Vice Presidential Limits
Bob Roman
On 11 Apr 1997, Steven Peterson wrote:
> Morning all. I received the following speculation from a friend of mine.
> I figured if there were any group of people that could shed a light on his
> query, it would be the good folks from a.f.c-a:
> No one can be elected to the Presidency more than
> twice anymore, but what about the Vice-Presidency?
> Is it Constitutionally conceivable that Mr.A gets
> elected VP under Mr.P, Ms.Q, Ms.R, Mr.X, Mr.Y, and
> Ms.Z, each of whom resigns immediately after
> inauguration, so that Mr.A is left in charge for 6
> consecutive terms?
No one is eligible to be vice-president who is ineligible to be
president--Ronald Reagan is not allowed to be a future veep. After
completing the terms of Mr.P and Ms.Q, Mr.A may no longer run for
president OR vice-president.
Bob Roman
Steven Peterson
Morning all. I received the following speculation from a friend of mine.
I figured if there were any group of people that could shed a light on his
query, it would be the good folks from a.f.c-a:
No one can be elected to the Presidency more than
twice anymore, but what about the Vice-Presidency?
Is it Constitutionally conceivable that Mr.A gets
elected VP under Mr.P, Ms.Q, Ms.R, Mr.X, Mr.Y, and
Ms.Z, each of whom resigns immediately after
inauguration, so that Mr.A is left in charge for 6
consecutive terms?
-- Stiv
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"And you know, language is a virus from outer space...
and hearing your name is better than seeing your face." -- Laurie Anderson
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
R Mentock
Bob Roman wrote:
> No one is eligible to be vice-president who is ineligible to be
> president--Ronald Reagan is not allowed to be a future veep. After
> completing the terms of Mr.P and Ms.Q, Mr.A may no longer run for
> president OR vice-president.
Lyndon Johnson, after completing JFK's term, was re-elected, and was
eligible to run again, but declined.
--
D.
men...@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm
John L. Freiler
OK, First, you can't hold the office of VP unless you meet the
requirements for holding the office of Pres. Since president's are
limited to no more then two full terms, I don'tt think that this scheem
will pass muster. Good try tho.
John
Steven Peterson <ste...@admin.stedwards.edu> wrote:
: Morning all. I received the following speculation from a friend of mine.
terv...@wam.umd.edu
Jeff Green wrote:
>
> ste...@admin.stedwards.edu (Steven Peterson) wrote:
>
> >Morning all. I received the following speculation from a friend of mine.
> >I figured if there were any group of people that could shed a light on his
> >query, it would be the good folks from a.f.c-a:
>
> in effect, the sitting president at each election. I can't see how someone
> behind he desk in the Oval Office would run for VP after being the pres, but
> assuming there was someone who would do that, the law only says that you cannot
> serve as president for two consecutive terms. So there would have to be a break
> in there somewhere while the Speaker of the House was pres to fill out the third
> resignation. Am I making sense? Nevertheless, that's a good question!
>
> Jeff
The 22nd Amendment states that:
"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."
Therefore, there is technically no limit on the number of terms that a
VP may serve because the only stated limit is on being elected to the
presidency. This would require no breaks in between. An unlimited key
to the White House? Well with who we have to choose from these days,
let me be the first to say I hope not. Also, there is no limit
concerning consecutive terms, otherwise one could be elected pres every
8 years ad infinitum.
Mark
Mark Brader
Stiv Peterson forwards:
> No one can be elected to the Presidency more than
> twice anymore, but what about the Vice-Presidency?
Presidency? Oh, he must mean of the USA. Okay...
US Constitution, 12th Amendment, last sentence:
# But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President
# shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
No other restrictions.
> Is it Constitutionally conceivable that Mr.A gets
> elected VP under Mr.P, Ms.Q, Ms.R, Mr.X, Mr.Y, and
> Ms.Z, each of whom resigns immediately after
> inauguration, so that Mr.A is left in charge for 6
> consecutive terms?
Yes, and what's more he can run for President after all that. If elected
President once, though, he then becomes ineligible to be elected to either
office again.
21st Amendment, section 1, first sentence:
# 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.
The wording is quite clear that the limitation is only on how many times
someone can be *elected* President.
It's not so clear, though, regarding the following scenario:
2000: King elected President, Trudeau Vice-President.
Both serve a full term. During this term, King performs
indifferently while MacDonald does something to become
a great national hero. The party puts it to King that
he has no chance of reelection on his own, and he defers
to MacDonald, running for Vice-President.
2004: MacDonald elected President, King Vice-President.
2005: MacDonald resigns the Presidency due to the ravages of
liver disease. King serves out the term, during which
his popularity improves.
2008: King now forces a constitutional crisis by attempting
to run for President again.
What he says is that while he is certainly trying to be elected President
a second time, he isn't trying to be elected more than once *while he is
a person who has been President "for more than two years of a term to
which some other person was elected President"*. And therefore the 21st
Amendment doesn't apply, he says. Is he right?
--
Mark Brader \ "'Settlor', (i) in relation to a testamentary trust,
m...@sq.com \ means the individual referred to in paragraph (i)."
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto \ -- Income Tax Act of Canada (1972-94), 108(1)(h)
My text in this article is in the public domain.
RM Mentock
No. Although that is an interpretation, it is clearly not the intent
of the law, and King would not prevail, even though King would probably
fight it to the Supreme Court--which King may have had an opportunity
to pack.
And, realistically, your scenario for 2004 has no chance.
hymie!
And lo, there was much rejoicing among the people, for thus spake
jgr...@modemnews.win.net (Jeff Green):
>the law only says that you cannot
>serve as president for two consecutive terms.
Sorry, the law says :
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.
(amendment 22)
Nothing about consecutive or non-consecutive terms.
..hymie! http://www.smart.net/~hymowitz hy...@lactose.smart.net
===== Unsolicited commercial e-mail spam will be forwarded to postmasters =====
...I used to work there, which is a sure sign of an incompetent organization.
--Dave Barry
===============================================================================
Lando The Great
Jeff Green wrote:
>
> ste...@admin.stedwards.edu (Steven Peterson) wrote:
>
> >Morning all. I received the following speculation from a friend of mine.
> >I figured if there were any group of people that could shed a light on his
> >query, it would be the good folks from a.f.c-a:
>
> Okay. In your example I don't think the person could serve since they would be,
> in effect, the sitting president at each election. I can't see how someone
> behind he desk in the Oval Office would run for VP after being the pres, but
> assuming there was someone who would do that, the law only says that you cannot
> serve as president for two consecutive terms. So there would have to be a break
> in there somewhere while the Speaker of the House was pres to fill out the third
> resignation. Am I making sense? Nevertheless, that's a good question!
>
> Jeff
I think Jeff is right. I seem to remember from my eight grade social
studies class (hello, Mrs. Crowwell) that the office of VP is governed
by the same rules as President. Meaning you cant be elected VP more
than twice. Also, if, after serving as president, you decide to run for
VP, you can only do it if you would be eligible to Run for Pres. What
this means then, is if I, Lando the Great, had to for whatever reason
fill in for Bubba, then I decided to run for VP again, fine. But that's
it. if I was elected to the VP post, I cant run again for either Pres
or VP.
Mark stated in an earlier post:
>The 22nd Amendment states that:
> "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."
So the bottom line as I see it is, once you serve as Pres for more than
two years, you have a maximum of four years left. If any of you folks
can confirm or deny the bit about the two offices having the same
rules, go ahead and shout it out...
--
la...@sunflower.com
http://www.sunflower.com/~lando
http://24.124.33.21
"I scan my computer, looking 4 a site;
Somebody 2 talk 2, funny and bright..."
--O(+>, "My Computer"
Jim Balter
R Mentock wrote:
>
> Bob Roman wrote:
>
> > No one is eligible to be vice-president who is ineligible to be
> > president--Ronald Reagan is not allowed to be a future veep. After
> > completing the terms of Mr.P and Ms.Q, Mr.A may no longer run for
> > president OR vice-president.
Sorry Bob, we're not in Rome, so we go by the laws on the books,
not the Roman ones you've made up.
> Lyndon Johnson, after completing JFK's term, was re-elected, and was
> eligible to run again, but declined.
He was eligible because he served less than two years of JFK's term.
Now all we need to do is start a rumor that LBJ was behind the
assassination and he timed it so he could hold onto the Presidency
longer, but he ended up dropping out because Nixon, who was himself
in Dallas on 22nov63 (no joke; this is in the public record) had the
goods on LBJ and threatened to reveal the plot.
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
R Mentock wrote:
>
> Bob Roman wrote:
>
> > No one is eligible to be vice-president who is ineligible to be
> > president--Ronald Reagan is not allowed to be a future veep. After
> > completing the terms of Mr.P and Ms.Q, Mr.A may no longer run for
> > president OR vice-president.
What makes you think Mr. A isn't eligible to be president?
Jeff Green
hy...@lactose.smart.net (hymie!) wrote:
>And lo, there was much rejoicing among the people, for thus spake
> jgr...@modemnews.win.net (Jeff Green):
>
>>the law only says that you cannot
>>serve as president for two consecutive terms.
....And there might have been 'more rejoicing' had I spoken correctly.
Jeff
---------------------------
...And there you have it...
---------------------------
http://www.win.net/~modemnews/
James Gerber
Bob Roman <ro...@xp.psych.nyu.edu> wrote:
>No one is eligible to be vice-president who is ineligible to be
>president--Ronald Reagan is not allowed to be a future veep. After
>completing the terms of Mr.P and Ms.Q, Mr.A may no longer run for
>president OR vice-president.
I think there is a difference between being eligible to BE president and
eligible to run FOR president. My reading is that Ronnie could run for veep.
--
James Gerber "...some will rob you with a six-gun, and some
jwge...@erols.com with a fountain pen" --Woodie Gutherie
http://www.erols.com/jwgerber/
Jim Balter
VentrellaM wrote:
>
> >>No one is eligible to be vice-president who is ineligible to be
> >>president--Ronald Reagan is not allowed to be a future veep. After
> >>completing the terms of Mr.P and Ms.Q, Mr.A may no longer run for
> >>president OR vice-president.
>
> >I think there is a difference between being eligible to BE president and
> >eligible to run FOR president. My reading is that Ronnie could run for
> veep.
>
> President?
Because the 22nd Amendment specifically says that you cannot be
*elected* for a third (or second if you served more than 2 years of
someone else's) term.
One of the requirements of the Vice President is that he or she
> has to be able to become President if the President is unable to perform
> his or her function...in other words, the requirements are the SAME for
> President and Vice President.
Bill Clinton, having been elected to the Presidency, is one notch less
eligible than is Al Gore. It really isn't that complicated.
--
<J Q B>
Kenichiro Tanaka
In article <335b6c46...@news.erols.com>, jwge...@erols.com (James
Gerber) wrote:
> Bob Roman <ro...@xp.psych.nyu.edu> wrote:
>
> >No one is eligible to be vice-president who is ineligible to be
> >president--Ronald Reagan is not allowed to be a future veep. After
> >completing the terms of Mr.P and Ms.Q, Mr.A may no longer run for
> >president OR vice-president.
>
> I think there is a difference between being eligible to BE president and
> eligible to run FOR president. My reading is that Ronnie could run for veep.
I remember Morton Downey Jr (remember him?) came up with the idea that
Bush should run for president, select Reagan as his running mate, then
step down once he was elected, allowing Reagan to serve a third term.
Not that I'm saying that Morton Downey Jr is a credible source of info or
anything. I just thought it was a funny idea.
| Kenichiro Tanaka -- tan...@maya.com |
| http://www.maya.com/Local/tanaka/ |
VentrellaM
>>No one is eligible to be vice-president who is ineligible to be
>>president--Ronald Reagan is not allowed to be a future veep. After
>>completing the terms of Mr.P and Ms.Q, Mr.A may no longer run for
>>president OR vice-president.
>I think there is a difference between being eligible to BE president and
>eligible to run FOR president. My reading is that Ronnie could run for
veep.
Huh? How can you run for President if you're not eligible to BE
President? One of the requirements of the Vice President is that he or she
has to be able to become President if the President is unable to perform
his or her function...in other words, the requirements are the SAME for
President and Vice President.
Mike Ventrella
RM Mentock
Lando The Great wrote:
> I think Jeff is right. I seem to remember from my eight grade social
> studies class (hello, Mrs. Crowwell) that the office of VP is governed
> by the same rules as President. Meaning you cant be elected VP more
> than twice.
This is not true.
RM Mentock
Jim Balter wrote:
>
> R Mentock wrote:
> >
> > Bob Roman wrote:
> >
> > > No one is eligible to be vice-president who is ineligible to be
> > > president--Ronald Reagan is not allowed to be a future veep. After
> > > completing the terms of Mr.P and Ms.Q, Mr.A may no longer run for
> > > president OR vice-president.
>
> What makes you think Mr. A isn't eligible to be president?
But, but... I agree with Bob. What happened here? Ah, we're
missing part of Bob's original post. Mr. A completed more than
two years of each of Mr.P's and Ms.Q's terms.
> Sorry Bob, we're not in Rome, so we go by the laws on the books,
> not the Roman ones you've made up.
>
> > Lyndon Johnson, after completing JFK's term, was re-elected, and was
> > eligible to run again, but declined.
>
> He was eligible because he served less than two years of JFK's term.
>
> Now all we need to do is start a rumor that LBJ was behind the
> assassination and he timed it so he could hold onto the Presidency
> longer, but he ended up dropping out because Nixon, who was himself
> in Dallas on 22nov63 (no joke; this is in the public record) had the
> goods on LBJ and threatened to reveal the plot.
>
> --
> <J Q B>
--
D.
men...@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm
RM Mentock
James Gerber wrote:
>
> Bob Roman <ro...@xp.psych.nyu.edu> wrote:
>
> >No one is eligible to be vice-president who is ineligible to be
> >president--Ronald Reagan is not allowed to be a future veep. After
> >completing the terms of Mr.P and Ms.Q, Mr.A may no longer run for
> >president OR vice-president.
>
> eligible to run FOR president. My reading is that Ronnie could run for veep.
So, running for president doesn't have to include the possibility
of actually being elected? (I'm not talking about Pat Paulsen).
The definition of "running" should include actually being able to
serve.
Bob Roman
On Sun, 13 Apr 1997, James Gerber wrote:
> Bob Roman <ro...@xp.psych.nyu.edu> wrote:
> >No one is eligible to be vice-president who is ineligible to be
> >president--Ronald Reagan is not allowed to be a future veep. After
> >completing the terms of Mr.P and Ms.Q, Mr.A may no longer run for
> >president OR vice-president.
>
> I think there is a difference between being eligible to BE president and
> eligible to run FOR president. My reading is that Ronnie could run for veep.
12th Amendment: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office
of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United
States."
Reagan could run, but if elected he could not serve. That is, he could
spend money claiming to be running, but he would not be *in the running*.
I don't know whether his disqualification, if elected, would similarly
disqualify the top of his ticket.
Bob Roman
Bob Roman
On Sat, 12 Apr 1997 terv...@wam.umd.edu wrote:
> The 22nd Amendment states that:
> "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."
>
> Therefore, there is technically no limit on the number of terms that a
> VP may serve because the only stated limit is on being elected to the
> presidency. This would require no breaks in between. An unlimited key
> to the White House? Well with who we have to choose from these days,
> let me be the first to say I hope not. Also, there is no limit
> concerning consecutive terms, otherwise one could be elected pres every
> 8 years ad infinitum.
The 22nd Amendment does *not* repeal the 12th Amendment.
Bob Roman
Perry Farmer
-> On Sun, 13 Apr 1997, James Gerber wrote:
-> > Bob Roman <ro...@xp.psych.nyu.edu> wrote:
-> > >No one is eligible to be vice-president who is ineligible to be
-> > >president--Ronald Reagan is not allowed to be a future veep. After
-> > >completing the terms of Mr.P and Ms.Q, Mr.A may no longer run for
-> > >president OR vice-president.
-> >
-> > I think there is a difference between being eligible to BE presiden
-> > eligible to run FOR president. My reading is that Ronnie could run
-> 12th Amendment: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office
-> of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United
-> States."
-> Reagan could run, but if elected he could not serve. That is, he could
-> spend money claiming to be running, but he would not be *in the runni
-> I don't know whether his disqualification, if elected, would similarly
-> disqualify the top of his ticket.
-> Bob Roman
According to the previous posting of the 22nd amendment it seems to
mention only election to the office, not holding of the office of
presidency. It therefore doesn't seem to make a person ineligible to
hold the office providing he wasn't elected to it even though he may
have exceeded the allotted time periods.
Perry
Jim Balter
True but irrelevant. The 22nd Amendment puts restrictions on how
many times you can be ELECTED to the Presidency. It say NOTHING
about eligibility to hold the office, the subject of the 12th.
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
Bob Roman wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Apr 1997, James Gerber wrote:
>
> > >No one is eligible to be vice-president who is ineligible to be
> >
> > I think there is a difference between being eligible to BE president and
> > eligible to run FOR president. My reading is that Ronnie could run for veep.
>
> 12th Amendment: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office
> Reagan could run, but if elected he could not serve.
Wrong. The 22nd amendment doesn't say he can't *serve*. It *only* says
he can't be "elected to the office of President". Get it?
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
RM Mentock wrote:
>
> Jim Balter wrote:
> > It really does help to *read* these things.
>
> How ironic.
I challenge you to clearly lay out, quoting langauge from whatever
sections of the Constitution you like, an argument that Mr. A is not
allowed to serve, say, 18 years as President if he is elected as VP 6
times and each time the President dies in office after one year.
Then you can talk about irony with some authority.
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
RM Mentock wrote:
>
> Jim Balter wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > James Gerber wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bob Roman <ro...@xp.psych.nyu.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think there is a difference between being eligible to BE president and
> > > > eligible to run FOR president. My reading is that Ronnie could run for veep.
> > >
> > > So, running for president doesn't have to include the possibility
> > > of actually being elected? (I'm not talking about Pat Paulsen).
> > > The definition of "running" should include actually being able to
> > > serve.
> >
> > (You do know that affirmation of the consequent is a fallacy, right?)
>
> How ironic.
>
> > The 22nd amendment limits how many times someone can be ELECTED to
> > the presidency; it says nothing about other ways of taking office.
>
> Others do.
Jim Balter
RM Mentock wrote:
>
> James Gerber wrote:
> >
> > Bob Roman <ro...@xp.psych.nyu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >No one is eligible to be vice-president who is ineligible to be
> > >president--Ronald Reagan is not allowed to be a future veep. After
> > >completing the terms of Mr.P and Ms.Q, Mr.A may no longer run for
> > >president OR vice-president.
> >
> > I think there is a difference between being eligible to BE president and
> > eligible to run FOR president. My reading is that Ronnie could run for veep.
>
> So, running for president doesn't have to include the possibility
> of actually being elected? (I'm not talking about Pat Paulsen).
> The definition of "running" should include actually being able to
> serve.
But serving doesn't have to include being elected, which is the point.
(You do know that affirmation of the consequent is a fallacy, right?)
The 22nd amendment limits how many times someone can be ELECTED to
the presidency; it says nothing about other ways of taking office.
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
RM Mentock wrote:
>
> Jim Balter wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Bob Roman wrote:
> > >
> > > > No one is eligible to be vice-president who is ineligible to be
> > > > president--Ronald Reagan is not allowed to be a future veep. After
> > > > completing the terms of Mr.P and Ms.Q, Mr.A may no longer run for
> > > > president OR vice-president.
> >
>
> But, but... I agree with Bob. What happened here? Ah, we're
> missing part of Bob's original post. Mr. A completed more than
> two years of each of Mr.P's and Ms.Q's terms.
That's not relevant. READ the 22nd Amendment. It puts limits ONLY
on being ELECTED. Nothing about serving by taking office
by other means. NOTHING about eligibility.
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
--
<J Q B>
Bob Roman
On Sun, 13 Apr 1997, Jim Balter wrote:
> > Bob Roman wrote:
> > > No one is eligible to be vice-president who is ineligible to be
> > > president--Ronald Reagan is not allowed to be a future veep. After
> > > completing the terms of Mr.P and Ms.Q, Mr.A may no longer run for
> > > president OR vice-president.
>
> What makes you think Mr. A isn't eligible to be president?
> Sorry Bob, we're not in Rome, so we go by the laws on the books,
> not the Roman ones you've made up.
Mr.A serves more than two years of Mr.P's elected term. That's one Mr.A
term in office. Then he serves more than two years of Ms.Q's elected
term. That's a second Mr.A term in office. At this point he is
ineligible to be president. The intent of the 22nd amendment is to equate
more than 2 years as president as a complete term.
You may say that the language of the 22nd amendment is ambiguous enough
that Mr.A could challenge -- that he could argue the 22nd amendment only
*specifically* states that completing two years of someone else's term
counts as a term for him *the first time*. I believe the courts would
uphold my reading of the intent of the law.
Even outside of Rome.
Bob Roman
sj...@aol.com
>> I think there is a difference between being eligible to BE president and
>> eligible to run FOR president. My reading is that Ronnie could run for
>veep.
>
>So, running for president doesn't have to include the possibility
>of actually being elected? (I'm not talking about Pat Paulsen).
>The definition of "running" should include actually being able to
>serve.
What if we made a distinction between being eligible to be
elected and being eligible to succeed an elected president
under constitutional provisions?
Why don't we have any attorneys who specialize in
constitutional law here? This is a lack that I had not
previously noted here in a.f.c.a. - but now that this
question has come up, it's clear that we need someone
with the right training to look into the literature. What
can we do to recruit the right vict...I mean, the lucky soul
who will be qualified to do our legwork?
Regards from Deborah
http://members.aol.com/SJF37/homepage-sjf37-index.html
http://members.aol.com/SJF37/index.html
http://members.aol.com/SJF37/web-page-links-index.html
RM Mentock
Jim Balter wrote:
> Now what would be truly ironic is if your far-fetched argument
> for why Mr. A couldn't serve those terms, based upon your
> unwritten interpretations and equations, were just what Mr. Mentock
> needed to finally be convinced that in fact there is nothing
> IN THE CONSTITUTION, as opposed to peoples wishes and desires,
> to prevent Mr. A to *run* as Vice President but *serve* President ad
> infinitum.
Let's see, the scenario as it's been run down so far is, Mr.A conspires
with his friends so that they run for President, take the oath of
office, and they agree ahead of time to resign so that he can serve.
That's impeachable.
As much as strict constructionists would like laws to be explicit, they
cannot be. The Constitution is not a logical document, it is the law.
Perry Farmer
-> Jim Balter wrote:
-> > Now what would be truly ironic is if your far-fetched argument
-> > for why Mr. A couldn't serve those terms, based upon your
-> > unwritten interpretations and equations, were just what Mr. Mentock
-> > needed to finally be convinced that in fact there is nothing
-> > IN THE CONSTITUTION, as opposed to peoples wishes and desires,
-> > to prevent Mr. A to *run* as Vice President but *serve* President ad
-> > infinitum.
-> Let's see, the scenario as it's been run down so far is, Mr.A conspires
-> with his friends so that they run for President, take the oath of
-> office, and they agree ahead of time to resign so that he can serve.
-> That's impeachable.
-> As much as strict constructionists would like laws to be explicit, they
-> cannot be. The Constitution is not a logical document, it is the law.
What are the grounds for impeachment and what does that have to do with
the ability of a person who can not run for the office of President from
serving as President?
Perry
Jim Balter
Bob Roman wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Apr 1997, Jim Balter wrote:
>
> > > Bob Roman wrote:
> > > > No one is eligible to be vice-president who is ineligible to be
> > > > president--Ronald Reagan is not allowed to be a future veep. After
> > > > completing the terms of Mr.P and Ms.Q, Mr.A may no longer run for
> > > > president OR vice-president.
> >
> > What makes you think Mr. A isn't eligible to be president?
> > Sorry Bob, we're not in Rome, so we go by the laws on the books,
> > not the Roman ones you've made up.
>
> Mr.A serves more than two years of Mr.P's elected term. That's one Mr.A
> term in office. Then he serves more than two years of Ms.Q's elected
> term. That's a second Mr.A term in office. At this point he is
> ineligible to be president.
Not according to the Constitution, which doesn't put a limit on
"terms in office".
> The intent of the 22nd amendment is to equate
> more than 2 years as president as a complete term.
Have you been speaking to the framers through the psychic hotline?
The amendment doesn't *say* anything of the sort. You may think
that *ought* to be the intent, but you haven't offered any evidence
that it *is* the intent.
> You may say that the language of the 22nd amendment is ambiguous enough
It isn't ambiguous at all. It is one of the most clearly and
crisply written, unambiguous pieces of text in the constitution.
You just find it ambiguous because it doesn't say what you think it
*ought* to say. Well perhaps it ought; but it *doesn't*.
> that Mr.A could challenge -- that he could argue the 22nd amendment only
> *specifically* states that completing two years of someone else's term
> counts as a term for him *the first time*.
It doesn't say that completing two years of someone else's term counts
is a term AT ALL. It very clearly and unambiguously says that if you
complete more two years of someone else's term, that you shall not
"be elected ... more than once". It does not state what you claim
it states, and you know it doesn't, and yet you say it does.
What do we call that, boys and girls?
If wishes had wings then beggars would fly, but they don't,
and so they don't. Merely *wanting* something to be true doesn't
*make* it true.
> I believe the courts would
> uphold my reading of the intent of the law.
Uh, there's only one relevant court here.
"I think it, therefore the Supreme Court will think it".
Sorry, but that doesn't carry much weight before the bench. It would
help if what you think in this case happened to have some supporting
logic, not the mere opinion that something was the intent of the framers
of the amendment and the opinion that the court would think so too.
Not merely the belief that that is how it *ought* to be interpreted.
The Supreme Court, especially with strict constructionists like Scalia
and Thomas on the bench, tend to welcome the relief of laws that are
clear and unambiguous. While there is plenty of murky language in the
constitution, an amendment that explicitly uses the term "elected" three
times, "held" or "hold" three times, and "acted" or "acting" three
times, each within a distinct and unambiguous context, and is in
general written in clear, crisp, and unambiguous language,
is not likely to be interpreted by the Supreme Court in the way that
you or any of the judges on the court or anyone else happens to think
it *ought* to be interpreted. In order for the court override the
letter of the law with what they may suspect is the intent of the law,
they would need some compelling reason, but none has been offered.
Perhaps you fail to realize that, were it to come before the Supreme
Court, there would be competing interests at stake. Large numbers of
people would have an interest in one outcome or the other. The court
would have to appear dead-on non-partisan, fair, judicial, ...
sticking STRICTLY TO THE LETTER OF THE LAW, Eh?
If I were to make a prediction, I would say that this situation would
lead to a new constitutional amendment placing lifetime term limits, not
just on the President and Vice President, but on all federal elected
officials. And THEN, Mr. A jr. wouldn't to be able to serve all those
years. But, see, that's the way it works: *first* we pass laws that
*express* our intentions, *then* they take legal effect. Not the
other way around.
Now what would be truly ironic is if your far-fetched argument
for why Mr. A couldn't serve those terms, based upon your
unwritten interpretations and equations, were just what Mr. Mentock
needed to finally be convinced that in fact there is nothing
IN THE CONSTITUTION, as opposed to peoples wishes and desires,
to prevent Mr. A to *run* as Vice President but *serve* President ad
infinitum.
--
<J Q B>
Edward Hahn
In article <334FC1...@mindspring.com>, RM Mentock <Men...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Mark Brader wrote:
>>
>> It's not so clear, though, regarding the following scenario:
>>
>> 2000: King elected President, Trudeau Vice-President.
>> Both serve a full term. During this term, King performs
>> indifferently while MacDonald does something to become
>> a great national hero. The party puts it to King that
>> he has no chance of reelection on his own, and he defers
>> to MacDonald, running for Vice-President.
>>
>> 2004: MacDonald elected President, King Vice-President.
>>
>> 2005: MacDonald resigns the Presidency due to the ravages of
>> liver disease. King serves out the term, during which
>> his popularity improves.
>>
>> 2008: King now forces a constitutional crisis by attempting
>> to run for President again.
>>
<snip agreeing with the non-legitimacy of King's running for election in 2008>
>And, realistically, your scenario for 2004 has no chance.
>
Why do you say that?
If you mean, "that would never happen given the people and events of the
current times," I might agree with you, but might not.
If you mean, "there's never any way that a party would put a former president
as a candidate for vice president", well, I'm not so sure. There were plenty
of what we would call quirky kinds of circumstances happening in US politics
in the 1800s.
For example, Chester Arthur assumed the role of president after James Garfield
was shot (1881). Despite his partisan political career to date, he changed to
become a true reformer in the eyes of the people, and was genuinely popular
among them, but made plenty of enemies in Washington. Despite that, he was
not even *nominated* for a second term in 1884.
In short, the Republicans preferred defeat in 1884 to Grover Cleveland rather
than re-nominate Arthur.
It's not the same thing, granted, but hard for us to believe.
Therefore, I don't know if I would ever say never to the above scenario.
ed
>>>> Ed Hahn | eh...@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 <<<<
The above statement is the opinion of the author. No endorsement
or warranty by the MITRE Corporation is expressed or implied.
Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this.
Lando The Great
Okay, Deborah, I took you up on your suggestion to read up on this, and
the last statement in Article twelve of the constitution states quite
simply that no one ineligible to the office of President is eligible to
the office of vice President. I stated that hear before, but no one
listened...
Well anyway, for anyone who doubts me, the web page is:
http://www.ppld.org/CoStatutes/streldoc/usca12.html
I think this proves, without a doubt, that the maximum number of times
that a person who has spent two years in the president's seat can be
re-elected to either office is once.
sj...@aol.com wrote:
> Why don't we have any attorneys who specialize in
> constitutional law here? This is a lack that I had not
> previously noted here in a.f.c.a. - but now that this
> question has come up, it's clear that we need someone
> with the right training to look into the literature. What
> can we do to recruit the right vict...I mean, the lucky soul
> who will be qualified to do our legwork?
>
> Regards from Deborah
--
not a lawyer, but doing the legwork anyway....
Lewis O Walton
la...@sunflower.com
http://www.sunflower.com/~lando
http://24.124.33.21
"I scan my computer, looking 4 a site;
Somebody 2 talk 2, funny and bright..."
--O(+>, "My Computer"
Lando The Great
Lando The Great wrote:
> I think this proves, without a doubt, that the maximum number of times
> that a person who has spent two years in the president's seat can be
> re-elected to either office is once.
> I think this proves, without a doubt, that the maximum number of times
> that a person who has spent two years in the president's seat can be
> re-elected to either office is once.
As soon as I hit the send button, I realized this was the wrong wording
for this statement. What I meant to say was anyone who has fullfilled
the time requirements for two terms of office (meaning either 1 full
elected term or more than two consecutive years of filling in) cannot be
elected VP. So, Ronnie is a no-go. Bush could be VP, and could be
re-elected as VP until he became presdent for another term.
Sorry about the mixup, but I was just so happy to find out I was right
about the qualifications thing after someone posted earlier that my
eighth grade teacher was wrong (hello Mrs. Crowell).
--
Bob Roman
On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Jim Balter wrote:
> VentrellaM wrote:
> > Huh? How can you run for President if you're not eligible to BE
> > President?
>
> You have that backwards. You can BE president even though you aren't
> elegible to RUN for president because the 22nd Amendment specifically
> says that you cannot be *elected* for a third (or second if you served
> more than 2 years of someone else's) term.
And you can't RUN for VP if you are ineligible to be Prez (by the 12th
Amendment). But you raise an interesting thought: If Ronald Reagan
became Speaker of the House, and Clinton and Gore both died, could Reagan
become president again? (I would guess no; but I assume you believe yes.)
Bob Roman
Mark E. Smith
In article <3353C0...@netcom.com>, Jim Balter <j...@netcom.com> wrote:
> But serving doesn't have to include being elected, which is the
> point. (You do know that affirmation of the consequent is a
> fallacy, right?)
>
> The 22nd amendment limits how many times someone can be ELECTED
> to the presidency it says nothing about other ways of taking
> office.
Everything I've ever read in newspapers and magazines about the
Kennedy assassination explained this about the succession of
Johnson: If Kennedy had been killed before the halfway point of
his term, then Johnson would have served more than half of that
term, and his election in 1964 would have made him ineligible to
run again in 1968. Evidently, the first term would have counted
against the term limit as long as he served more than half of it,
even though he was not elected to that first term. If there are
any concrete references to the contrary, by all means bring them
on, but this is how the situation was portrayed in the popular
press.
--
Mark E. Smith <msm...@tfs.net>
Perry Farmer
-> Lando The Great wrote:
-> > I think this proves, without a doubt, that the maximum number of times
-> > that a person who has spent two years in the president's seat can be
-> > re-elected to either office is once.
-> > I think this proves, without a doubt, that the maximum number of times
-> > that a person who has spent two years in the president's seat can be
-> > re-elected to either office is once.
-> As soon as I hit the send button, I realized this was the wrong wording
-> for this statement. What I meant to say was anyone who has fullfilled
-> the time requirements for two terms of office (meaning either 1 full
-> elected term or more than two consecutive years of filling in) cannot be
-> elected VP. So, Ronnie is a no-go. Bush could be VP, and could be
-> re-elected as VP until he became presdent for another term.
-> Sorry about the mixup, but I was just so happy to find out I was right
-> about the qualifications thing after someone posted earlier that my
-> eighth grade teacher was wrong (hello Mrs. Crowell).
-> --
-> Lewis O Walton
Note once more the word elected is being added to the 12th amendment. It
doesn't state that you are ineligible to serve in the office simply because
you can't be elected to the office.
Perry
buffalo bob
In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.97041...@xp.psych.nyu.edu>,
ro...@xp.psych.nyu.edu says...
While all this constitutional law discussiongoes on... Has anyone considered
the fact that "any naturalized citizen" can hold any office in sucession, but
only natural citizens over the age 35, and otherwise elligable can succede.
Remember Henry Kissinger? Fifth in line but never elligable, he would be
skipped over...
Buffalo Bob-
Jim Balter
RM Mentock wrote:
>
> Jim Balter wrote:
>
> > for why Mr. A couldn't serve those terms, based upon your
> > unwritten interpretations and equations, were just what Mr. Mentock
> > needed to finally be convinced that in fact there is nothing
> > IN THE CONSTITUTION, as opposed to peoples wishes and desires,
> > to prevent Mr. A to *run* as Vice President but *serve* President ad
> > infinitum.
>
If they all happen to die in office of natural causes, it isn't.
And even if it is impeachable, it isn't so on the basis of the
12th or 22nd amendments, so you are just flailing around now.
> As much as strict constructionists would like laws to be explicit, they
> cannot be. The Constitution is not a logical document, it is the law.
That won't get you out of your pickle.
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
Bob Roman wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Jim Balter wrote:
>
> > VentrellaM wrote:
> > > Huh? How can you run for President if you're not eligible to BE
> > > President?
> >
> > You have that backwards. You can BE president even though you aren't
> > elegible to RUN for president because the 22nd Amendment specifically
> > says that you cannot be *elected* for a third (or second if you served
> > more than 2 years of someone else's) term.
>
> And you can't RUN for VP if you are ineligible to be Prez (by the 12th
> Amendment).
Sure, but Mr. A isn't ineligible by anything other than your opinion
of someone's intent in writing the 22nd amendment, an intent nowhere
to be found in that document.
> But you raise an interesting thought: If Ronald Reagan
> became Speaker of the House, and Clinton and Gore both died, could Reagan
> become president again? (I would guess no; but I assume you believe yes.)
There's no law against it.
Perhaps a scenario like that was even considered in writing the 22nd the
way it is written (which no doubt is *peculiar*, but it is explicitly
peculiar).
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
Lando The Great wrote:
>
> Okay, Deborah, I took you up on your suggestion to read up on this, and
> the last statement in Article twelve of the constitution states quite
> simply that no one ineligible to the office of President is eligible to
> the office of vice President. I stated that hear before, but no one
> listened...
No one has doubted it.
> Well anyway, for anyone who doubts me, the web page is:
>
> http://www.ppld.org/CoStatutes/streldoc/usca12.html
>
> I think this proves, without a doubt, that the maximum number of times
> that a person who has spent two years in the president's seat can be
> re-elected to either office is once.
It proves no such thing, since the 22nd amendment says "elected to
the office of the President" and "elected President". There are
no restrictions on the number of times someone can be elected
to the office of VP, nor are there any restrictions on the number
of times that someone can ascend, rather than be elected, to either
office.
> > What if we made a distinction between being eligible to be
> > elected and being eligible to succeed an elected president
> > under constitutional provisions?
As Deborah suggests, these are *distinct*.
--
<J Q B>
RM Mentock
Jim Balter wrote:
>
> RM Mentock wrote:
> > As much as strict constructionists would like laws to be explicit, they
> > cannot be. The Constitution is not a logical document, it is the law.
>
> That won't get you out of your pickle.
What is my pickle?
Jim Balter
I've already pointed this out, and it does not contradict anything
I've said, but rather supports it. Note "*election*" and "ineligible to
*run* again". But not ineligible to run for VP, or be selected as
Secretary of State, and then *serve* again. The 22nd amendment
*explicitly* *specifically* restricts being ELECTED to the office of
PRESIDENT, and it specifically says *act* and *hold* in other contexts
that specify the conditions that must obtain for one to be forbidden
from being ELECTED again.
But then I just said that, twice, in my text that you quoted,
so I have to wonder why you think the newspapers and magazines
say anything to the contrary. The concrete reference that supports
both what those magazines and newspapers said and what I have been
saying is of course the text of the constitution as amended.
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
RM Mentock wrote:
>
> Jim Balter wrote:
> >
> > RM Mentock wrote:
>
> > > As much as strict constructionists would like laws to be explicit, they
> > > cannot be. The Constitution is not a logical document, it is the law.
> >
> > That won't get you out of your pickle.
>
> What is my pickle?
To provide an argument, drawn from the words of the Constitution,
that Mr. A cannot serve any number of terms as President provided
that he was not elected. Any failure of the Constitution to be
"a logical document" does not in itself provide any support for
the claim that he cannot serve, any more than does the impeachability
of hypothetical impeachable offenses that weren't at issue.
--
<J Q B>
Bob Roman
On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Jim Balter wrote:
> Bob Roman wrote:
> > The 22nd Amendment does *not* repeal the 12th Amendment.
>
> True but irrelevant. The 22nd Amendment puts restrictions on how
> many times you can be ELECTED to the Presidency. It say NOTHING
> about eligibility to hold the office, the subject of the 12th.
So your premise is that Reagan could say, "Sure I'm constitutionally
ineligible to be elected president, but I can be elected VP because I am
constitutionally eligible to be president if not elected to the office?
I truly doubt any court would support that, but I would love to watch the
fireworks if someone tried.
Bob Roman
Edward Rice
In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.97041...@xp.psych.nyu.edu>,
Bob Roman <ro...@xp.psych.nyu.edu> wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Apr 1997 terv...@wam.umd.edu wrote:
>
>> The 22nd Amendment states that:
>> "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."
>>
>> Therefore, there is technically no limit on the number of terms that a
>> VP may serve because the only stated limit is on being elected to the
>> presidency. This would require no breaks in between. An unlimited key
>> to the White House? Well with who we have to choose from these days,
>> let me be the first to say I hope not. Also, there is no limit
>> concerning consecutive terms, otherwise one could be elected pres every
>> 8 years ad infinitum.
>
>The 22nd Amendment does *not* repeal the 12th Amendment.
Fine. So he is /appointed/ to one of the other positions (SecState) that
would move up, and everybody above him resigns. Even easier than putting
him (or her) on the ticket and making the voters do the work.
RM Mentock
Jim Balter wrote:
> To provide an argument, drawn from the words of the Constitution,
> that Mr. A cannot serve any number of terms as President provided
> that he was not elected. Any failure of the Constitution to be
> "a logical document" does not in itself provide any support for
> the claim that he cannot serve, any more than does the impeachability
> of hypothetical impeachable offenses that weren't at issue.
They were precisely the original issue, I believe. It said:
No one can be elected to the Presidency more than
twice anymore, but what about the Vice-Presidency?
Is it Constitutionally conceivable that Mr.A gets
elected VP under Mr.P, Ms.Q, Ms.R, Mr.X, Mr.Y, and
Ms.Z, each of whom resigns immediately after
inauguration, so that Mr.A is left in charge for 6
consecutive terms?
How have I misread it?
Daniel O. Hanks
RM Mentock (Men...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: They were precisely the original issue, I believe. It said:
: No one can be elected to the Presidency more than
: twice anymore, but what about the Vice-Presidency?
: Is it Constitutionally conceivable that Mr.A gets
: elected VP under Mr.P, Ms.Q, Ms.R, Mr.X, Mr.Y, and
: Ms.Z, each of whom resigns immediately after
: inauguration, so that Mr.A is left in charge for 6
: consecutive terms?
: How have I misread it?
Let me try to help clarify. The question addresses whether someone
might serve an infinite number of terms as President provided that he
himself HAD NEVER BEEN *ELECTED* TO THE PRESIDENCY. Jim Balter has
quoted from the text of the U.S. Constitution to demonstrate that neither
the 12th nor 22nd Amendments contain a barrier to this scenario. I can
find no fault with his assertion that BASED ON THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION,
there is nothing to prevent Mr. A from serving six (or more) consecutive terms
as President. If you can locate something IN THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION
to contradict this, I would certainly be very interested in reading it.
Speculations on what the portions "should mean" or "ought to mean" are
irrelevant to this discussion. A refutation of Mr. Balter's argument
should rely upon the ACTUAL WORDING OF THE CONSTITUTION, and not
interpretation. I've searched unsuccessfully for something to contradict
Balter's view, which I initially disagreed with but now seems incontrovertibly
correct to me. If you can find something, I'd be very interested.
Hope this helps.
Red Man
RM Mentock
Daniel O. Hanks wrote:
> Speculations on what the portions "should mean" or "ought to mean" are
> irrelevant to this discussion. A refutation of Mr. Balter's argument
> should rely upon the ACTUAL WORDING OF THE CONSTITUTION, and not
> interpretation. I've searched unsuccessfully for something to contradict
> Balter's view, which I initially disagreed with but now seems incontrovertibly
> correct to me. If you can find something, I'd be very interested.
I agree with what you say, except that the Constitution is often
interpreted.
RM Mentock
Jim Balter wrote:
>
> RM Mentock wrote:
> >
> >
> > > To provide an argument, drawn from the words of the Constitution,
> > > that Mr. A cannot serve any number of terms as President provided
> > > that he was not elected. Any failure of the Constitution to be
> > > "a logical document" does not in itself provide any support for
> > > the claim that he cannot serve, any more than does the impeachability
> > > of hypothetical impeachable offenses that weren't at issue.
> >
> >
> > No one can be elected to the Presidency more than
> > twice anymore, but what about the Vice-Presidency?
> > Is it Constitutionally conceivable that Mr.A gets
> > elected VP under Mr.P, Ms.Q, Ms.R, Mr.X, Mr.Y, and
> > Ms.Z, each of whom resigns immediately after
> > inauguration, so that Mr.A is left in charge for 6
> > consecutive terms?
> >
> > How have I misread it?
>
> To simply assert that they necessarily resigned as a matter
> of conspiracy is to beg the question.
That is one interpretation of "so that", there are others.
Robert Timmermann
Edward Rice (ehr...@his.com) wrote:
: I thought Speaker had been taken out of the list, after Carl Albert
: terrified everybody. That part is not in the Constitution, except for the
: reference in the Constitution that Congress will provide by law for the
: succession when President and Vice President are both dead.
The Speaker of the House is still the next line after the Vice President.
Right now the lineup goes: Clinton, Gore, Gingrich, Thurmond, Rubin.
(Madeline Albright gets skipped because she was not born in the US). Congress
passed a law establishing the list. At various times in US History, the
"backup" has been the Speaker, the Senate President Pro Tem, and the
Secretary of State. Current thinking holds that someone who was elected
should have preference over an appointed officer.
Unless you were Gerald Ford.
--
Bob Timmermann South Pasadena, CA bti...@netcom.com
Daniel O. Hanks
RM Mentock (Men...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: Daniel O. Hanks wrote:
: > Speculations on what the portions "should mean" or "ought to mean" are
: > irrelevant to this discussion. A refutation of Mr. Balter's argument
: > should rely upon the ACTUAL WORDING OF THE CONSTITUTION, and not
: > interpretation. I've searched unsuccessfully for something to contradict
: > Balter's view, which I initially disagreed with but now seems [...]
: > correct to me. If you can find something, I'd be very interested.
: I agree with what you say, except that the Constitution is often
: interpreted.
True enough. Do you have a Supreme Court ruling in mind which leads you
to believe that the Court would interpret this case by other than the
literal wording of the Constitution? This would surely strengthen your
case.
Red Man
Edward Rice
In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.97041...@xp.psych.nyu.edu>,
Bob Roman <ro...@xp.psych.nyu.edu> wrote:
>And you can't RUN for VP if you are ineligible to be Prez (by the 12th
>Amendment). But you raise an interesting thought: If Ronald Reagan
>became Speaker of the House, and Clinton and Gore both died, could Reagan
>become president again? (I would guess no; but I assume you believe yes.)
I thought Speaker had been taken out of the list, after Carl Albert
Jim Balter
RM Mentock wrote:
>
> Daniel O. Hanks wrote:
"All we ask for is a can per week. We thank you for your support."
> > Speculations on what the portions "should mean" or "ought to mean" are
> > irrelevant to this discussion. A refutation of Mr. Balter's argument
> > should rely upon the ACTUAL WORDING OF THE CONSTITUTION, and not
> > interpretation. I've searched unsuccessfully for something to contradict
> > Balter's view, which I initially disagreed with but now seems incontrovertibly
> > correct to me. If you can find something, I'd be very interested.
>
> I agree with what you say, except that the Constitution is often
> interpreted.
The original question asked about conceivability. Sure it is
*conceivable* that the Supreme Court would interpret the Constitution
literally?
Now I think I'll just go off somewhere and gloat. :-)
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
Bob Roman wrote:
>
> On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Jim Balter wrote:
>
> > Bob Roman wrote:
> >
> > many times you can be ELECTED to the Presidency. It say NOTHING
> > about eligibility to hold the office, the subject of the 12th.
>
> So your premise is that Reagan could say, "Sure I'm constitutionally
> ineligible to be elected president, but I can be elected VP because I am
> constitutionally eligible to be president if not elected to the office?
>
> I truly doubt any court would support that,
The courts are sworn to uphold the law. Perhaps Mr. Mentock
can explain the concept to you.
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
I can conceive of the situation arising without an impeachable offense
occurring, but certainly people can differ in that regard.
In any case, I notice that you are no longer making an argument
based upon the 12th and 22nd Amendments; how ironic. :-)
--
<J Q B>
RM Mentock
Daniel O. Hanks wrote:
> True enough. Do you have a Supreme Court ruling in mind which leads you
> to believe that the Court would interpret this case by other than the
> literal wording of the Constitution? This would surely strengthen your
> case.
Good answer.
Do you mean a Supreme Court ruling concerning the 22nd amendment? No,
I don't, I'm pretty sure there is none at all. (anyone?)
Or do you mean any Supreme Court ruling that did not take a literal
interpretation of the Constitution? Yes, many. Amendment II is
the classical case.
Does that strengthen my case? (Case-hardened maybe?) No, probably
not. In fact, I'm not sure what my case is, does anybody have a
transcript handy?
RM Mentock
Let's not get personal. :-)
And don't gloat too much (oops that was regards another post)
Is it true, you believe that Reagan is constitutionally eligible
to be elected VP (using literal interpretation, of course)?
M C Hamster
All I can say, having read through the entire thread on VP limits cold, is
"oy" (and I'm not even Jewish). My read on this is that Mr. Balter is arguing
on a purely intellectual basis that the 12th and 22nd amendments do not in any
way rule out the scenario of the VP repeatedly serving as President. After
many, many posts arguing the "putz" is wrong on intellectual grounds, I see
Mr. Mentock and Mr. Roman finally acceding that even though the constitution
does not literally rule out this scenario, in reality the Supreme Court would
never interpret the Constitution that strictly. In this regard, I strangely
find myself agreeing strongly with both sides... perhaps the three of you in
fact have been in "violent agreement" all this time. I do view a.f.c.-a. as
more an intellectual wank than a site for practical commentary about society,
and so on that basis I suppose I especially enjoy Mr. Balter's surprising
intellectual observation here as having importantly filled my head with yet
another useless fact.
Perhaps we should initiate a new forum within a.f.c.-a.: Cecil Court, where a
group of a.f.c.-a. judges assess both sides of an argument and then issues a
ruling as to which argument is ultimately persuasive. Or we could just send
the thread to Cecil himself... an Oracle of Delphi sort of approach. But I'm
afraid the Almighty doesn't have the time (just like God... how else to
explain the existence of Jesse Helms?).
M C Hamster
Ezekiel saw the wheel, way up in the middle of the air
Ezekiel saw the wheel, way in the middle of the air
And the little wheel runs by faith, and the big wheel runs by the grace of God
A wheel in a wheel, way in the middle of the air...
(Trad. gospel song -- thanks to Donna Richoux)
Greg Diamond
In article <dasherE8...@netcom.com>,
Anton Sherwood <das...@netcom.com> wrote:
>: Bob Roman <ro...@xp.psych.nyu.edu> wrote:
>: . The authors of the Constitution worked for the most part in secrecy, so
>: . interpreting "original intent" in those cases borders on the theological.
>Kirk Kerekes <red...@tulsa.oklahoma.net> writes
>: Umm... I would dispute this contention, as would anyone who has read the
>: Federalist Papers, and other contemporary works of the framers.
>Hamilton and Madison were somewhat hypocritical as Publius, arguing
>that the proposed government would not be as strong and scary as the
>one they secretly wanted - but I think the members of the Convention
>would agree with me that what really matters is what the *ratifiers*
>thought they were getting.
Well, you have to distinguish between Hamilton and Madison, whose alliance
was ad hoc. Anyway, the FedPapes weren't really that significant to the
adoption of the Constitution (although given how close the vote went in NY
and VA I guess anything could have tipped the balance.) If you want to
get a sense of what the Framers were thinking, the contemporaneous notes
of convention debate, taken by various representatives. Those interested
should don hip boots and wade through the volumes of Max Farrand's 1911
"Records of the Federal Convention." I don't know that the Supreme Court
has ever cited these; more's the pity, perhaps, since they reflect the
real debate rather than being propoganda like the FedPapes.
In any case, as John Roche pointed out in the classical article on the
conventioneers as a reform caucus, the problem with "original intent"
theory is that the framers did not *have* any singular original intent.
Much was swept beneath the carpet that summer; much agreed-upon language
was deliberately ambiguous. The founders simply were going to do whatever
they had to do to establish a strong central government while illegally
(IMHO) evading Rhode Island's clear unilateral veto under the Articles of
Confederation, much as if the rest of the Security Council met without the
U.S. and decided to scuttle the UN veto and give that body supreme
control, subject to a vote of 3/4 of the world's sovereign nations.
Original intent is a bunch of hooey.
--
<><><> There is evil: ever around, fundamental,
Greg<> System of government quite incidental;
<>/\<> So why go bananas chasing Nirvanas and failing?
<>\/<> -- Eva, "Waltz for Eva and Che," *Evita*
Greg Diamond
In article <davolson.5...@interaccess.com>,
M C Hamster <davo...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>All I can say, having read through the entire thread on VP limits cold, is
>"oy" (and I'm not even Jewish). My read on this is that Mr. Balter is arguing
>on a purely intellectual basis that the 12th and 22nd amendments do not in any
>way rule out the scenario of the VP repeatedly serving as President. After
>many, many posts arguing the "putz" is wrong on intellectual grounds, I see
>Mr. Mentock and Mr. Roman finally acceding that even though the constitution
>does not literally rule out this scenario, in reality the Supreme Court would
>never interpret the Constitution that strictly. In this regard, I strangely
>find myself agreeing strongly with both sides... perhaps the three of you in
>fact have been in "violent agreement" all this time. I do view a.f.c.-a. as
>more an intellectual wank than a site for practical commentary about society,
>and so on that basis I suppose I especially enjoy Mr. Balter's surprising
>intellectual observation here as having importantly filled my head with yet
>another useless fact.
I've recently done the same, and while I have to grant Jim some points --
I didn't realize that we could still have a third-term President, but then
he probably didn't realize that the 13th Amendment doesn't really prohibit
slavery -- in the main I think he is incorrect.
Perhaps the word being misinterpreted here is "election." Who elects the
President? The Electoral College, or, if they fail to do so, the House,
or, if the House fails to do so, the Senate by dine of electing the VP.
The election by the EC as Vice President of someone who has already been
elected twice as President or who had been elected once and served more
than two years of another elected person's term (pace the 22nd Amednment)
would not be certified by the House, on the grounds that said person is
constitutionally ineligible to be elected President (pace the 12th
Amendment.) Since under the 25th Amendment Congress has the power to
confirm a replacement VP, whether a still-living Eisenhower could have
become Ford's VP would hinge on whether confirmation hearings could be
considered an "election." The other route to a third term would involve a
double vacancy in office elevating the Speaker of the House or some such.
In any case, it's clear that a person in the class at issue cannot be
*elected* to the VP because the 22nd Amendment prevents election to the
Presidency and the 12th Amendment makes clear that the qualifications for
the two offices are identical.
If Bill Clinton, should he be able to connive his way into the Speakership
of the House, is able to elect a ticket of two people who would be willing
to stand aside for him, by my reading he could indeed serve even a
complete 3rd term under my current understanding of the Order of
Succession Act, but this is extraconstitutional.
Some questions that I still have are:
(1) Can someone who is eligible for it in the line of succession refuse to
become President? For example, imagine that Clinton is the Speaker of the
House, hated by Republicans. Could a GOP Pres and VP, at the end of their
8th year following the election, both resign (VP first, probably), forcing
Clinton to give up the Speakership for an added month or two as Acting
President? By my reading of the constitution, you could flush someone out
of office this way.
(2) What is the Constitutional status of the President pro tempore? My
understanding is that it's the longest serving member of the majority
party in the Senate *by tradition*, which seems like a slender reed on
which to balance the line of succession. I think it should be changed to
the Senate Majority Leader forthwith, which is what most people seem to
think it is anyway.
(3) The 25th Amendment says that the VP and the majority of either the
Cabinet *or of such other body as Congress may by law provide* can remove
the President from office. To me, this suggests that the VP and 2/3 of
each house of Congress (enough to override a veto) can stage a legal coup
anytime they want, by designating the other body to be the Board of
Directors of the Staten Island Humane Society or whoever else they can get
to cooperate.
Don't even get me started on what will happen when the Supreme Court is
finally asked to define "varying the compensation" in the 27th Amendment.
Greg Diamond
In article <5j7qma$h...@newsgate.duke.edu>,
Daniel O. Hanks <red...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>RM Mentock (Men...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>
>: They were precisely the original issue, I believe. It said:
>
>: No one can be elected to the Presidency more than
>: twice anymore, but what about the Vice-Presidency?
>: Is it Constitutionally conceivable that Mr.A gets
>: elected VP under Mr.P, Ms.Q, Ms.R, Mr.X, Mr.Y, and
>: Ms.Z, each of whom resigns immediately after
>: inauguration, so that Mr.A is left in charge for 6
>: consecutive terms?
>Let me try to help clarify. The question addresses whether someone
>might serve an infinite number of terms as President provided that he
>himself HAD NEVER BEEN *ELECTED* TO THE PRESIDENCY. Jim Balter has
>quoted from the text of the U.S. Constitution to demonstrate that neither
>the 12th nor 22nd Amendments contain a barrier to this scenario.
Hmm. By the 22nd Amendment, serving as President at all (as would have
happened under P) is equally disabling as having been elected once. But,
yes, I'd have to say that as long as the person has *never* been elected,
a person could serve out the terms of as many people as could be arranged,
even if this added up to over 10 years. If they had been elected even one
time to the Presidency, though, my previous response applied. I don't see
this as a serious deficiency, though; it's hard to conceive of this as an
a priori plan to benefit someone who wasn't able to win their party's
nomination the first time. By the way, I think that the book (by Tony
Hendra, maybe, or Henry Beard?) called "A History of the 80s" (or some
such), which came out in 1980, posited Jimmy Carter exploiting some
loophole to do pretty much this. Mutatis mutandis.
Greg Diamond
In article <335629...@netcom.com>, Jim Balter <j...@netcom.com> wrote:
>I've already pointed this out, and it does not contradict anything
>I've said, but rather supports it. Note "*election*" and "ineligible to
>*run* again". But not ineligible to run for VP, or be selected as
>Secretary of State, and then *serve* again. The 22nd amendment
>*explicitly* *specifically* restricts being ELECTED to the office of
>PRESIDENT, and it specifically says *act* and *hold* in other contexts
>that specify the conditions that must obtain for one to be forbidden
>from being ELECTED again.
Just to summarize the parts of Jim's argument that with which I agree and
disagree:
(1) someone never elected to be President can be elected as VP and succeed
to the Presidency an ulimited number of times -- T
(2) someone who is Constitutionally ineligible to be elected President can
nevertheless succeed to the Presidency from the Speakership, etc. -- T
(3) someone who is constitutionally ineligible to be elected President can
be elected Vice-President -- F.
I would note that the meaning of "Acting" as President was clarified by
the 25th Amendment. Until that time, it was not clear whether the VP
actually became President or was merely discharging Presidential duties
(i.e. acting as President.) Not the sort of thing into which the SCOTUS
prefers to step. The 25th establishes "Acting President" as a separate
role, in what is intended to be a temporary capacity, although it might
not end up that way. In the context of the 22nd Amendment I argue that
"held" has to be read as "was elected to," otherwise the clause is
subsumed by the "has acted as" clause directly following it. Coolidge is
I think the only person who has succeeded to the Presidency more than
halfway through a term; had he been subject to this amendment and had
wished to run again in 1928 I think he could have done so since he was not
disqualified under the "has acted as" clause, and it would be nonsensical
for him to have been disqualified under the previous "held" clause (for
his partial term) rather than the less restrictive "has acted as" clause.
Frankly, I don't see how this affects Jim's arguments, though he seems to
think that it does. The big issue is that the phrase "shall not succeed
or ascend to" the office is not there and probably should be.
By the way, I can argue based on the 22nd Amendment that if Ronald
Reagan's heart stopped during his operation after Hinckley shot him in
1981, George Bush should not have been eligible to run for re-election in
1992. In that case, Bush would have been President (Am 25, sec 1) for
that time rather than Acting President, and then the 22nd Amendment would
have prevented more than one election. Of course, as we all knew, Dan
Quayle was insurance against anyone pushing that point.
Bob Roman
On 17 Apr 1997, buffalo bob wrote:
> While all this constitutional law discussiongoes on... Has anyone considered
> the fact that "any naturalized citizen" can hold any office in sucession, but
> only natural citizens over the age 35, and otherwise elligable can succede.
> Remember Henry Kissinger? Fifth in line but never elligable, he would be
> skipped over...
In the succession line of offices, only the VP office-holder has to be
eligible to be president. This is because the main job of the VP is to be
the back-up president.
Bob Roman
Anton Sherwood
: Bob Roman <ro...@xp.psych.nyu.edu> wrote:
: . The authors of the Constitution worked for the most part in secrecy, so
: . interpreting "original intent" in those cases borders on the theological.
Kirk Kerekes <red...@tulsa.oklahoma.net> writes
: Umm... I would dispute this contention, as would anyone who has read the
: Federalist Papers, and other contemporary works of the framers.
Hamilton and Madison were somewhat hypocritical as Publius, arguing
that the proposed government would not be as strong and scary as the
one they secretly wanted - but I think the members of the Convention
would agree with me that what really matters is what the *ratifiers*
thought they were getting.
--
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DASher @ netcom .com
"How'd ya like to climb this high WITHOUT no mountain?" --Porky Pine 70.6.19
Anton Sherwood
Jim Balter wrote:
: > [...] The 22nd Amendment puts restrictions on how
: > many times you can be ELECTED to the Presidency. It say NOTHING
: > about eligibility to hold the office, the subject of the 12th.
"eligible" in Amendment XII means "able to be elected".
(eligo, eligere, elixi, electum)
If Reagan can't be elected President, then by the last
clause of XII he can't be elected Vice-President either.
SJF 37
In article <335A07...@mindspring.com>, RM Mentock
<Men...@mindspring.com> writes:
>M C Hamster wrote:
>
>> Perhaps we should initiate a new forum within a.f.c.-a.: Cecil Court,
where
>a
>> group of a.f.c.-a. judges assess both sides of an argument and then
issues
>a
>> ruling as to which argument is ultimately persuasive.
>
>I nominate you, Diamond and Deborah - and you also have to write the
>faq
First of all, I think you have confused Greg Diamond with
MC Hamster - in fact, they are two different people.
Secondly, I have to decline your flattering nomination.
This is partly because I prefer to receive flattering and
witty email from members of alt.fan.deborah - not the
abusive and frightening missives that would no doubt come
my way if I judged someone's argument unpersuasive.
Moreover, it would be contrary to the spirit of a.f.c.a.;
we have no God but Cecil, and Ed Zotti is his prophet.
Regards from Deborah
http://members.aol.com/SJF37/homepage-sjf37-index.html
http://members.aol.com/SJF37/index.html
http://members.aol.com/SJF37/web-page-links-index.html
Knotso
Someone earlier in this thread suggested it was implausible for an
ex-President to be elected Vice President.
A later post pointed out that the situation could have arisen in the
1800s.
I'll point out that the situation came within a hair of occurring as
recently as 1980. At the GOP convention, Presidential nominee Ronald
Reagan negotiated with Gerald Ford, who had been VP from 1973 to 1974 and
president from 1974 to 1977, about being the vice president-designate. The
deal fell through, probably because Ford wanted an excessive share of
executive power as VP, but the whole thing had the media very excited. A
newspaper (someone know which one?) headlined, in "Dewey Defeats Truman"
tradition: "IT'S REAGAN AND FORD!"
But what if the Reagan-Ford team had been elected? And Reagan had been
assassinated by John Hinckley in 1981? Ford decides to run for re-election
in 1984 and the great constitutional crisis commences....
Knotso
Goshen, NY
M C Hamster
In article <335A07...@mindspring.com> RM Mentock <Men...@mindspring.com> writes:
>From: RM Mentock <Men...@mindspring.com>
>Subject: Re: Vice Presidential Limits
>Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 08:10:42 -0400
>M C Hamster wrote:
>> Perhaps we should initiate a new forum within a.f.c.-a.: Cecil Court, where a
>> group of a.f.c.-a. judges assess both sides of an argument and then issues a
>> ruling as to which argument is ultimately persuasive.
>I nominate you, Diamond and Deborah - and you also have to write the
>faq
If nominated, I will not run.
If elected, I will not serve.
Thomas Hamilton White
SJF 37 <sj...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970420163...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>
>
> Moreover, it would be contrary to the spirit of a.f.c.a.;
> we have no God but Cecil, and Ed Zotti is his prophet.
>
> Regards from Deborah
Technically I think Ed should be refered to as "prophet #3",
as there were of course two earlier editors de Cecil, namely
Dave Kehr and Mike Lenehan. The latter in particular deserves
our thanks, since, if I understand correctly, he is the one
responsible for originally midwifing the whole Straight Dope
phenomenon. Ed certainly has shown admirably staying power
in his post, but a more accurate statement might be that he
is carrying a torch first lit by others.
Also, don't forget the Norse mythology connection. According
to "What makes Cecil Adams the world's greatest reference
librarian?", (American Libraries, 2/95), Unca Cece began his
work due to "a divine calling, with an archetype of Cecil, a
relative of the Norse god Odin, coming to him in a dream and
commanding him to 'take the helm'".
Jim Balter
Greg Diamond wrote:
>
> In article <5j7qma$h...@newsgate.duke.edu>,
> Daniel O. Hanks <red...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
> >RM Mentock (Men...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> >
> >: They were precisely the original issue, I believe. It said:
> >
> >: No one can be elected to the Presidency more than
> >: twice anymore, but what about the Vice-Presidency?
> >: Is it Constitutionally conceivable that Mr.A gets
> >: elected VP under Mr.P, Ms.Q, Ms.R, Mr.X, Mr.Y, and
> >: Ms.Z, each of whom resigns immediately after
> >: inauguration, so that Mr.A is left in charge for 6
> >: consecutive terms?
>
> >Let me try to help clarify. The question addresses whether someone
> >might serve an infinite number of terms as President provided that he
> >himself HAD NEVER BEEN *ELECTED* TO THE PRESIDENCY. Jim Balter has
> >quoted from the text of the U.S. Constitution to demonstrate that neither
> >the 12th nor 22nd Amendments contain a barrier to this scenario.
>
> Hmm. By the 22nd Amendment, serving as President at all (as would have
> happened under P) is equally disabling as having been elected once.
Serving as President for more than 2 years.
And disabling of *what*? Of being elected to the opffice of President,
not of serving as President.
> But,
> yes, I'd have to say that as long as the person has *never* been elected,
> a person could serve out the terms of as many people as could be arranged,
> even if this added up to over 10 years.
That puts you among the rational folks.
> If they had been elected even one
> time to the Presidency, though, my previous response applied.
There are two relevant scenarios:
a) elected twice: you can't be elected again
b) serve more than 2 years + elected once: you can't be elected again
There are no other restrictions imposed by the 22nd Amendment.
This isn't rocket science; it is way simpler than what any D&D player
has to master.
> I don't see
> this as a serious deficiency, though; it's hard to conceive of this as an
> a priori plan to benefit someone who wasn't able to win their party's
> nomination the first time.
It was just a hypothetical, guys!
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
Greg Diamond wrote:
>
> In article <335629...@netcom.com>, Jim Balter <j...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >I've already pointed this out, and it does not contradict anything
> >I've said, but rather supports it. Note "*election*" and "ineligible to
> >*run* again". But not ineligible to run for VP, or be selected as
> >Secretary of State, and then *serve* again. The 22nd amendment
> >*explicitly* *specifically* restricts being ELECTED to the office of
> >PRESIDENT, and it specifically says *act* and *hold* in other contexts
> >that specify the conditions that must obtain for one to be forbidden
> >from being ELECTED again.
>
> Just to summarize the parts of Jim's argument that with which I agree and
> disagree:
>
> (1) someone never elected to be President can be elected as VP and succeed
> to the Presidency an ulimited number of times -- T
> (2) someone who is Constitutionally ineligible to be elected President can
> nevertheless succeed to the Presidency from the Speakership, etc. -- T
> (3) someone who is constitutionally ineligible to be elected President can
> be elected Vice-President -- F.
You have no argument against (3).
> I would note that the meaning of "Acting" as President was clarified by
> the 25th Amendment. Until that time, it was not clear whether the VP
> actually became President or was merely discharging Presidential duties
> (i.e. acting as President.) Not the sort of thing into which the SCOTUS
> prefers to step. The 25th establishes "Acting President" as a separate
> role, in what is intended to be a temporary capacity, although it might
> not end up that way. In the context of the 22nd Amendment I argue that
> "held" has to be read as "was elected to," otherwise the clause is
> subsumed by the "has acted as" clause directly following it.
Oh nonsense. Someone who acts as President but has not been sworn into
the office is distinct from someone who has. And someone who has been
sworn in may not be acting as President while someone else has taken
over the role. "acting", by your own words, does not mean "elected".
And the meaning of "held" is clear: it means that you were sworn in;
it does not mean you were elected. That is mere fantasy.
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
Bob Roman wrote:
> Jimmy, you seem to have a lot of knowledge at hand. Why must you sound
> like such a putz when presenting it?
Mr. Roman has apparently exhausted his intellectual store.
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
RM Mentock wrote:
>
> Jim Balter wrote:
> >
> > Bob Roman wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Jim Balter wrote:
> > >
> > > > Bob Roman wrote:
> > > > > The 22nd Amendment does *not* repeal the 12th Amendment.
> > > >
> > > > many times you can be ELECTED to the Presidency. It say NOTHING
> > > > about eligibility to hold the office, the subject of the 12th.
> > >
> > > ineligible to be elected president, but I can be elected VP because I am
> > > constitutionally eligible to be president if not elected to the office?
> > >
> > > I truly doubt any court would support that,
> >
> > The courts are sworn to uphold the law. Perhaps Mr. Mentock
> > can explain the concept to you.
>
> Let's not get personal. :-)
>
> And don't gloat too much (oops that was regards another post)
>
> Is it true, you believe that Reagan is constitutionally eligible
> to be elected VP (using literal interpretation, of course)?
Barring some argument as yet not presented. Certainly
Greg Diamond's false equation of "held" to "elected" isn't it.
Put yourself before the bar of the Supreme Court. You've got
30 minutes to give your argument, much of which will be spent
answering the sharp questions of the Justices (well, 8 of them anyway).
You had better be prepared, and "I don't have to give an argument
because I doubt that you would rule against me" just won't do.
So far, no such argument has been given. If Greg Diamond says that
"held" means "elected" because it doesn't mean "act", after the
Justices manage to suppress their laughter he will be
asked whether it is possible to hold the office without being
elected, and whether it is possible to act as President without
holding the office. "Are these not, then, all distinct"?
--
<J Q B>
Thomas Hamilton White
A bunch of people have posted a bunch of arguments--some
good, some not so good. There is no consensus. Now we are
starting to drift into personal attacks. I think the thread
is dead.
No one in a.f.c-a can provide a definitive answer, because
only the U.S. Supreme Court knows the answer, and to the
best of my knowledge they have never ruled on this issue.
There are good arguments for saying that the clause
in the 12th amendment: "But no person constitutionally
ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible
to that of Vice-President of the United States" only
covers elections. But I also don't think it would be
unimaginable for the court to rule that this sentence
was intended as a broad constituational standard,
covering all circumstances.
There are some areas, especially when the same topic is
covered by multiple clauses and amendments, where the court
eventually has to step in and make an interpretation. On this
one I'm not even going to try to guess which way it would go.
On another matter, I do predict the Court will rule
the line-item veto unconstitutional.
Jim Balter
RM Mentock wrote:
>
> Jim Balter wrote:
> >
> > Bob Roman wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Jim Balter wrote:
> > >
> > > > Bob Roman wrote:
> > > > > The 22nd Amendment does *not* repeal the 12th Amendment.
> > > >
> > > > True but irrelevant. The 22nd Amendment puts restrictions on how
> > > > many times you can be ELECTED to the Presidency. It say NOTHING
> > > > about eligibility to hold the office, the subject of the 12th.
> > >
> > > So your premise is that Reagan could say, "Sure I'm constitutionally
> > > ineligible to be elected president, but I can be elected VP because I am
> > > constitutionally eligible to be president if not elected to the office?
> > >
> > > I truly doubt any court would support that,
> >
> > The courts are sworn to uphold the law. Perhaps Mr. Mentock
> > can explain the concept to you.
>
> Let's not get personal. :-)
>
> And don't gloat too much (oops that was regards another post)
>
> Is it true, you believe that Reagan is constitutionally eligible
> to be elected VP (using literal interpretation, of course)?
Based upon Anton Sherwood pointing out that "eligible" in the 12th
Amendment means electable, I agree that Reagan cannot be elected
to VP. However, this is quite different from Mr. A, who *never*
was elected to the Presidency, and thus is still eligible to be
elected to either office.
Sorry for following Mr. Roman into this inappropriate example;
I've been trying to be more careful to keep distinct things distinct.
So yes, Ronald Reagan is barred from being elected to the Presidency by
the 22nd, and thus barred from being elected to the Vice Presidency by
the 12th. But Mr. A is not barred from being elected to the Presidency
by the 22nd, since the 22nd allows him to be elected to the Presidency
at least once. And as long as he remains eligible to be elected
to the Presidency, the 12th does not come into play, and I see
that Greg Diamond concurs.
Hopefully, the difference between the two examples, and Anton Sherwood's
clarification that the 12th applies to electability == eligibility,
not qualifications to *hold* office, helps clarify the issues for those
more interested in rational discussion than in calling people "putz"s.
--
<J Q B>
Greg Diamond
In article <335A79...@netcom.com>, Jim Balter <j...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Greg Diamond wrote:
>> Hmm. By the 22nd Amendment, serving as President at all (as would have
>> happened under P) is equally disabling as having been elected once.
>Serving as President for more than 2 years.
>And disabling of *what*? Of being elected to the opffice of President,
>not of serving as President.
Of being elected to the office of President or the office of Vice
President. The 22nd amendment was written in light of the 12th Amendment
which says that those who are not eligible to be elected to the latter are
not elegible to be elected to the former. It's true that the 12th doesn't
have a verb at all where we'd like to see one -- "no person ... ineligible
TO the office of President shall be eligible TO that of Vice-President" --
and thus the Supreme Court would have to figure out what verb is implied.
I see two likely possibilities -- first, that the omitted verb is "be," in
which case the 12th is incorporated into the 22nd, and second, that the
omitted verb (given the amendment's context of electing Presidents and
VPs) is "be elected", which is also incorporated into the 22nd. In plain
language, if you are ineligible to be elected President, you are
ineligible to be elected Vice President. Maybe the SCOTUS would disagree,
but I think it would be a surprising stretch if they did.
>There are two relevant scenarios:
>a) elected twice: you can't be elected again
>b) serve more than 2 years + elected once: you can't be elected again
>There are no other restrictions imposed by the 22nd Amendment.
>This isn't rocket science; it is way simpler than what any D&D player
>has to master.
One of our arguments is whether this applies only to the President, or to
the position of VP as well. You argue that it doesn't because they had a
chance to include the words "VP" as well and did not. I argue that it
does because they had no need to include the words given the 12th. I'd be
happy to see the Court determine the issue; I think, but am not sure, that
I'd win that case.
Jim Balter
RM Mentock wrote:
>
> M C Hamster wrote:
>
> > Perhaps we should initiate a new forum within a.f.c.-a.: Cecil Court, where a
> > group of a.f.c.-a. judges assess both sides of an argument and then issues a
> > ruling as to which argument is ultimately persuasive.
I once had a debate with my third grade teacher over the number of
syllables in "gymnasium"; she said there were only three, because
the dictionary showed "gym.na'si.um" and said that the dots separate
syllables. I pointed out that only syllables could be accented,
but she was unswayed. She decided this was an opportunity for an
experiment in civics, and lined up the tables on each side of the room
and had the students sit with whichever one of thus they agreed with.
It came down to me and my best friend Larry Wallerstein, who finally
told me that he knew I was right but couldn't stand the peer pressure,
and went over to the other side (and stayed there; he later became a
Young American for Freedom Goldwaterite).
As for "ultimately persuasive", I found a paperback dictionary
in the supermarket checkout line that had *both* a dot and an accent
mark between "na" and "si", and dear Miss Gleason conceded
to me before the whole class. Such are the experiences that go into
the formation of a "putz", I suppose.
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
Ford would have served more than two years of Nixon's term and
more than two years of Reagan's term, and he would have been
elected VP, but none of that would make him ineligible to run in
1984, regardless of what Robert Taft might have said in some speech.
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
Thomas Hamilton White wrote:
>
> A bunch of people have posted a bunch of arguments--some
> good, some not so good. There is no consensus. Now we are
> starting to drift into personal attacks. I think the thread
> is dead.
>
> No one in a.f.c-a can provide a definitive answer, because
> only the U.S. Supreme Court knows the answer, and to the
> best of my knowledge they have never ruled on this issue.
I find this line strangely anit-intellectual. One may be
able to provide a definitive answer of what follows from
the words of the constitution, even though the behavior
of Justices is not wholely predictable. Not all federal laws
are adjudicated by the Supreme Court; some of them just mean
what they say. There is more than one source of "definition".
> There are good arguments for saying that the clause
> in the 12th amendment: "But no person constitutionally
> ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible
> to that of Vice-President of the United States" only
> covers elections.
It seems quite clear that it does.
> But I also don't think it would be
> unimaginable for the court to rule that this sentence
> was intended as a broad constituational standard,
> covering all circumstances.
The 22nd Amendment establishes ineligibity to the Presidency,
which as extended by the 12 Amendment establishes ineligibility to the
Vice Presidency. But the 12th does not *equate* the two offices, so
when the 22nd explicitly says "elected to the office of President" it is
not saying "elected to either the office of President or Vice
President". And in fact no one has made that argument, other than
just now; in fact, I think it is probably the best one that
could be offered to the Court. Instead, we have had arguments such
as that acting as or holding the office of President for more than
two years should be equated with being elected to the Presidency,
but the very fact that the 22nd Amendment distinguishes between them
makes that a rather dubious interpretation.
> There are some areas, especially when the same topic is
> covered by multiple clauses and amendments, where the court
> eventually has to step in and make an interpretation. On this
> one I'm not even going to try to guess which way it would go.
No argument has yet been presented, from the words of the Constitution,
that Mr. A cannot be elected to VP any number of times if he has
never been elected to the Presidency. In the absence of such an
argument, the Court would have little choice.
> On another matter, I do predict the Court will rule
> the line-item veto unconstitutional.
Present the argument.
--
<J Q B>
RM Mentock
M C Hamster wrote:
> Perhaps we should initiate a new forum within a.f.c.-a.: Cecil Court, where a
> group of a.f.c.-a. judges assess both sides of an argument and then issues a
> ruling as to which argument is ultimately persuasive.
I nominate you, Diamond and Deborah - and you also have to write the
faq
--
D.
men...@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm
Jim Balter
Greg Diamond wrote:
> My feeling is that anything that Shack, Jim B., Perry, Deborah, Tom W.,
> Ian, John L., and I agree on should be deemed ipso facto true. Then
> again, this may describe the null set.
I'm not sure I agree.
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
Greg Diamond wrote:
>
> In article <335A86...@netcom.com>, Jim Balter <j...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >Anton Sherwood wrote:
> >>
> >> Jim Balter wrote:
> >> : > [...] The 22nd Amendment puts restrictions on how
> >> : > many times you can be ELECTED to the Presidency. It say NOTHING
> >> : > about eligibility to hold the office, the subject of the 12th.
> >>
> >> "eligible" in Amendment XII means "able to be elected".
> >> (eligo, eligere, elixi, electum)
> >> If Reagan can't be elected President, then by the last
> >> clause of XII he can't be elected Vice-President either.
> >
> >Even if that applies to Reagan, and I concede that it does,
> >it does not apply to Mr. A who, never having been elected to
> >the Presidency even once, is still eligible to the Presidency.
> >By the 22nd + 12th (as you read it and I concur),
> >if he is elected to the office of the Presidency just once,
> >and he served more than two years of someone else's term, then he
> >is no longer elegible to either office. But, in the scenario given,
> >Mr. A is elected to the Vice Presidency only, never to the Presidency,
> >and neither the 22nd nor the 12th bars him from being so elected
> >any number of times.
>
> I agree with the last part of this. But doesn't your admission that
> Reagan (post brain-transplant) can't be the GOP VP candidate in 2000
> contradict your earlier assertions?
I've made more than one assertion in my life, and some of them
have surely been wrong. My earlier assertions about Reagan or about
whether ineligibility (unelectability) to the Presidency implies
ineligibility to the Vice Presidency were wrong, as I've just said.
I don't know what other assertions you might mean.
> And possibly the one below as well?
You would have to explain to me how; it still appears correct to me.
> >So, to correct my statement above,
> >
> > The 22nd Amendment puts restrictions on how
> > many times you can be ELECTED to the Presidency. It say NOTHING
> > about qualifications to HOLD the office, and neither does the 12th.
--
<J Q B>
Lee Rudolph
Thomas Hamilton White wrote:
>
> A bunch of people have posted a bunch of arguments--some
> good, some not so good. There is no consensus. Now we are
> starting to drift into personal attacks. I think the thread
> is dead.
I'm quite enjoying it. As the Founding Fathers used to say,
"Whee! the pilpul!"
Lee Rudolph
Jim Balter
Jim Balter wrote:
> I've made more than one assertion in my life, and some of them
> have surely been wrong. My earlier assertions about Reagan or about
> whether ineligibility (unelectability) to the Presidency implies
> ineligibility to the Vice Presidency were wrong, as I've just said.
> I don't know what other assertions you might mean.
An "amendment": not all my assertions about Reagan were wrong. He
could still be appointed to Secretary of State and become President
again through ascension.
--
<J Q B>
Bob Roman
On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Jim Balter wrote:
> Bob Roman wrote:
> > So your premise is that Reagan could say, "Sure I'm constitutionally
> > ineligible to be elected president, but I can be elected VP because I am
> > constitutionally eligible to be president if not elected to the office?
> >
> > I truly doubt any court would support that,
>
> The courts are sworn to uphold the law. Perhaps Mr. Mentock
> can explain the concept to you.
Bitter little man, ain't ya?
Does it matter to you that your interpretation of the law at hand -- the
22nd amendment -- is inconsistent with that of the author of that law?
Bob Roman
Lee Rudolph
Jim Balter <j...@netcom.com> writes:
Now, if he were elected to the House of Representatives, and then
elected (or possibly "elected") to the speakership, could he become
President again through ascension?
Lee Rudolph
RM Mentock
SJF 37 wrote:
>
> In article <335A07...@mindspring.com>, RM Mentock
> <Men...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> >
> >> Perhaps we should initiate a new forum within a.f.c.-a.: Cecil Court,
> where
> >a
> >> group of a.f.c.-a. judges assess both sides of an argument and then
> issues
> >a
> >> ruling as to which argument is ultimately persuasive.
> >
> >I nominate you, Diamond and Deborah - and you also have to write the
> >faq
>
> MC Hamster - in fact, they are two different people.
That would have been "I nominate you, Diamond, and Deborah - ..."
Now I know why we leave off the comma before "and"
> Secondly, I have to decline your flattering nomination.
> This is partly because I prefer to receive flattering and
> witty email from members of alt.fan.deborah - not the
> abusive and frightening missives that would no doubt come
> my way if I judged someone's argument unpersuasive.
>
> Moreover, it would be contrary to the spirit of a.f.c.a.;
> we have no God but Cecil, and Ed Zotti is his prophet.
OK, but would you write the faq?
SJF 37
>Bob Roman wrote:
>
>> Jimmy, you seem to have a lot of knowledge at hand.
Why must you sound like such a putz when presenting it?<<
Now, now, Bob - enough of these degrading diminuitives.
When the elite meet (via e-mail) to review Jim Balter's
latest feat of logical and factual impeccability or his
most recent rating on the charm scale, they refer to him
as "Jimbo."
Dave Wilton
On 20 Apr 1997 17:42:59 -0400, gdia...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Greg Diamond)
wrote:
>Of being elected to the office of President or the office of Vice
>President. The 22nd amendment was written in light of the 12th Amendment
>which says that those who are not eligible to be elected to the latter are
>not elegible to be elected to the former. It's true that the 12th doesn't
>have a verb at all where we'd like to see one -- "no person ... ineligible
>TO the office of President shall be eligible TO that of Vice-President" --
Sorry, no verb is omitted. The verb is there; it is "be." The sentence is
clear, complete, and grammatically correct. Now, you may want to see the
word "elected" inserted after the word "to," but the drafters of the 12th
Amendment evidently did not and theirs is the opinion that counts.
The eligibility requirements are laid out in Article II, paragraph 5. They
are: 1) a natural-born citizen, 2) over 35 years old, 3) a US resident for
14 years. Anyone who meets these requirements is eligible to the office of
President. Anyone who does not meet them cannot serve as President or,
thanks to the 12th Amendment, Vice-President. These eligibility
requirements are independent of the manner of accession to the office.
The 22nd amendment imposes an additional restriction on whether someone can
be *elected* to the office of President, but not on whether or not someone
can succeed a dead, incapacitated, or resigned President. Article II and
the 12th Amendment use the phrase "shall be eligible to the office," while
the 22nd Amendment uses the phrase "shall be elected to the office." The
difference in wording is significant.
The intent of the drafters is first and foremost expressed by the words
they inserted into the Constitution. If those words are ambiguous, then you
may want to look at secondary sources to gauge the intent, but in this case
the words are not ambiguous in the least. We must take them as written,
neither inserting nor deleting anything. "But Mr. Justice, they didn't mean
what they wrote" is not a very good argument.
Dave Wilton
dwi...@sprynet.com
http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dwilton/
Jim Balter
Bob Roman wrote:
> Your arrogance
> in this matter is inappropriate.
Mr. "putz" Roman is apparently of the opinion that
anyone who presents an argument that contradicts
his is thereby "arrogant". I suggest he take a good
look in the mirror.
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
The 12th Amendent refers to election (eligibility; thank you
Anton Sherwood) of the President and Vice President only.
Reagan can't be elected to the Vice Presidency because he can't
be elected to the Presidency and the last sentence of the 12th
provides that conditional. It provides no such conditional
for any other office.
--
<J Q B>
Greg Diamond
In article <335df0b0...@news.spry.com>,
Dave Wilton <dwi...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>On 20 Apr 1997 17:42:59 -0400, gdia...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Greg Diamond)
>wrote:
>
>>Of being elected to the office of President or the office of Vice
>>President. The 22nd amendment was written in light of the 12th Amendment
>>which says that those who are not eligible to be elected to the latter are
>>not elegible to be elected to the former. It's true that the 12th doesn't
>>have a verb at all where we'd like to see one -- "no person ... ineligible
>>TO the office of President shall be eligible TO that of Vice-President" --
>
>Sorry, no verb is omitted. The verb is there; it is "be." The sentence is
>clear, complete, and grammatically correct. Now, you may want to see the
>word "elected" inserted after the word "to," but the drafters of the 12th
>Amendment evidently did not and theirs is the opinion that counts.
Oh dear, where to begin. Dave, you can attack my analytical abilities,
you can attack my understanding of politics, but when you attack my
understanding of grammar in addition then the beast must be fed.
You want to read the sentence as "no one WHO IS ineligible FOR the office
of President shall be eligible FOR the office of Vice President." (CAPS
indicate changes and/or elisions.) Yes, "be" is a verb, but not the one
at issue. First of all, in the phrasing in the constitution, the word
"to" ("no one ineligible to the office...") is grammatical but ambiguous
and uninformative. I didn't say it was ungrammatical, only that we'd like
to see a verb there. Why? Because as it is, it says that someone who
can't -- can't SOMETHING the one office also can't SOMETHING the other
office. Now, what is that something? "Be" isn't it; it refers to the
relation between the two dependent clauses, not between the relationship
between the subject and the object (the office) within each clause.
Now you may want to read this as "someone who can't BE IN the Presidency
can't BE IN the Vice-Presidency," if that's what you define "ineligible
to" as meaning. But that's pretty weak. "Ineligible to," to the sense it
makes sense at all, is an adjectival phrase (oh, linguists? adjective +
preposition, right?) which is a far sight away from being a transitive
verb. It's not clear what the person cannot do with respect TO the
offices in question. Be elected to them, succeed to them, hold them at
all, or what? So, in asserting your favored interpretation, you are the
one going beyond the text and subject to the imprecations in the balance
of your response. My position is that, with respect to the debate we've
been having, the phrase is irremediably ambiguous, and we wish that it
were not -- which is the only assertion I made.
Yours for careful reading,
Bob Roman
On Sun, 20 Apr 1997, Jim Balter wrote:
> Bob Roman wrote:
>
> > Jimmy, you seem to have a lot of knowledge at hand. Why must you sound
> > like such a putz when presenting it?
>
> Mr. Roman has apparently exhausted his intellectual store.
No, just my patience. Why did you clip the rest of my comments?
Bob Roman
Bob Roman
On Sun, 20 Apr 1997, Jim Balter wrote:
> So yes, Ronald Reagan is barred from being elected to the Presidency by
> the 22nd, and thus barred from being elected to the Vice Presidency by
> the 12th.
"That puts you among the rational folks."
> Hopefully, the difference between the two examples, and Anton Sherwood's
> clarification that the 12th applies to electability == eligibility,
> not qualifications to *hold* office, helps clarify the issues for those
> more interested in rational discussion than in calling people "putz"s.
Now be fair. I never called you a putz. I said, "Why must you sound
like a putz?" -- which is at least once removed from actual name-calling.
On the other hand, I did call you a "bitter little man."
Bob Roman
Bob Roman
On Sun, 20 Apr 1997, Jim Balter wrote:
> No, they first gave arguments from the wording of the constitution,
> then fell back on "interpretation" when those arguments fell through.
> Roman has now abandoned the constitution altogether, and is basing
> his argument solely on the intent behind the 22nd Amendment.
...then there was the strawberry incident, and they all turned against me.
No, Jim. The Hamster was right. I conceded quite a while ago that you
had a defendable position. I simply added that I doubted the courts would
agree with that position in the long run. It was this statement of doubt
that seemed to pique you. Only then did we get into issues of legislative
intent.
> But intent only comes into play when the law is
> ambiguous, and the very precision of the 22nd Amendment argues
> for how it should be interpreted. Many times the law actually
> drafted reflects compromises hammered out, and may not exactly
> correspond to such popular sentiments as "no more FDR's".
> No speeches on the floor of Congress can by themselves determine
> intent, since that is only the intent of the speaker.
Well the point was "the intent of the author." Given that Senator Taft
intended one thing with his legislation and you have discovered in his
language quite another, I would call that ambiguous.
Bob Roman
M C Hamster
In article <01bc4dba$06d046e0$bdcd78cf@708714093> "Thomas Hamilton White" <whit...@ipass.net> writes:
>SJF 37 <sj...@aol.com> wrote in article
><19970420163...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>
>>
>> Moreover, it would be contrary to the spirit of a.f.c.a.;
>> we have no God but Cecil, and Ed Zotti is his prophet.
>>
>> Regards from Deborah
>Technically I think Ed should be refered to as "prophet #3",
>as there were of course two earlier editors de Cecil, namely
>Dave Kehr and Mike Lenehan.
Wow!! Is that true? Dave Kehr is a local movie and TV critic (Chicago), often
very interesting to read and certainly more so than Laurel and Hardy. I had
no idea he gave up a job as diety to become movie critic...
M C Hamster
Ezekiel saw the wheel, way up in the middle of the air
Ezekiel saw the wheel, way in the middle of the air
And the little wheel runs by faith, and the big wheel runs by the grace of God
A wheel in a wheel, way in the middle of the air...
(Trad. gospel song -- thanks to Donna Richoux)