Hillary's VP pick will decide the election. The only person that I believe she can

[merrily]

173. Yes, I am as sure as one can realistically be.

Last edited Tue Apr 7, 2015, 03:57 AM - Edit history (2)

"Consitutional scholars differ." Realistically, how would this SCOTUS would decide?

Moreover, the intent seems relatively clear from the language of the amendment, given that no past President until that time had ever returned to serve as Vice President.

As you read the language, remember, Truman served out most of FDR's last term. Seems as though 8 years was the max contemplated.

Technically, the amendment exempted Truman because he was serving when it was ratified in 1951. (If it had not exempted him and his Veep, that failure would have raised other Constitutional issues.) But for the exemption, he would not have run in 1952, assuming he wanted to. As he was, he chose not to.

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. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.

And, supposedly, the reason two terms were chosen was that George Washington had declined to serve a third term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

If true, that would suggest that the Framers of the 22nd Amendment and those who ratified it had two terms in mind--and, as already stated, the language of the amendment itself suggests that as well.

The goal was to avoid one person rule, something approaching a monarchy or dictatorship, beyond two terms. Let's say Hillary was the victim of something that rendered her unable to serve within days of her inauguration. That would give Veep Bill three terms. If those who amended the Constitution thought 3 terms were acceptable, they could have and would have said that, but they did not.

And, just what Democrats need: a constitutional controversy about whether the women who want to be President like her husband was a while back can legally be succeeded by her husband as Vice President. Not to mention re-living in full force (as we will have to to some degree anyway), all Bill's tendencies.

What is the actual goal of your reply? I had not been under the impression that you are eager for a Clinton Clinton ticket.

ETA: As far as constitutional scholars differing, they differ about almost everything that the SCOTUS has not yet decided and a quite a few cases that the SCOTUS has decided. The court itself has often split 5-4, including before this especially partisan court. So, I don't find their differing on this either surprising or especially significant.