Since a POTUS could technically serve for 10 years... (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 19, 2024, 02:48:07 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  Since a POTUS could technically serve for 10 years... (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Since a POTUS could technically serve for 10 years...  (Read 1897 times)
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« on: July 21, 2017, 02:00:47 PM »

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.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« Reply #1 on: July 22, 2017, 02:17:38 AM »

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.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« Reply #2 on: July 22, 2017, 01:32:52 PM »

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.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 10 queries.