Are former presidents prohibited from running ever again?

[iconoclastic cat]

I was just wondering about this: Is there a law that prohibits presidents from running again after they have one term or two consecutive terms? I know they cannot have three consecutive terms, but could they give it another shot after 4-8 years of someone else's presidency? Or, what about this: could a former president become another president's VP?

[LynneSin]

1. I suppose Carter or Bush Sr could run again

but the 22nd amendment says you can only serve 2 terms. Grover Cleveland was the only president to lose and then run again and win.

[iconoclastic cat]

2. Is there anything stopping a Cheney/Bush ticket at some point?

:scared:

[LynneSin]

3. nope

I suppose not.

Heck they could run again in 2008 if they lose this year

[Beaker]

4. ummmmmmmmm....common decency?

nt.

[Beaker]

5. but then again...

Mary Cheney could turn out to be a good candidate...and a reformed Jenna could be veep...
doesn't evil usually skip a generation with females?

[Kholst]

6. former P as VP...

I think there's some disagreement about it, but most see the constitutional requirement that a VP has to meet all the requirements for Pres as meaning that a 2-term President is ineligible for VP as well.

[Beaker]

7. Yep.

But what if Clinton were to someday run for congress and win, as part of a democratic congressional landslide that returns control to our side of the aisle, while placing a republican in the white house.
Bill Clinton is elected Speaker of the House, and then something happens...oh, i dunno...let's just say "theoretically" that a grand jury indicts both the prez and veep for high treason...and to avoid embarrassment they commit hari-kari together-
Could Clinton serve as President then, or would that whole 2-term thing still apply?

[northzax]

9. to quote the 22nd amendment

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.

I think it's certainly against the spirit of the law, but there is nothing legally stopping any two term president from being elected Vice President and then become President through the resignation or death of the President. The Amendment specifically states that no person shall be elected more than twice to the office of the President nothing in there about become President some other way.

[Kholst]

22. Yes, but...

the 12th amendments says "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." As I said, there's some disagreement, but most see this as excluding 2-term Presidents from being eligible to become VP.

[lpbk2713]

18. Yes. It's called the RICOH Act.

It prohibits gangsters from conspiring to (re)commit crimes.

[Solon]

8. As far as I know, 8 years, consecutive or not is all a President can serve

that means Carter, or Bush Sr. can serve ONE more term, Clinton can run for any other office besides President or VP.

[northzax]

10. read the text carefully

it says nothing about SERVING additional terms, only that you can't be ELECTED to additional terms. splitting hairs, but there is a difference.

[Redhead488]

11. What is important is the intent

The intent was clearly to prevent somone from serving more than two terms (or ten years total). I suspect the SCOTUS would rule 9-0 that Clinton could not be elected VP then serve as the President if the incumbant died.

[northzax]

12. intent is not important

text is important. You can pass a law intending to do one thing, but if the text says something else, then there you go.

[Redhead488]

13. Wrong. INTENT

is important when one is talking about the Constitution. The SCOTUS frequently relies on INTENT when interpreting the Constitution...that's their job.

[northzax]

14. but not when it directly conflicts with the text

this is not ambiguous text. It specifically bans someone from election to the office of the president. And remember, that which the consitution does not ban, it allows the states to determine.

If there was intent to ban someone from holding the office more than twice by any means, the text would read more like "no person who has been elected to or held the office of the president for more than one term shall be eligible to hold that office."

[Redhead488]

15. Sorry

"that which the consitution does not ban, it allows the states to determine." The states don't get to determine who gets to run for President.

The SCOTUS interprets the law. Intent is VERY important. They don't just read the text and go soley by the written word. If that were true, they would have never found a "right to privacy" in the Constitution and abortion would still be illegal.

[northzax]

16. sure they do

they nominate and elect the electors, right?

and the right to privacy is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, leaving room for interpretation. I don't see how intent can overrule something that the actual text states is there. the obvious intent of the amendment is to prohibit a popular president from running for a third term as president. It is to prevent another FDR from running the country for 16 years. It was not inteded to prevent someone from holding another office, including that of Vice President which could turn into President.

The question you haven't answered is why, if the intent was to prevent someone from holding that office more than twice, the amendment doesn't just say so? it specifically refers to 'election' not to holding the office from another, perfectly legal, means. can you explain the contradiction?

and since the articles of seccession were in place when this amendment was ratified, you can't claim that the drafters were ignorant of the fact that the Speaker of the House could become President. any ideas?

[Redhead488]

17. The INDIVIDUAL states

have no say in who is eligible to become President except through the Constitution. It's not like California can say that "anyone over the age of 12 can become President," although that would not surprise me if they tried. So that "power" is not left up to the States at all.

Freedom of speech is there in Black and White, yet we do have restrictions on speech in this country. It's how the Constitution is interpreted.

As I have stated previously, I have no doubt that, in a suit filed to prevent Bill Clinton from becoming President again, the SCOTUS would vote 9-0 against him. The INTENT was to not let anyone serve more thab 10 years.

[Snow]

20. It would be interesting to have a sense of the political debate

around this amendment and how it got passed, since it was so obviously anti-FDR and pushed heavily by the republicans.

[jmowreader]

19. They can serve for ten years

If Shrub would have been run off before January 20, 2003, Cheney could have served one elected term after finishing Shrub's term. If Shrub would have been run off on or after that date, Cheney could be elected twice.

[getting old in mke]

21. Undoing history

Interesting, the points of language vs. intent.

But the "language" version adds an interesting paradox:

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.

If something like Bill becoming president again by being Speaker of the House and mass resignations were to occur because the interpretation went along the strict language lines and he served more than two years...

...would he have to give up one of his previous terms since it says he couldn't be elected more than once--not re-elected. Maybe the second one? Then his impeachment would be gone, too?

Today has been waaaaay too long.

[maveric]

23. Grover Cleveland did it. And won!

He was the 22nd and 24th president of the US.