Serving Over 10 Years As President

[Murphamillion]

My question is this: Can a person serve over 10 years as President.

Consider the following... Bill Clinton runs and wins a future election as US Vice President. Neither the constitution, Succession Act of 1947 12th, 22nd, nor 25th amendment prohibit a former President from running again as VP. But if the acting president was removed form office, Clinton would ascend to the presidency and serve up to 12 years as president.

The 12 Amendment states that "...no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States". I offer that nothing stated in the constitution would indicate that Clinton is ineligible for the office of president.

The closest statement that implies Clinton would be ineligible is found in the 22nd amendment. It states "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice". But due to the wording, this only prohibits a person from running for the presidency for more than 2 terms, not actually serving as the President for more than 2 terms. In our example Clinton is not running for President, but rather Vice President.

Based on the above analysis, it would seem a person could still be eligible to serve over 10 years as president if the above example occurs.

Can any offer additional arguments for or against this theory?

Murphamillion

 

[Mad Scientist]

After having served two terms he is then constitutionally ineligible for the presidency.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Since it specifically lists how many years a person may act as President, elected or not, he can not be elected Vice President because he would be unable to assume the Presidency during the entire time he was in that office. Thus he is unable to hold the office of Vice President.

 

[Murphamillion]

RetiredGySgt, the 22nd Amendment does not state how many years a person may serve as President. It states how many times a person may run for the office of the President. It was adopted after FDR ran and was elected 4 times to ensure that did not happen again.

Mad Scientist, what would make him constitutionally ineligible for the presidency? The 22nd Amendment states "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice...". This does not state you are ineligable to BE President, but rather to run for said office. If the purpose of this amendment is to prevent someone from serving as President for more than 10 years, you would think the wording used in the constitution itself would be more appropriate (I.E. "shall be eligible to the Office of President"). It seems the wording in the constitution adequetly descibes who may serve as President, while the 22nd Amendment only attempts to limit the number of terms one may run.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

My question is this: Can a person serve over 10 years as President.

Consider the following... Bill Clinton runs and wins a future election as US Vice President. Neither the constitution, Succession Act of 1947 12th, 22nd, nor 25th amendment prohibit a former President from running again as VP. But if the acting president was removed form office, Clinton would ascend to the presidency and serve up to 12 years as president.

The 12 Amendment states that "...no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States". I offer that nothing stated in the constitution would indicate that Clinton is ineligible for the office of president.

The closest statement that implies Clinton would be ineligible is found in the 22nd amendment. It states "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice". But due to the wording, this only prohibits a person from running for the presidency for more than 2 terms, not actually serving as the President for more than 2 terms. In our example Clinton is not running for President, but rather Vice President.

Based on the above analysis, it would seem a person could still be eligible to serve over 10 years as president if the above example occurs.

Can any offer additional arguments for or against this theory?

Murphamillion

As far as I can tell, In your scenario, Clinton could be elevated to finish the term. Unlikely scenario, but constitutionally sound.

 

[del]

As far as I can tell, In your scenario, Clinton could be elevated to finish the term. Unlikely scenario, but constitutionally sound.

i would disagree partially. since he is unable to fulfill the office of president, he could not be elected VP. i think he could, however, be elevated to the office and serve, from an office, elected or otherwise, further down the chain of succession. interesting question in any event.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

i would disagree partially. since he is unable to fulfill the office of president, he could not be elected VP. i think he could, however, be elevated to the office and serve, from an office, elected or otherwise, further down the chain of succession. interesting question in any event.

Constitutionally he would be unable to be elected. Doesn't say fulfill. Murphamillion found a loophole. We covered this in Con Law my second year. We argued this shit for four days before we came to the exact conclusion as Murphamillion.