to the Presidency multiple times for more than 2 years of terms to which others were elected, he'd yet to have actually been elected to the Presidency himself), & allowed to serve as President for more than 10 years.

Furthermore, becoming a President by succession may happen to someone an unlimited number of times, for example, if he's Vice President & the President dies, resigns, or is removed from office via impeachment conviction. A former-2-term-president-turned-veep can re-take office, but it'd be a succession & not due to an election, b/c it'd be due to the departing president's death, removal, or resignation.

[brucejoel99]

Bruce, a former two-term President is ineligible to become Vice President to begin with. The Twelfth Amendment clearly states that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." Also, given the wording of the Presidential Succession Act, if a former 2-term President were to be Speaker, PPT, or a Cabinet official, he'd be excluded from becoming even Acting President if the situation arose. So there's absolutely no way short of a Constitutional Amendment for Bill, Dubya, or Barack to ever be President again.

Well, this is already a tried-&-tested constitutional debate lol, since some have questioned the interpretation of the 22nd Amendment as it relates to the 12th Amendment. The 12th Amendment provides that anyone constitutionally ineligible to the office of President is ineligible to that of Vice President. Clearly, the original constitutional qualifications (age, citizenship & residency) apply under the 12th Amendment to both the President & Vice President. It's unclear, however, if a 2-term President could later be elected, or appointed, Vice President, b/c, while the 12th Amendment says "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President," the 22nd Amendment says "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice."

• Some (&, in this scenario, you) argue that the 22nd Amendment & 12th Amendment bar any 2-term President from later serving as Vice President & from succeeding to the Presidency from any point in the line of succession.
• Others (in this scenario, I) suggest that the 12th Amendment concerns qualification for service, while the 22nd Amendment concerns qualifications for election.

No 2-term President has later sought to become Vice President since the ratification of the 22nd Amendment; thus, the courts have never had an opportunity to decide the question.

Personally, I think that's the wrong debate. Whether someone ineligible for the office of President is eligible for the office of Vice President is irrelevant, b/c the 22nd Amendment doesn't make the President ineligible for the office of President. It just says he can't be elected anymore. So, yes, Bill  or Dubya or Barack, for example, could run for Vice President &, if the President resigned, serve the rest of the term. It's incredibly stupid, & it should be fixed, but that's just the way it is. But, honestly, yeah: we need an amendment that sets an overall time of service for being ineligible for the office of President, rather than just a term limit for election.


Just to be clear, in the context of this discussion, I presume this is the loophole that ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ was referring to (tho, if it isn't, please feel free to correct me, ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ lol)

There is a loophole that a term limited President in the line of succession could still become President.

[brucejoel99]

It certainly does show again the considerable difference in constitutional interpretation we have. You favor what I consider to be an overly literal interpretation, which if applied consistently would lead to absurdities such as the Air Force being unconstitutional. Whereas, where the intent is clear, I see no reason to consider farcical loopholes caused by overliteral interpretation as being valid. The only thing I would consider to be disputable here is whether the two-year limit is applicable to only individual terms or to service as a Presidential successor combined as intent is not obvious. Since it is practically impossible that anyone will ever succeed to the office on two separate occasions (as what happened with Ford makes clear) this debate, unlike some others, is purely theoretical in my opinion.

Lol, the funny thing here is, for all intents & purposes, I'm not actually a strict constructionist. In fact, I generally reject the "strict-constructionist reading" of the Constitution; simply put, I believe the framers were too locked into their own time, gender, & class to be reliable guides on modern-day legal issues.

However, while arguing that the 22nd Amendment leaves an opening for a term-limited President to possibly become President through succession, I do rely on a strictly literal interpretation of the 22nd Amendment.

But nothing in my literal interpretation of the 12th & 22nd Amendments abrogates my loose interpretation of the rest of the Constitution, contradicts anything re: my loose interpretation of the rest of the Constitution, or gives any aspect of my loose interpretation of the rest of the Constitution a new or different meaning.

A really interesting question on the 22th amendment is this on the possibility to serve more than ten years: I always use the example for Gerald Ford. If Reagan had chosen him for VP instead of Bush I (what has been considered in real life) in 1980 and Ford had to assume office again, what would have happend? Let's say be becomes prez again in March 1981. Reagan almost died during the assassination attempt. Could President Ford have run again in 1984? If so, Ford would have been prez for more than ten years in total: August 1974 to January 1977 and March 1981 to January 1989.

Ford would then have become President again &, yes, interestingly enough, he could've run for re-election in 1984 (Ford, having never been elected President in the first place, wouldn't have been affected by the 22nd Amendment, & could've served over 10 years in office).

There's also a theoretical way for a person to serve more than ten years and be elected twice as President themselves. I say theoretical as politically, I can't see it happening. the prohibition on running for a second full term applies if you have served two or more years of A term someone else was elected to be President. If someone were to serve eighteen months of one such term and eighteen months of a different such term, they'd have three years experience as President and still be able to run for two full terms of their own.

Yup, that's pretty much the same constitutional reasoning that means Ford would've been President had A) the 1980 "Dream Ticket" formed; & B) Hinckley successfully assassinated Reagan the following year.

Gerald Ford was President, via succession, from 1974-1977 (more than 2 years of the term which Nixon was elected to) & could've again been President, via succession, from 1981-1985 (for more than 2 years of the term which Reagan was elected to), & b/c the 22nd Amendment states that "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," he could've been elected as President for the first time in 1984 (unaffected by the 22nd Amendment b/c, while he succeeded to the Presidency multiple times for more than 2 years of terms to which others were elected, he'd yet to have actually been elected to the Presidency himself), & allowed to serve as President for more than 10 years.

Furthermore, becoming a President by succession may happen to someone an unlimited number of times, for example, if he's Vice President & the President dies, resigns, or is removed from office via impeachment conviction. A former-2-term-president-turned-veep can re-take office, but it'd be a succession & not due to an election, b/c it'd be due to the departing president's death, removal, or resignation.

I dot think he cant couldnt that cause a crisis? because ford would serve more years then he should have because keep in my mind this  ford could not have ran in 1980 if he won in 1976.

Nowhere at all are we discussing Ford winning in 1976; rather, we're discussing what would've occurred if A) Reagan had chosen Ford as his Vice President in 1980; & B) Reagan had then successfully been assassinated by Hinckley the following year. In fact, you're the only one who's even brought up the year 1976 in this entire discussion, let alone the possibility of Ford winning then.

However, the scenario we're discussing here wouldn't have involved a constitutional crisis b/c if Ford had become President again following a hypothetical Reagan assassination, he *could've* run for re-election in 1984 b/c Ford, having never been elected President in the first place, wouldn't have been affected by the 22nd Amendment, & could've served over 10 years in office (w/out causing any type of constitutional crisis whatsoever).