Talk Elections

1) Can a former president who was elected to one term but lost their re-election bid, run in another election for their second term?

2) Can a president who never served as vice-president run for vice-president after their terms as president have expired?

1. Yes
2. Yes, but I bet if Bill Clinton tried it, the 5 partisan Republicans on the SCOTUS would veto it.

See Grover Cleveland.  He's historical proof that you can.


I'm not sure.  I could have sworn that one must be eligible for the presidency to be eligible for the vice-presidency, which, if true, would mean the answer is no, but I don't fully recall.

As for #2, very educated people will disagree on this count.  It's incredibly unclear.

From the XIIth Amendment:
"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

From the XXIInd 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"

You'd have to cook up some very convoluted logic to argue that a person who is ineligible to be elected to the office is somehow still eligible to the office.  It certainly woud go against the clear intent of the XXIInd.

However, I think it would be possible for such a person to become acting President under the XXth Amendment in the case of a failue of either a President or Vice President to be elected, who would serve until one or the other office were to be filled.

But someone who is term limited is not constitutionally ineligible to be President. Clearly, if Bill Clinton was Secretary of State and the requisite people died, he'd become President. The 22nd amendment is merely a limitation on who can be elected President.

Of course none of that would stop the 5 partisan activist conservative Republicans on SCOTUS from vetoing Bill Clinton being elected VP. 

Right, I suppose "elected" is the key word.

I'm far from sure, because there have been Secretaries of State, Kissinger and Albright, that were not eligible to be president; Kissinger was was three spots away at two points.  There usually are ineligible people in the line of succession.

I'd make the same argument about G. W. Bush, however.  In theory, in 2009, he could be elected Speaker; there isn't a requirement that the Speaker be a member.  I would question if he could become President in that circumstance.

This text from Article II states that a foreign-born citizen couldn't be president at all. Now, were George W. Bush the speaker, and he ascended to the presidency, he could constitutionally serve, as the 22nd amendment merely states that a two term president could not be elected for a third.

There's a different between being ineligible for the presidency and ineligible for election.

1. Yes, the prohibition is only against serving or running for a third term, not for running for a second term multiple times. So George HW Bush or Jimmy Carter, for example, certainly could run for President again legally. George W Bush and Bill Clinton, of course, could not run again.

2. Yes, as long as the ex-President is still eligible to be President. If he served or was elected to two terms as President (with a term served being defined as at least half of a four year term), he cannot serve as VP; the VP must meet the same requirements as the President. Whether the ex-President ever served as VP in the past is irrelevant.

Bill Clinton and George W Bush could not be VP, but George HW Bush or Jimmy Carter could.

But the twenty-second amendment limiting a president to two terms says that someone cannot be elected more than twice.  It says nothing about becoming president through the line of succession.

1) Can a former president who was elected to one term but lost their re-election bid, run in another election for their second term?
Yes, of course.
2) Can a president who never served as vice-president run for vice-president after their terms as president have expired?
No. There's a fairly misleading interpretation based on the constitution using two different words for the same concept that claims he can.
Notice it doesn't matter how often he has served as VP, as that office is not term-limited.

I should point out, however, the Constitution is completely silent on succession beyond the VP position, which might be the reason it isn't clearer.

Further, anyone in the line of succession is "elected" at some point, even if this "election" is by one House of Congress, in the confirmation process.

We also have to look at the intent of the framers.

It is believed, for example, that the intent of the framers in the separation of powers is that a Speaker becoming President would have to resign to become "acting President," even though not specified in the Constitution.

Basically, W. J. Clinton could become President, or be VP, now.  On January 20, 2007, G. H. W. Bush will not be able to be elected President or VP, or leave office and "become" President or "acting President," again.  At that point, of all the natural born US citizens that were resident for 14 years prior, only GHW Bush and WJ Clinton will be ineligible.

Not completely silent, merely mostly. Atricle II Section 1 Clause 5 states:  "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."

The XXth and XXVth set the procedure for when the Vice President takes over and what happens when there is a failure to be either a P-elect or a VO -elect, but the Constitutional grant of authority of what to do when there is no President or VP goes back to the beginning


Even if one holds that it's not in the constitution, it is spelled out in 3 USC 19 that the Speaker or President pro tem would have to resign in order to become either President or acting President.


Actually, W's already ineligible and has been since January 20, 2003 to be elected again.  The prohibition against him or Clinton becoming acting President is legislative rather than Constitutional, since Congress does have authority to allow persons elected twice to serve as acting President, it merely has chosen to not so allow.  For example, I could see the law be changed to allow a former President to serve as acting President for a day if we got another President who refused to be sworn in on a Sunday.

Jfern is perfectly correct.

There is a difference between the language of Article II and the language of the Twenty-Second Amendment. The former states, "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President, etc." The Twenty-Second Amendment, on the other hand, states, "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, etc." Thus, Article II imposes an eligibility requirement, while the Twenty-Second Amendment relates not to eligibilty but to elections.

Certainly, no one can make a reasonable argument that Bill Clinton is prohibited by the text of the Twenty-Second Amendment from succeeding to the office of President. Surely, if Clinton can succeed to the office of President, then he is not "ineligible."

I think that the Constitution goes even further than that: the text implies that neither the Speaker, nor the President pro tempore, nor any other member of the legislative branch, is entitled to succeed to the Presidency, with or without resigning. If both the Presidency and the Vice Presidency are vacant, Congress is only empowered to provide "what Officer shall then act as President," the term "Officer" here being equivalent to "Officer of the United States." But members of Congress, the Speaker included, are not Officers of the United States.

Well does "eligible to the Office of President" mean "eligible for election to the Office of President?"

It would seem to mean "eligible to hold the Presidency," not "eligible for election."

Well, that has been somewhat unclear.  Tyler was thought of as being "acting President."  Using the logic you are suggesting, someone ineligible for election, only, would be eligible to succeed to the presidency, even if not a citizen.

I would point out that those in the line of succession are "elected" at some point, even if that "election" is confirmation by the Senate.

How so? Under Article II, an individual is ineligible to become President unless he is a natural born citizen.

Because Article II assumes that the only way for the President to be elected is to be elected president.

That's why the XII Amendment contains the lines, "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

If you are correct, prior to the XII, a non natural born citizen could be elected VP and then succeed to the presidency.

So what? The text, interpreted according to its plain meaning, suggests that no-one may be President unless he meets certain qualifications. The fact that, at some particular time, the only way of becoming President was being elected President, does not change the plain meaning of the text.

Well then, the text of the two term limit might not have anticipated someone becoming President other than by election; this could be properly considered a qualification.

The text clearly does anticipate people becoming President other than by election. It reads, "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." Considering the bolded text, how can it be asserted that the Twenty-Second Amendment did not anticipate succession to the presidency?

The same way that Article II prevents someone not a citizen from serving via succession.

I would argue that to be eligible to serve, the person must be eligible to be elected and that any succession is by necessity a consequence of election.

How can the Twenty-Second Amendment prevent someone from serving as President in the same way as Article II, when the language of the two is so clearly different. The former speaks of being elected; the latter speaks of being eligible. The two are very different things.

I think that you are reading too much into it. In order to be "eligible" to serve, an individual must meet the eligibility qualifications set forth in Article II--nothing more, nothing less.

I don't, especially when, as always, we look at the intent of the framers.

I do not believe that there is any reason to consider the intent of the framers here, or in any other case. The United States ratified the text of the Constitution; they did not ratify the intentions of the Framers.

And even if one does wish to make decisions on the basis of the intent of the Framers, then what indication of intent is better than the text itself? The Twenty-Second Amendment's text makes it clear that no-one shall be elected to the Presidency more than twice, but it is equally as clear that an individual who has been elected President twice may still succeed to the office. And if someone may succeed to the Presidency, then he is eligible to that office. And if someone is eligible to the Presidency, he is eligible to the Vice Presidency. There is no reason to deviate from the literal meaning of the text.

I disagree and know of very few serious constitutional scholars who would agree.  We would not need the Federalist Papers if that was the case.

[/quote]
And even if one does wish to make decisions on the basis of the intent of the Framers, then what indication of intent is better than the text itself? The Twenty-Second Amendment's text makes it clear that no-one shall be elected to the Presidency more than twice, but it is equally as clear that an individual who has been elected President twice may still succeed to the office. And if someone may succeed to the Presidency, then he is eligible to that office. And if someone is eligible to the Presidency, he is eligible to the Vice Presidency. There is no reason to deviate from the literal meaning of the text.
[/quote]

But these were written at times when the assumption was that eligibly for the presidency equaled eligibility to be elected president.

Common law precedents suggest that the intent of the lawmakers is to be collected from the text, and not from any other source. For the text is the only thing that the lawmakers (or a majority of them) have officially agreed to.

The Federalist may help an individual understand the original meaning of a phrase whose implications have changed over time. Thus, the Federalist and other sources suggest that "commerce" meant "trade" when the Constitution was ratified.

But aside from clarifying the meaning of a word that may have evolved, the Federalist plays no role at all. If the Federalist contradicts the text of the Constitution, then the Constitution prevails.

Might I ask, what is the basis for this assumption? What is the basis for the claim that, when the Twenty-Second Amendment was written, eligibility for the Presidency equaled eligibility to be elected President, when the amendment itself differentiates between being elected and succeeding?

It deals with the qualifications for holding the office.  The XII Amendment makes the requirement that the VP be constitutionally eligible to be President, when chosen.  GWB or WJC could not be eligible, if chosen for VP.  This would be like saying that a 25 year old could be slipped in as president

As for:


Sorry, legislative intent  comes into play when the text is ambiguous.  We  cannot determine it this refers to "qualification at election" or "qualification to serve."

No it would not. There is a clause that says that no person shall "be eligible to [the Presidency] who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years." There is no clause that says that no person shall be eligible to the Presidency who shall have been elected twice.

If the plain text is ambiguous, then one must simply resort to the settled rules and canons of statutory construction.

If we take the Twelfth Amendment literally, then no-one who is ineligible to be President is eligible to be Vice President.

But if, according to your logic, the term "eligible" means "eligible to be elected," then the term "ineligible" must also mean "ineligible to be elected." Therefore, would you agree that although Clinton could still be appointed Vice President, even though he supposedly cannot be elected?

It doesn't quite say that; it is ambiguous as to if it refers to someone "elected" or not.  Now, I would believe it refers to serving, not election, but I also believe that that the XXII Amendment says that.


Intent is one of those canons.

No, I was just constructing a counter example (as noted above) to show the conclusion to which your logic leads.

How about this. Could a one term president run for the vice-presidency?

As I said earlier, intent can only be determined from the text, and not extraneous sources. For example, James Kent writes in his Commentaries on American Law, "It is an established rule in the exposition of statutes, that the intention of the lawgiver is to be deduced from a view of the whole, and of every part of the statute..."

The very idea that the intent of the whole legislature can be deduced from the comments of one or two individuals is, I would argue, utterly unjustified.

I'm afraid that is quite out of step with current jurisprudence.  Case in poit is this precedent:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=196&invol=1&friend=nytimes

IIRC there was a case from the 1980's where the Court found that a late 18th Century civil rights act applied to people of Semitic origin, because the intent at the time would have classed Semitic peoples as non white.

Legislative intent is used when the statute is unclear, and could, and probably would, come into play here.

Here is the case I was thinking of,  SHAARE TEFILA CONGREGATION v. COBB, 481 U.S. 615 (1987)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=481&invol=615

White noted:


It was a unanimous decision, including Marshall and Scalia; those are two very different judicial philosophies that recognize the role of intent.

I'm sorry, but you have not demonstrated your case that intent is not relevant.

I've read the decision in Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb. It has nothing to do with "intent," and everything to do with the original meaning of a particular phrase--"white." It is the definition of a particular term that mattered, not the intentions of any particular lawmaker.

If you wish to claim that the definition of "eligible" has changed since the eighteenth century, then you may certainly make that argument. But there is still no justification for relying on the so-called "intent" of the lawmaker.

Here, I bolded and italicized it for you:

The Court observed that the "definitions of race" had changed over time. It used legislative history to reach this conclusion. Based on the original definition of race, and upon the text, it reached the conclusion that the lawmakers had intended something. There is nothing exceptional about this. In any event, I have already conceded that that the Supreme Court's modern jurisprudence recognizes "intent" and "legislative history" as an interpretive tool. Hence, there is no need to argue about Shaare Tefila Congregation.

But this jurisprudence, as Antonin Scalia has cogently argued on many occasions, is both incorrect and illegitimate. The common law rule was that the intent of the legislators can be determined from the text statute alone. For instance, as Baron Parke of the Court of Exchequer put it in Becke v. Smith, the court should "adhere to the ordinary meaning of the words used, and to the grammatical construction, unless that is at variance with the intention of the legislature to be collected from the statute itself" (emphasis added).

The rule that parliamentary history could not be used in the courts was established by the Court of King's Bench in Millar v. Taylor (1769). The U.S. Supreme Court agreed; it held in Alridge v. Williams (1844), "In expounding this law, the judgment of the court cannot, in any degree, be influenced by the construction placed upon it by individual members of Congress in the debate which took place on its passage, nor by the motives or reasons assigned by them for supporting or opposing amendments that were offered. The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself; and we must gather their intention from the language there used..."

So whatever modern jurisprudence might be, it must at the very least be agreed that, at the time the Constitution was framed, "original intent" was not a generally accepted interpretive tool.

Arguably, either was the Courts ability to rule a law unconstitutional, as is the separation of power doctrine, using that logic.  In reality, both are constitutional.

Prior to the XIIth, the Vice President was the person who came in second in the Presidential election, and as such had to be inherently eligible to be elected President.  With a separate ballot for the Vice President, the qualifications had to be explictly stated for that office as well.

Well, you still had the possibility of the deaths of both.  IIRC, several early VP's did die in office, though after the amendment.