The Democratic Candidates

13567194

Comments

  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 16,700
    edited March 11
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    The more I think about it the more I love the biden/obama ticket.
    What do you think about Bernie? 
    I like him better than trump and I thought he was the better candidate than Hillary but I feel his chance has passed.  
    At the same time, he just jumped into the ring one election ago. But I guess in these social media, twitter-times 4 years is to long. Out with the old - in with the new. :peace: (joke)

    I'm interested to see how he will keep up in the debates - when he no longer can get the support by being the only choice other than "boring Hillary"
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,303
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:

    Or, if you are not weirdly ignorant. You would understand that things (like a society) change with time, and you might have to update, change or clarify it in the future and the things you cover might not be everything that will come up in the next couple of centuries. Like for example, if a President can be president for two terms or if he can be elected for two terms.

    Just a thought. 
    We don't re-write our Constitution and form new governments ever 30 years like most of the rest of the world.  Our document has stood the test of time.  So you'll have to excuse the weirdly ignorant Founding Fathers in favor of the geniuses that can't write a Constitution that survives a half century.  It was structured in such a way that they understood times would change, only setting down concrete principles.  The rest would be left to the branches of gov't.  This is what Cincy tried to explain to you, which you somehow think is counter-argued by a a conversation with Guy 1 and Guy 2.  If only Jefferson were as smart as you... 
    Thank you for clarifying your earlier statement for me.  I was unsure if you were being sarcastic.  I agree constitutions should not be re-written on whims. 
    You can usually count on me being sarcastic.  
    LOL.  Sometimes it's hard to tell.
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,303
    mrussel1 said:

    Or, if you are not weirdly ignorant. You would understand that things (like a society) change with time, and you might have to update, change or clarify it in the future and the things you cover might not be everything that will come up in the next couple of centuries. Like for example, if a President can be president for two terms or if he can be elected for two terms.

    Just a thought. 
    We don't re-write our Constitution and form new governments ever 30 years like most of the rest of the world.  Our document has stood the test of time.  So you'll have to excuse the weirdly ignorant Founding Fathers in favor of the geniuses that can't write a Constitution that survives a half century.  It was structured in such a way that they understood times would change, only setting down concrete principles.  The rest would be left to the branches of gov't.  This is what Cincy tried to explain to you, which you somehow think is counter-argued by a a conversation with Guy 1 and Guy 2.  If only Jefferson were as smart as you... 
    We don't re-write our "fundamental laws" that often either, but we adjust and add to them when we feel it is needed. So that questions don't need to be up in the air or things written for a different time needs to be forced into being applied to a modern world. It is not done "on a whim" though.

    The "form new governments"-thing I don't understand what you mean by. 

    If your constitution with these "concrete principles" are instead of concrete - diffuse, and there are these branches deciding how to interpret the text and set precedent - then Obama should stress-test that part to figure out those concrete/diffuse principles. Haha. I just think that is one fundamental thing that should have been clarified sometime during all this time -- the same with if a president can be arrested for a crime. Write some god damn amendments people.

    OBAMA TWENTYTWENTY


    Obama served his 2 terms, time to move on.  All politicians should be placed on term limits...ALL
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 16,700
    mrussel1 said:

    Or, if you are not weirdly ignorant. You would understand that things (like a society) change with time, and you might have to update, change or clarify it in the future and the things you cover might not be everything that will come up in the next couple of centuries. Like for example, if a President can be president for two terms or if he can be elected for two terms.

    Just a thought. 
    We don't re-write our Constitution and form new governments ever 30 years like most of the rest of the world.  Our document has stood the test of time.  So you'll have to excuse the weirdly ignorant Founding Fathers in favor of the geniuses that can't write a Constitution that survives a half century.  It was structured in such a way that they understood times would change, only setting down concrete principles.  The rest would be left to the branches of gov't.  This is what Cincy tried to explain to you, which you somehow think is counter-argued by a a conversation with Guy 1 and Guy 2.  If only Jefferson were as smart as you... 
    We don't re-write our "fundamental laws" that often either, but we adjust and add to them when we feel it is needed. So that questions don't need to be up in the air or things written for a different time needs to be forced into being applied to a modern world. It is not done "on a whim" though.

    The "form new governments"-thing I don't understand what you mean by. 

    If your constitution with these "concrete principles" are instead of concrete - diffuse, and there are these branches deciding how to interpret the text and set precedent - then Obama should stress-test that part to figure out those concrete/diffuse principles. Haha. I just think that is one fundamental thing that should have been clarified sometime during all this time -- the same with if a president can be arrested for a crime. Write some god damn amendments people.

    OBAMA TWENTYTWENTY


    Obama served his 2 terms, time to move on.  All politicians should be placed on term limits...ALL
    He was elected for two terms - BUT WHO KNOWS HOW MANY TERMS HE CAN SERVE!!!!!


    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • Hi!Hi! Posts: 1,612
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 1,927
    mrussel1 said:

    Or, if you are not weirdly ignorant. You would understand that things (like a society) change with time, and you might have to update, change or clarify it in the future and the things you cover might not be everything that will come up in the next couple of centuries. Like for example, if a President can be president for two terms or if he can be elected for two terms.

    Just a thought. 
    We don't re-write our Constitution and form new governments ever 30 years like most of the rest of the world.  Our document has stood the test of time.  So you'll have to excuse the weirdly ignorant Founding Fathers in favor of the geniuses that can't write a Constitution that survives a half century.  It was structured in such a way that they understood times would change, only setting down concrete principles.  The rest would be left to the branches of gov't.  This is what Cincy tried to explain to you, which you somehow think is counter-argued by a a conversation with Guy 1 and Guy 2.  If only Jefferson were as smart as you... 
    We don't re-write our "fundamental laws" that often either, but we adjust and add to them when we feel it is needed. So that questions don't need to be up in the air or things written for a different time needs to be forced into being applied to a modern world. It is not done "on a whim" though.

    The "form new governments"-thing I don't understand what you mean by. 

    If your constitution with these "concrete principles" are instead of concrete - diffuse, and there are these branches deciding how to interpret the text and set precedent - then Obama should stress-test that part to figure out those concrete/diffuse principles. Haha. I just think that is one fundamental thing that should have been clarified sometime during all this time -- the same with if a president can be arrested for a crime. Write some god damn amendments people.

    OBAMA TWENTYTWENTY


    Obama served his 2 terms, time to move on.  All politicians should be placed on term limits...ALL
    I do think Spiritual Chaos has a point here...not as to whether it's time to move on or the pros/cons of Obama weaseling back in.  This is a strangely written rule. There are things in our constitution that are open to interpretation and law kind of has to be more often than some would like.  But this "not elected more than twice" business is really, really odd.  It almost seems like it was intentionally written to be less-restrictive so we could use common sense to determine what's right later.  But if the idea was truly to avoid something like Obama becoming VP (and, potentially) president after serving two full terms, then it was really poorly done.

    Per the letter of that rule, I'd say Obama can be elected VP.  That said, it would be a terrible move.  Yes, Obama was reasonably well-liked, moreso than Trump. But I think most people would see it as trying to weasel a candidate in on a technicality and it would backfire with the middle-of-the-road voters and those on the fence about Trump for whatever reason.

    Why the hell is the 22nd written that way anyway?  Maybe it's so someone like Obama can still do something that would put him in the Line of Succession without anyone balking.  Could one interpret "elected to the office of the President..." as including the VP election?  Maybe, but if that was the intent, it was not well-written.

    It wasn't that long ago so maybe history records why it shook out this way, but I'm supposed to be working...
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 12,795
    Hi! said:
    Hmmm I wonder if this is a reaction to last election and not forward thinking...or if it’s a smart idea...or it doesn’t matter at all!


    hippiemom = goodness
  • Hi!Hi! Posts: 1,612
    Hi! said:
    Hmmm I wonder if this is a reaction to last election and not forward thinking...or if it’s a smart idea...or it doesn’t matter at all!


    All of the above. Wisconsin is an important swing state, so I’d say smart play.
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 1,927
    Hi! said:
    Hmmm I wonder if this is a reaction to last election and not forward thinking...or if it’s a smart idea...or it doesn’t matter at all!


    Well, Wisconsin's state motto is "Forward."

    I think it makes sense to try to connect with a state that Hillary ignored.
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • Hi!Hi! Posts: 1,612
    They should have the convention at the Foxconn plant.
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,303
    OnWis97 said:
    mrussel1 said:

    Or, if you are not weirdly ignorant. You would understand that things (like a society) change with time, and you might have to update, change or clarify it in the future and the things you cover might not be everything that will come up in the next couple of centuries. Like for example, if a President can be president for two terms or if he can be elected for two terms.

    Just a thought. 
    We don't re-write our Constitution and form new governments ever 30 years like most of the rest of the world.  Our document has stood the test of time.  So you'll have to excuse the weirdly ignorant Founding Fathers in favor of the geniuses that can't write a Constitution that survives a half century.  It was structured in such a way that they understood times would change, only setting down concrete principles.  The rest would be left to the branches of gov't.  This is what Cincy tried to explain to you, which you somehow think is counter-argued by a a conversation with Guy 1 and Guy 2.  If only Jefferson were as smart as you... 
    We don't re-write our "fundamental laws" that often either, but we adjust and add to them when we feel it is needed. So that questions don't need to be up in the air or things written for a different time needs to be forced into being applied to a modern world. It is not done "on a whim" though.

    The "form new governments"-thing I don't understand what you mean by. 

    If your constitution with these "concrete principles" are instead of concrete - diffuse, and there are these branches deciding how to interpret the text and set precedent - then Obama should stress-test that part to figure out those concrete/diffuse principles. Haha. I just think that is one fundamental thing that should have been clarified sometime during all this time -- the same with if a president can be arrested for a crime. Write some god damn amendments people.

    OBAMA TWENTYTWENTY


    Obama served his 2 terms, time to move on.  All politicians should be placed on term limits...ALL
    I do think Spiritual Chaos has a point here...not as to whether it's time to move on or the pros/cons of Obama weaseling back in.  This is a strangely written rule. There are things in our constitution that are open to interpretation and law kind of has to be more often than some would like.  But this "not elected more than twice" business is really, really odd.  It almost seems like it was intentionally written to be less-restrictive so we could use common sense to determine what's right later.  But if the idea was truly to avoid something like Obama becoming VP (and, potentially) president after serving two full terms, then it was really poorly done.

    Per the letter of that rule, I'd say Obama can be elected VP.  That said, it would be a terrible move.  Yes, Obama was reasonably well-liked, moreso than Trump. But I think most people would see it as trying to weasel a candidate in on a technicality and it would backfire with the middle-of-the-road voters and those on the fence about Trump for whatever reason.

    Why the hell is the 22nd written that way anyway?  Maybe it's so someone like Obama can still do something that would put him in the Line of Succession without anyone balking.  Could one interpret "elected to the office of the President..." as including the VP election?  Maybe, but if that was the intent, it was not well-written.

    It wasn't that long ago so maybe history records why it shook out this way, but I'm supposed to be working...
    Well, for starters, I doubt Obama is interested in being VP.  And I guess you'd need a constitutional expert to the weigh in.  I have not heard anyone suggesting Obama is re-entering politics other than the star-struck 10 club members who can not move on...
  • Hi!Hi! Posts: 1,612
    OnWis97 said:
    mrussel1 said:

    Or, if you are not weirdly ignorant. You would understand that things (like a society) change with time, and you might have to update, change or clarify it in the future and the things you cover might not be everything that will come up in the next couple of centuries. Like for example, if a President can be president for two terms or if he can be elected for two terms.

    Just a thought. 
    We don't re-write our Constitution and form new governments ever 30 years like most of the rest of the world.  Our document has stood the test of time.  So you'll have to excuse the weirdly ignorant Founding Fathers in favor of the geniuses that can't write a Constitution that survives a half century.  It was structured in such a way that they understood times would change, only setting down concrete principles.  The rest would be left to the branches of gov't.  This is what Cincy tried to explain to you, which you somehow think is counter-argued by a a conversation with Guy 1 and Guy 2.  If only Jefferson were as smart as you... 
    We don't re-write our "fundamental laws" that often either, but we adjust and add to them when we feel it is needed. So that questions don't need to be up in the air or things written for a different time needs to be forced into being applied to a modern world. It is not done "on a whim" though.

    The "form new governments"-thing I don't understand what you mean by. 

    If your constitution with these "concrete principles" are instead of concrete - diffuse, and there are these branches deciding how to interpret the text and set precedent - then Obama should stress-test that part to figure out those concrete/diffuse principles. Haha. I just think that is one fundamental thing that should have been clarified sometime during all this time -- the same with if a president can be arrested for a crime. Write some god damn amendments people.

    OBAMA TWENTYTWENTY


    Obama served his 2 terms, time to move on.  All politicians should be placed on term limits...ALL
    I do think Spiritual Chaos has a point here...not as to whether it's time to move on or the pros/cons of Obama weaseling back in.  This is a strangely written rule. There are things in our constitution that are open to interpretation and law kind of has to be more often than some would like.  But this "not elected more than twice" business is really, really odd.  It almost seems like it was intentionally written to be less-restrictive so we could use common sense to determine what's right later.  But if the idea was truly to avoid something like Obama becoming VP (and, potentially) president after serving two full terms, then it was really poorly done.

    Per the letter of that rule, I'd say Obama can be elected VP.  That said, it would be a terrible move.  Yes, Obama was reasonably well-liked, moreso than Trump. But I think most people would see it as trying to weasel a candidate in on a technicality and it would backfire with the middle-of-the-road voters and those on the fence about Trump for whatever reason.

    Why the hell is the 22nd written that way anyway?  Maybe it's so someone like Obama can still do something that would put him in the Line of Succession without anyone balking.  Could one interpret "elected to the office of the President..." as including the VP election?  Maybe, but if that was the intent, it was not well-written.

    It wasn't that long ago so maybe history records why it shook out this way, but I'm supposed to be working...
    Well, for starters, I doubt Obama is interested in being VP.  And I guess you'd need a constitutional expert to the weigh in.  I have not heard anyone suggesting Obama is re-entering politics other than the star-struck 10 club members who can not move on...
    Nobody said that, but ok.......
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 16,700
    OnWis97 said:
    mrussel1 said:

    Or, if you are not weirdly ignorant. You would understand that things (like a society) change with time, and you might have to update, change or clarify it in the future and the things you cover might not be everything that will come up in the next couple of centuries. Like for example, if a President can be president for two terms or if he can be elected for two terms.

    Just a thought. 
    We don't re-write our Constitution and form new governments ever 30 years like most of the rest of the world.  Our document has stood the test of time.  So you'll have to excuse the weirdly ignorant Founding Fathers in favor of the geniuses that can't write a Constitution that survives a half century.  It was structured in such a way that they understood times would change, only setting down concrete principles.  The rest would be left to the branches of gov't.  This is what Cincy tried to explain to you, which you somehow think is counter-argued by a a conversation with Guy 1 and Guy 2.  If only Jefferson were as smart as you... 
    We don't re-write our "fundamental laws" that often either, but we adjust and add to them when we feel it is needed. So that questions don't need to be up in the air or things written for a different time needs to be forced into being applied to a modern world. It is not done "on a whim" though.

    The "form new governments"-thing I don't understand what you mean by. 

    If your constitution with these "concrete principles" are instead of concrete - diffuse, and there are these branches deciding how to interpret the text and set precedent - then Obama should stress-test that part to figure out those concrete/diffuse principles. Haha. I just think that is one fundamental thing that should have been clarified sometime during all this time -- the same with if a president can be arrested for a crime. Write some god damn amendments people.

    OBAMA TWENTYTWENTY


    Obama served his 2 terms, time to move on.  All politicians should be placed on term limits...ALL
    I do think Spiritual Chaos has a point here...not as to whether it's time to move on or the pros/cons of Obama weaseling back in.  This is a strangely written rule. There are things in our constitution that are open to interpretation and law kind of has to be more often than some would like.  But this "not elected more than twice" business is really, really odd.  It almost seems like it was intentionally written to be less-restrictive so we could use common sense to determine what's right later.  But if the idea was truly to avoid something like Obama becoming VP (and, potentially) president after serving two full terms, then it was really poorly done.

    Per the letter of that rule, I'd say Obama can be elected VP.  That said, it would be a terrible move.  Yes, Obama was reasonably well-liked, moreso than Trump. But I think most people would see it as trying to weasel a candidate in on a technicality and it would backfire with the middle-of-the-road voters and those on the fence about Trump for whatever reason.

    Why the hell is the 22nd written that way anyway?  Maybe it's so someone like Obama can still do something that would put him in the Line of Succession without anyone balking.  Could one interpret "elected to the office of the President..." as including the VP election?  Maybe, but if that was the intent, it was not well-written.

    It wasn't that long ago so maybe history records why it shook out this way, but I'm supposed to be working...
    Well, for starters, I doubt Obama is interested in being VP.  And I guess you'd need a constitutional expert to the weigh in.  I have not heard anyone suggesting Obama is re-entering politics other than the star-struck 10 club members who can not move on...
    Change Obama to President-who-has-served-two-terms-X then, if it helps you. Not having a plainly understandable rule about how long a President can be President seems a bit broken. However amazing those 1800s papers with your constitution is.

    But that's kiind of off topic in this thread. 

    BERNIE 2020
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 14,177
    OnWis97 said:
    mrussel1 said:

    Or, if you are not weirdly ignorant. You would understand that things (like a society) change with time, and you might have to update, change or clarify it in the future and the things you cover might not be everything that will come up in the next couple of centuries. Like for example, if a President can be president for two terms or if he can be elected for two terms.

    Just a thought. 
    We don't re-write our Constitution and form new governments ever 30 years like most of the rest of the world.  Our document has stood the test of time.  So you'll have to excuse the weirdly ignorant Founding Fathers in favor of the geniuses that can't write a Constitution that survives a half century.  It was structured in such a way that they understood times would change, only setting down concrete principles.  The rest would be left to the branches of gov't.  This is what Cincy tried to explain to you, which you somehow think is counter-argued by a a conversation with Guy 1 and Guy 2.  If only Jefferson were as smart as you... 
    We don't re-write our "fundamental laws" that often either, but we adjust and add to them when we feel it is needed. So that questions don't need to be up in the air or things written for a different time needs to be forced into being applied to a modern world. It is not done "on a whim" though.

    The "form new governments"-thing I don't understand what you mean by. 

    If your constitution with these "concrete principles" are instead of concrete - diffuse, and there are these branches deciding how to interpret the text and set precedent - then Obama should stress-test that part to figure out those concrete/diffuse principles. Haha. I just think that is one fundamental thing that should have been clarified sometime during all this time -- the same with if a president can be arrested for a crime. Write some god damn amendments people.

    OBAMA TWENTYTWENTY


    Obama served his 2 terms, time to move on.  All politicians should be placed on term limits...ALL
    I do think Spiritual Chaos has a point here...not as to whether it's time to move on or the pros/cons of Obama weaseling back in.  This is a strangely written rule. There are things in our constitution that are open to interpretation and law kind of has to be more often than some would like.  But this "not elected more than twice" business is really, really odd.  It almost seems like it was intentionally written to be less-restrictive so we could use common sense to determine what's right later.  But if the idea was truly to avoid something like Obama becoming VP (and, potentially) president after serving two full terms, then it was really poorly done.

    Per the letter of that rule, I'd say Obama can be elected VP.  That said, it would be a terrible move.  Yes, Obama was reasonably well-liked, moreso than Trump. But I think most people would see it as trying to weasel a candidate in on a technicality and it would backfire with the middle-of-the-road voters and those on the fence about Trump for whatever reason.

    Why the hell is the 22nd written that way anyway?  Maybe it's so someone like Obama can still do something that would put him in the Line of Succession without anyone balking.  Could one interpret "elected to the office of the President..." as including the VP election?  Maybe, but if that was the intent, it was not well-written.

    It wasn't that long ago so maybe history records why it shook out this way, but I'm supposed to be working...
    Well, for starters, I doubt Obama is interested in being VP.  And I guess you'd need a constitutional expert to the weigh in.  I have not heard anyone suggesting Obama is re-entering politics other than the star-struck 10 club members who can not move on...
    You both bring up good points, and it stands to reason that it was written the way it was in order to not be overly restrictive and create a new Constitutional crisis.  What I mean by that is that line of succession is set, and the intent was to allow that to take place in the event of catastrophe.  That means a former president can be Speaker or VP without changing the line of succession.  The fact that it is written "elected twice" is the plain language that Obama can be VP or Speaker without interrupting the line.  I don't know how you would interpret it any other way without inventing words or intent that doesn't exist in the words.  
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 14,177
    OnWis97 said:
    mrussel1 said:

    Or, if you are not weirdly ignorant. You would understand that things (like a society) change with time, and you might have to update, change or clarify it in the future and the things you cover might not be everything that will come up in the next couple of centuries. Like for example, if a President can be president for two terms or if he can be elected for two terms.

    Just a thought. 
    We don't re-write our Constitution and form new governments ever 30 years like most of the rest of the world.  Our document has stood the test of time.  So you'll have to excuse the weirdly ignorant Founding Fathers in favor of the geniuses that can't write a Constitution that survives a half century.  It was structured in such a way that they understood times would change, only setting down concrete principles.  The rest would be left to the branches of gov't.  This is what Cincy tried to explain to you, which you somehow think is counter-argued by a a conversation with Guy 1 and Guy 2.  If only Jefferson were as smart as you... 
    We don't re-write our "fundamental laws" that often either, but we adjust and add to them when we feel it is needed. So that questions don't need to be up in the air or things written for a different time needs to be forced into being applied to a modern world. It is not done "on a whim" though.

    The "form new governments"-thing I don't understand what you mean by. 

    If your constitution with these "concrete principles" are instead of concrete - diffuse, and there are these branches deciding how to interpret the text and set precedent - then Obama should stress-test that part to figure out those concrete/diffuse principles. Haha. I just think that is one fundamental thing that should have been clarified sometime during all this time -- the same with if a president can be arrested for a crime. Write some god damn amendments people.

    OBAMA TWENTYTWENTY


    Obama served his 2 terms, time to move on.  All politicians should be placed on term limits...ALL
    I do think Spiritual Chaos has a point here...not as to whether it's time to move on or the pros/cons of Obama weaseling back in.  This is a strangely written rule. There are things in our constitution that are open to interpretation and law kind of has to be more often than some would like.  But this "not elected more than twice" business is really, really odd.  It almost seems like it was intentionally written to be less-restrictive so we could use common sense to determine what's right later.  But if the idea was truly to avoid something like Obama becoming VP (and, potentially) president after serving two full terms, then it was really poorly done.

    Per the letter of that rule, I'd say Obama can be elected VP.  That said, it would be a terrible move.  Yes, Obama was reasonably well-liked, moreso than Trump. But I think most people would see it as trying to weasel a candidate in on a technicality and it would backfire with the middle-of-the-road voters and those on the fence about Trump for whatever reason.

    Why the hell is the 22nd written that way anyway?  Maybe it's so someone like Obama can still do something that would put him in the Line of Succession without anyone balking.  Could one interpret "elected to the office of the President..." as including the VP election?  Maybe, but if that was the intent, it was not well-written.

    It wasn't that long ago so maybe history records why it shook out this way, but I'm supposed to be working...
    Well, for starters, I doubt Obama is interested in being VP.  And I guess you'd need a constitutional expert to the weigh in.  I have not heard anyone suggesting Obama is re-entering politics other than the star-struck 10 club members who can not move on...
    Change Obama to President-who-has-served-two-terms-X then, if it helps you. Not having a plainly understandable rule about how long a President can be President seems a bit broken. However amazing those 1800s papers with your constitution is.

    But that's kiind of off topic in this thread. 

    BERNIE 2020
    It was ratified in the 50's after FDR was elected 4x.  
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,303
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    mrussel1 said:

    Or, if you are not weirdly ignorant. You would understand that things (like a society) change with time, and you might have to update, change or clarify it in the future and the things you cover might not be everything that will come up in the next couple of centuries. Like for example, if a President can be president for two terms or if he can be elected for two terms.

    Just a thought. 
    We don't re-write our Constitution and form new governments ever 30 years like most of the rest of the world.  Our document has stood the test of time.  So you'll have to excuse the weirdly ignorant Founding Fathers in favor of the geniuses that can't write a Constitution that survives a half century.  It was structured in such a way that they understood times would change, only setting down concrete principles.  The rest would be left to the branches of gov't.  This is what Cincy tried to explain to you, which you somehow think is counter-argued by a a conversation with Guy 1 and Guy 2.  If only Jefferson were as smart as you... 
    We don't re-write our "fundamental laws" that often either, but we adjust and add to them when we feel it is needed. So that questions don't need to be up in the air or things written for a different time needs to be forced into being applied to a modern world. It is not done "on a whim" though.

    The "form new governments"-thing I don't understand what you mean by. 

    If your constitution with these "concrete principles" are instead of concrete - diffuse, and there are these branches deciding how to interpret the text and set precedent - then Obama should stress-test that part to figure out those concrete/diffuse principles. Haha. I just think that is one fundamental thing that should have been clarified sometime during all this time -- the same with if a president can be arrested for a crime. Write some god damn amendments people.

    OBAMA TWENTYTWENTY


    Obama served his 2 terms, time to move on.  All politicians should be placed on term limits...ALL
    I do think Spiritual Chaos has a point here...not as to whether it's time to move on or the pros/cons of Obama weaseling back in.  This is a strangely written rule. There are things in our constitution that are open to interpretation and law kind of has to be more often than some would like.  But this "not elected more than twice" business is really, really odd.  It almost seems like it was intentionally written to be less-restrictive so we could use common sense to determine what's right later.  But if the idea was truly to avoid something like Obama becoming VP (and, potentially) president after serving two full terms, then it was really poorly done.

    Per the letter of that rule, I'd say Obama can be elected VP.  That said, it would be a terrible move.  Yes, Obama was reasonably well-liked, moreso than Trump. But I think most people would see it as trying to weasel a candidate in on a technicality and it would backfire with the middle-of-the-road voters and those on the fence about Trump for whatever reason.

    Why the hell is the 22nd written that way anyway?  Maybe it's so someone like Obama can still do something that would put him in the Line of Succession without anyone balking.  Could one interpret "elected to the office of the President..." as including the VP election?  Maybe, but if that was the intent, it was not well-written.

    It wasn't that long ago so maybe history records why it shook out this way, but I'm supposed to be working...
    Well, for starters, I doubt Obama is interested in being VP.  And I guess you'd need a constitutional expert to the weigh in.  I have not heard anyone suggesting Obama is re-entering politics other than the star-struck 10 club members who can not move on...
    You both bring up good points, and it stands to reason that it was written the way it was in order to not be overly restrictive and create a new Constitutional crisis.  What I mean by that is that line of succession is set, and the intent was to allow that to take place in the event of catastrophe.  That means a former president can be Speaker or VP without changing the line of succession.  The fact that it is written "elected twice" is the plain language that Obama can be VP or Speaker without interrupting the line.  I don't know how you would interpret it any other way without inventing words or intent that doesn't exist in the words.  
    What would be the point of Biden/Obama presidency?  I thought Biden was interested in only one term, so why would he have a running mate that has no chance to elected president when Biden is finished?
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 1,512
    mrussel1 said:
    Man - lots to cover in this thread 

    How about I start with N, Y, N, N, N, N, maybe, Y, N, Y, N, N, N, N, N, N.  ;)



    Theoretically it will get whittled down.  

    In about a year ;)
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 14,177
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    mrussel1 said:

    Or, if you are not weirdly ignorant. You would understand that things (like a society) change with time, and you might have to update, change or clarify it in the future and the things you cover might not be everything that will come up in the next couple of centuries. Like for example, if a President can be president for two terms or if he can be elected for two terms.

    Just a thought. 
    We don't re-write our Constitution and form new governments ever 30 years like most of the rest of the world.  Our document has stood the test of time.  So you'll have to excuse the weirdly ignorant Founding Fathers in favor of the geniuses that can't write a Constitution that survives a half century.  It was structured in such a way that they understood times would change, only setting down concrete principles.  The rest would be left to the branches of gov't.  This is what Cincy tried to explain to you, which you somehow think is counter-argued by a a conversation with Guy 1 and Guy 2.  If only Jefferson were as smart as you... 
    We don't re-write our "fundamental laws" that often either, but we adjust and add to them when we feel it is needed. So that questions don't need to be up in the air or things written for a different time needs to be forced into being applied to a modern world. It is not done "on a whim" though.

    The "form new governments"-thing I don't understand what you mean by. 

    If your constitution with these "concrete principles" are instead of concrete - diffuse, and there are these branches deciding how to interpret the text and set precedent - then Obama should stress-test that part to figure out those concrete/diffuse principles. Haha. I just think that is one fundamental thing that should have been clarified sometime during all this time -- the same with if a president can be arrested for a crime. Write some god damn amendments people.

    OBAMA TWENTYTWENTY


    Obama served his 2 terms, time to move on.  All politicians should be placed on term limits...ALL
    I do think Spiritual Chaos has a point here...not as to whether it's time to move on or the pros/cons of Obama weaseling back in.  This is a strangely written rule. There are things in our constitution that are open to interpretation and law kind of has to be more often than some would like.  But this "not elected more than twice" business is really, really odd.  It almost seems like it was intentionally written to be less-restrictive so we could use common sense to determine what's right later.  But if the idea was truly to avoid something like Obama becoming VP (and, potentially) president after serving two full terms, then it was really poorly done.

    Per the letter of that rule, I'd say Obama can be elected VP.  That said, it would be a terrible move.  Yes, Obama was reasonably well-liked, moreso than Trump. But I think most people would see it as trying to weasel a candidate in on a technicality and it would backfire with the middle-of-the-road voters and those on the fence about Trump for whatever reason.

    Why the hell is the 22nd written that way anyway?  Maybe it's so someone like Obama can still do something that would put him in the Line of Succession without anyone balking.  Could one interpret "elected to the office of the President..." as including the VP election?  Maybe, but if that was the intent, it was not well-written.

    It wasn't that long ago so maybe history records why it shook out this way, but I'm supposed to be working...
    Well, for starters, I doubt Obama is interested in being VP.  And I guess you'd need a constitutional expert to the weigh in.  I have not heard anyone suggesting Obama is re-entering politics other than the star-struck 10 club members who can not move on...
    You both bring up good points, and it stands to reason that it was written the way it was in order to not be overly restrictive and create a new Constitutional crisis.  What I mean by that is that line of succession is set, and the intent was to allow that to take place in the event of catastrophe.  That means a former president can be Speaker or VP without changing the line of succession.  The fact that it is written "elected twice" is the plain language that Obama can be VP or Speaker without interrupting the line.  I don't know how you would interpret it any other way without inventing words or intent that doesn't exist in the words.  
    What would be the point of Biden/Obama presidency?  I thought Biden was interested in only one term, so why would he have a running mate that has no chance to elected president when Biden is finished?
    I'm not a proponent of the strategy, I'm just opining that it is possible from the plain reading of the amendment.  I don't see Obama as one who would break precedent and create a challenge to an amendment that has not been challenged.  It would be a distraction that he would not want to be part of, in my opinion.  
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 16,700
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    mrussel1 said:

    Or, if you are not weirdly ignorant. You would understand that things (like a society) change with time, and you might have to update, change or clarify it in the future and the things you cover might not be everything that will come up in the next couple of centuries. Like for example, if a President can be president for two terms or if he can be elected for two terms.

    Just a thought. 
    We don't re-write our Constitution and form new governments ever 30 years like most of the rest of the world.  Our document has stood the test of time.  So you'll have to excuse the weirdly ignorant Founding Fathers in favor of the geniuses that can't write a Constitution that survives a half century.  It was structured in such a way that they understood times would change, only setting down concrete principles.  The rest would be left to the branches of gov't.  This is what Cincy tried to explain to you, which you somehow think is counter-argued by a a conversation with Guy 1 and Guy 2.  If only Jefferson were as smart as you... 
    We don't re-write our "fundamental laws" that often either, but we adjust and add to them when we feel it is needed. So that questions don't need to be up in the air or things written for a different time needs to be forced into being applied to a modern world. It is not done "on a whim" though.

    The "form new governments"-thing I don't understand what you mean by. 

    If your constitution with these "concrete principles" are instead of concrete - diffuse, and there are these branches deciding how to interpret the text and set precedent - then Obama should stress-test that part to figure out those concrete/diffuse principles. Haha. I just think that is one fundamental thing that should have been clarified sometime during all this time -- the same with if a president can be arrested for a crime. Write some god damn amendments people.

    OBAMA TWENTYTWENTY


    Obama served his 2 terms, time to move on.  All politicians should be placed on term limits...ALL
    I do think Spiritual Chaos has a point here...not as to whether it's time to move on or the pros/cons of Obama weaseling back in.  This is a strangely written rule. There are things in our constitution that are open to interpretation and law kind of has to be more often than some would like.  But this "not elected more than twice" business is really, really odd.  It almost seems like it was intentionally written to be less-restrictive so we could use common sense to determine what's right later.  But if the idea was truly to avoid something like Obama becoming VP (and, potentially) president after serving two full terms, then it was really poorly done.

    Per the letter of that rule, I'd say Obama can be elected VP.  That said, it would be a terrible move.  Yes, Obama was reasonably well-liked, moreso than Trump. But I think most people would see it as trying to weasel a candidate in on a technicality and it would backfire with the middle-of-the-road voters and those on the fence about Trump for whatever reason.

    Why the hell is the 22nd written that way anyway?  Maybe it's so someone like Obama can still do something that would put him in the Line of Succession without anyone balking.  Could one interpret "elected to the office of the President..." as including the VP election?  Maybe, but if that was the intent, it was not well-written.

    It wasn't that long ago so maybe history records why it shook out this way, but I'm supposed to be working...
    Well, for starters, I doubt Obama is interested in being VP.  And I guess you'd need a constitutional expert to the weigh in.  I have not heard anyone suggesting Obama is re-entering politics other than the star-struck 10 club members who can not move on...
    You both bring up good points, and it stands to reason that it was written the way it was in order to not be overly restrictive and create a new Constitutional crisis.  What I mean by that is that line of succession is set, and the intent was to allow that to take place in the event of catastrophe.  That means a former president can be Speaker or VP without changing the line of succession.  The fact that it is written "elected twice" is the plain language that Obama can be VP or Speaker without interrupting the line.  I don't know how you would interpret it any other way without inventing words or intent that doesn't exist in the words.  
    What would be the point of Biden/Obama presidency?  I thought Biden was interested in only one term, so why would he have a running mate that has no chance to elected president when Biden is finished?
    Read the last page. This is just what we have been discussed - because the US don't know it's own rules. Regarding Obamas third term.


    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,303
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    mrussel1 said:

    Or, if you are not weirdly ignorant. You would understand that things (like a society) change with time, and you might have to update, change or clarify it in the future and the things you cover might not be everything that will come up in the next couple of centuries. Like for example, if a President can be president for two terms or if he can be elected for two terms.

    Just a thought. 
    We don't re-write our Constitution and form new governments ever 30 years like most of the rest of the world.  Our document has stood the test of time.  So you'll have to excuse the weirdly ignorant Founding Fathers in favor of the geniuses that can't write a Constitution that survives a half century.  It was structured in such a way that they understood times would change, only setting down concrete principles.  The rest would be left to the branches of gov't.  This is what Cincy tried to explain to you, which you somehow think is counter-argued by a a conversation with Guy 1 and Guy 2.  If only Jefferson were as smart as you... 
    We don't re-write our "fundamental laws" that often either, but we adjust and add to them when we feel it is needed. So that questions don't need to be up in the air or things written for a different time needs to be forced into being applied to a modern world. It is not done "on a whim" though.

    The "form new governments"-thing I don't understand what you mean by. 

    If your constitution with these "concrete principles" are instead of concrete - diffuse, and there are these branches deciding how to interpret the text and set precedent - then Obama should stress-test that part to figure out those concrete/diffuse principles. Haha. I just think that is one fundamental thing that should have been clarified sometime during all this time -- the same with if a president can be arrested for a crime. Write some god damn amendments people.

    OBAMA TWENTYTWENTY


    Obama served his 2 terms, time to move on.  All politicians should be placed on term limits...ALL
    I do think Spiritual Chaos has a point here...not as to whether it's time to move on or the pros/cons of Obama weaseling back in.  This is a strangely written rule. There are things in our constitution that are open to interpretation and law kind of has to be more often than some would like.  But this "not elected more than twice" business is really, really odd.  It almost seems like it was intentionally written to be less-restrictive so we could use common sense to determine what's right later.  But if the idea was truly to avoid something like Obama becoming VP (and, potentially) president after serving two full terms, then it was really poorly done.

    Per the letter of that rule, I'd say Obama can be elected VP.  That said, it would be a terrible move.  Yes, Obama was reasonably well-liked, moreso than Trump. But I think most people would see it as trying to weasel a candidate in on a technicality and it would backfire with the middle-of-the-road voters and those on the fence about Trump for whatever reason.

    Why the hell is the 22nd written that way anyway?  Maybe it's so someone like Obama can still do something that would put him in the Line of Succession without anyone balking.  Could one interpret "elected to the office of the President..." as including the VP election?  Maybe, but if that was the intent, it was not well-written.

    It wasn't that long ago so maybe history records why it shook out this way, but I'm supposed to be working...
    Well, for starters, I doubt Obama is interested in being VP.  And I guess you'd need a constitutional expert to the weigh in.  I have not heard anyone suggesting Obama is re-entering politics other than the star-struck 10 club members who can not move on...
    You both bring up good points, and it stands to reason that it was written the way it was in order to not be overly restrictive and create a new Constitutional crisis.  What I mean by that is that line of succession is set, and the intent was to allow that to take place in the event of catastrophe.  That means a former president can be Speaker or VP without changing the line of succession.  The fact that it is written "elected twice" is the plain language that Obama can be VP or Speaker without interrupting the line.  I don't know how you would interpret it any other way without inventing words or intent that doesn't exist in the words.  
    What would be the point of Biden/Obama presidency?  I thought Biden was interested in only one term, so why would he have a running mate that has no chance to elected president when Biden is finished?
    I'm not a proponent of the strategy, I'm just opining that it is possible from the plain reading of the amendment.  I don't see Obama as one who would break precedent and create a challenge to an amendment that has not been challenged.  It would be a distraction that he would not want to be part of, in my opinion.  
    Obama was a professor of constitutional law? am I correct, or was that someone else.  I agree he is not breaking precedent.  And whether some on here like to admit it or not, I'm not so sure Obama would want to be VP, after 8 years as president.  And once again, outside the few star-struck people, I have not heard his name come up for a return to politics.


  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,303
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    mrussel1 said:

    Or, if you are not weirdly ignorant. You would understand that things (like a society) change with time, and you might have to update, change or clarify it in the future and the things you cover might not be everything that will come up in the next couple of centuries. Like for example, if a President can be president for two terms or if he can be elected for two terms.

    Just a thought. 
    We don't re-write our Constitution and form new governments ever 30 years like most of the rest of the world.  Our document has stood the test of time.  So you'll have to excuse the weirdly ignorant Founding Fathers in favor of the geniuses that can't write a Constitution that survives a half century.  It was structured in such a way that they understood times would change, only setting down concrete principles.  The rest would be left to the branches of gov't.  This is what Cincy tried to explain to you, which you somehow think is counter-argued by a a conversation with Guy 1 and Guy 2.  If only Jefferson were as smart as you... 
    We don't re-write our "fundamental laws" that often either, but we adjust and add to them when we feel it is needed. So that questions don't need to be up in the air or things written for a different time needs to be forced into being applied to a modern world. It is not done "on a whim" though.

    The "form new governments"-thing I don't understand what you mean by. 

    If your constitution with these "concrete principles" are instead of concrete - diffuse, and there are these branches deciding how to interpret the text and set precedent - then Obama should stress-test that part to figure out those concrete/diffuse principles. Haha. I just think that is one fundamental thing that should have been clarified sometime during all this time -- the same with if a president can be arrested for a crime. Write some god damn amendments people.

    OBAMA TWENTYTWENTY


    Obama served his 2 terms, time to move on.  All politicians should be placed on term limits...ALL
    I do think Spiritual Chaos has a point here...not as to whether it's time to move on or the pros/cons of Obama weaseling back in.  This is a strangely written rule. There are things in our constitution that are open to interpretation and law kind of has to be more often than some would like.  But this "not elected more than twice" business is really, really odd.  It almost seems like it was intentionally written to be less-restrictive so we could use common sense to determine what's right later.  But if the idea was truly to avoid something like Obama becoming VP (and, potentially) president after serving two full terms, then it was really poorly done.

    Per the letter of that rule, I'd say Obama can be elected VP.  That said, it would be a terrible move.  Yes, Obama was reasonably well-liked, moreso than Trump. But I think most people would see it as trying to weasel a candidate in on a technicality and it would backfire with the middle-of-the-road voters and those on the fence about Trump for whatever reason.

    Why the hell is the 22nd written that way anyway?  Maybe it's so someone like Obama can still do something that would put him in the Line of Succession without anyone balking.  Could one interpret "elected to the office of the President..." as including the VP election?  Maybe, but if that was the intent, it was not well-written.

    It wasn't that long ago so maybe history records why it shook out this way, but I'm supposed to be working...
    Well, for starters, I doubt Obama is interested in being VP.  And I guess you'd need a constitutional expert to the weigh in.  I have not heard anyone suggesting Obama is re-entering politics other than the star-struck 10 club members who can not move on...
    You both bring up good points, and it stands to reason that it was written the way it was in order to not be overly restrictive and create a new Constitutional crisis.  What I mean by that is that line of succession is set, and the intent was to allow that to take place in the event of catastrophe.  That means a former president can be Speaker or VP without changing the line of succession.  The fact that it is written "elected twice" is the plain language that Obama can be VP or Speaker without interrupting the line.  I don't know how you would interpret it any other way without inventing words or intent that doesn't exist in the words.  
    What would be the point of Biden/Obama presidency?  I thought Biden was interested in only one term, so why would he have a running mate that has no chance to elected president when Biden is finished?
    Read the last page. This is just what we have been discussed - because the US don't know it's own rules. Regarding Obamas third term.


    Not every country can have clear cut rules like Sweden. 
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 1,512
    OnWis97 said:
    Might have a chance against Trump:
    • Beto O'Rourke:  Most Obama-like in terms of a personality that will attract moderate voters (and voters in general to hit the polls).

    No chance against Trump:
    • Booker 
    • Buttigieg 
    • Castro 
    • Delaney 
    • Gabbart 
    • Gillibrand 
    • Harris 
    • Hickenlooper 
    • Inslee 
    • Klobuchar
    • Sanders 
    • Warren 
    • Williamson
    • Weld
    • Yang
    • Joe Biden
    • The Starbucks guy with the "I want my taxes lower" platform.
    Might have a chance against Trump:
    • Beto O'Rourke:  Most Obama-like in terms of a personality that will attract moderate voters (and voters in general to hit the polls).
    • Biden
    • Bernie

    No chance against Trump:
    • Booker 
    • Buttigieg 
    • Castro 
    • Delaney 
    • Gabbart 
    • Gillibrand 
    • Harris 
    • Hickenlooper 
    • Inslee 
    • Klobuchar
    • Warren 
    • Williamson
    • Weld
    • Yang
    • The Starbucks guy with the "I want my taxes lower" platform.


    Strongly disagree about Biden. He will get much better support than Hillary from White moderates in the midwest (and elsewhere) which is the exact demo that Trump did so well to pull off his huge upset. Also disagree with an * about Sanders, but will save that for later ;)

    Biden well only have to change about 40,000 minds in this region, something he can easily accomplish.

    Trump will have the power of the incumbency, but many things had to fall perfectly into place for him to pull off his unexpected 2016 upset...

    Things like the Comey letter, drip drip daily email leaks, secret Putin help will not be available this time

    Also, Trump is only interested in governing to his base. A smart Democrat will exploit this as a major Campaign issue in 2020.

    Uh oh, oxymoron, smart Democrat candidate.


  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 14,177
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    mrussel1 said:

    Or, if you are not weirdly ignorant. You would understand that things (like a society) change with time, and you might have to update, change or clarify it in the future and the things you cover might not be everything that will come up in the next couple of centuries. Like for example, if a President can be president for two terms or if he can be elected for two terms.

    Just a thought. 
    We don't re-write our Constitution and form new governments ever 30 years like most of the rest of the world.  Our document has stood the test of time.  So you'll have to excuse the weirdly ignorant Founding Fathers in favor of the geniuses that can't write a Constitution that survives a half century.  It was structured in such a way that they understood times would change, only setting down concrete principles.  The rest would be left to the branches of gov't.  This is what Cincy tried to explain to you, which you somehow think is counter-argued by a a conversation with Guy 1 and Guy 2.  If only Jefferson were as smart as you... 
    We don't re-write our "fundamental laws" that often either, but we adjust and add to them when we feel it is needed. So that questions don't need to be up in the air or things written for a different time needs to be forced into being applied to a modern world. It is not done "on a whim" though.

    The "form new governments"-thing I don't understand what you mean by. 

    If your constitution with these "concrete principles" are instead of concrete - diffuse, and there are these branches deciding how to interpret the text and set precedent - then Obama should stress-test that part to figure out those concrete/diffuse principles. Haha. I just think that is one fundamental thing that should have been clarified sometime during all this time -- the same with if a president can be arrested for a crime. Write some god damn amendments people.

    OBAMA TWENTYTWENTY


    Obama served his 2 terms, time to move on.  All politicians should be placed on term limits...ALL
    I do think Spiritual Chaos has a point here...not as to whether it's time to move on or the pros/cons of Obama weaseling back in.  This is a strangely written rule. There are things in our constitution that are open to interpretation and law kind of has to be more often than some would like.  But this "not elected more than twice" business is really, really odd.  It almost seems like it was intentionally written to be less-restrictive so we could use common sense to determine what's right later.  But if the idea was truly to avoid something like Obama becoming VP (and, potentially) president after serving two full terms, then it was really poorly done.

    Per the letter of that rule, I'd say Obama can be elected VP.  That said, it would be a terrible move.  Yes, Obama was reasonably well-liked, moreso than Trump. But I think most people would see it as trying to weasel a candidate in on a technicality and it would backfire with the middle-of-the-road voters and those on the fence about Trump for whatever reason.

    Why the hell is the 22nd written that way anyway?  Maybe it's so someone like Obama can still do something that would put him in the Line of Succession without anyone balking.  Could one interpret "elected to the office of the President..." as including the VP election?  Maybe, but if that was the intent, it was not well-written.

    It wasn't that long ago so maybe history records why it shook out this way, but I'm supposed to be working...
    Well, for starters, I doubt Obama is interested in being VP.  And I guess you'd need a constitutional expert to the weigh in.  I have not heard anyone suggesting Obama is re-entering politics other than the star-struck 10 club members who can not move on...
    You both bring up good points, and it stands to reason that it was written the way it was in order to not be overly restrictive and create a new Constitutional crisis.  What I mean by that is that line of succession is set, and the intent was to allow that to take place in the event of catastrophe.  That means a former president can be Speaker or VP without changing the line of succession.  The fact that it is written "elected twice" is the plain language that Obama can be VP or Speaker without interrupting the line.  I don't know how you would interpret it any other way without inventing words or intent that doesn't exist in the words.  
    What would be the point of Biden/Obama presidency?  I thought Biden was interested in only one term, so why would he have a running mate that has no chance to elected president when Biden is finished?
    I'm not a proponent of the strategy, I'm just opining that it is possible from the plain reading of the amendment.  I don't see Obama as one who would break precedent and create a challenge to an amendment that has not been challenged.  It would be a distraction that he would not want to be part of, in my opinion.  
    Obama was a professor of constitutional law? am I correct, or was that someone else.  I agree he is not breaking precedent.  And whether some on here like to admit it or not, I'm not so sure Obama would want to be VP, after 8 years as president.  And once again, outside the few star-struck people, I have not heard his name come up for a return to politics.


    Yes he is a professor of Constitutional law, and yes to everything else you say.  I agree with all of it.  It's nice to dream about, but it's not happening.  I would love to see Barack and Michelle on the trail though.  They will draw some audiences.  
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 1,512
    Hi! said:
    I think a  Biden Bernie ticket would be interesting. Bernie obviously would have to be in the vp spot. I think he would do it. Think of the ground they would be able to cover while campaigning. They would both draw huge crowds at rallies and that would reach a lot of voters. Would be like a 2 for 1.
    If Biden/Bernie is as close as  Hillary/Bernie were in 2016, Biden would have to offer the vp to Bernie, right?
    Yeah, Bernie would have to be VP, because I doubt Biden is interested in that spot again. Would he do it, though? And that certainly doesn’t reassure those wanting a one term Biden and then a passing of the torch to a younger nominee. 


    Bingo.

    Biden/ Beto

    Book it!

    Sorry Booker.
  • Hi!Hi! Posts: 1,612
    Could Georgia be in play with Carter in the vp slot? Wonder if he would be interested.
  • Hi!Hi! Posts: 1,612
    Hi! said:
    I think a  Biden Bernie ticket would be interesting. Bernie obviously would have to be in the vp spot. I think he would do it. Think of the ground they would be able to cover while campaigning. They would both draw huge crowds at rallies and that would reach a lot of voters. Would be like a 2 for 1.
    If Biden/Bernie is as close as  Hillary/Bernie were in 2016, Biden would have to offer the vp to Bernie, right?
    Yeah, Bernie would have to be VP, because I doubt Biden is interested in that spot again. Would he do it, though? And that certainly doesn’t reassure those wanting a one term Biden and then a passing of the torch to a younger nominee. 


    Bingo.

    Biden/ Beto

    Book it!

    Sorry Booker.
    That’s how I’m leaning today. I’m worried about not having a woman or minority on the ticket though.
  • Hi!Hi! Posts: 1,612
    edited March 11
    I changed my mind already: Biden/ Abrams 2020
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 12,795
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    mrussel1 said:

    Or, if you are not weirdly ignorant. You would understand that things (like a society) change with time, and you might have to update, change or clarify it in the future and the things you cover might not be everything that will come up in the next couple of centuries. Like for example, if a President can be president for two terms or if he can be elected for two terms.

    Just a thought. 
    We don't re-write our Constitution and form new governments ever 30 years like most of the rest of the world.  Our document has stood the test of time.  So you'll have to excuse the weirdly ignorant Founding Fathers in favor of the geniuses that can't write a Constitution that survives a half century.  It was structured in such a way that they understood times would change, only setting down concrete principles.  The rest would be left to the branches of gov't.  This is what Cincy tried to explain to you, which you somehow think is counter-argued by a a conversation with Guy 1 and Guy 2.  If only Jefferson were as smart as you... 
    We don't re-write our "fundamental laws" that often either, but we adjust and add to them when we feel it is needed. So that questions don't need to be up in the air or things written for a different time needs to be forced into being applied to a modern world. It is not done "on a whim" though.

    The "form new governments"-thing I don't understand what you mean by. 

    If your constitution with these "concrete principles" are instead of concrete - diffuse, and there are these branches deciding how to interpret the text and set precedent - then Obama should stress-test that part to figure out those concrete/diffuse principles. Haha. I just think that is one fundamental thing that should have been clarified sometime during all this time -- the same with if a president can be arrested for a crime. Write some god damn amendments people.

    OBAMA TWENTYTWENTY


    Obama served his 2 terms, time to move on.  All politicians should be placed on term limits...ALL
    I do think Spiritual Chaos has a point here...not as to whether it's time to move on or the pros/cons of Obama weaseling back in.  This is a strangely written rule. There are things in our constitution that are open to interpretation and law kind of has to be more often than some would like.  But this "not elected more than twice" business is really, really odd.  It almost seems like it was intentionally written to be less-restrictive so we could use common sense to determine what's right later.  But if the idea was truly to avoid something like Obama becoming VP (and, potentially) president after serving two full terms, then it was really poorly done.

    Per the letter of that rule, I'd say Obama can be elected VP.  That said, it would be a terrible move.  Yes, Obama was reasonably well-liked, moreso than Trump. But I think most people would see it as trying to weasel a candidate in on a technicality and it would backfire with the middle-of-the-road voters and those on the fence about Trump for whatever reason.

    Why the hell is the 22nd written that way anyway?  Maybe it's so someone like Obama can still do something that would put him in the Line of Succession without anyone balking.  Could one interpret "elected to the office of the President..." as including the VP election?  Maybe, but if that was the intent, it was not well-written.

    It wasn't that long ago so maybe history records why it shook out this way, but I'm supposed to be working...
    Well, for starters, I doubt Obama is interested in being VP.  And I guess you'd need a constitutional expert to the weigh in.  I have not heard anyone suggesting Obama is re-entering politics other than the star-struck 10 club members who can not move on...
    Change Obama to President-who-has-served-two-terms-X then, if it helps you. Not having a plainly understandable rule about how long a President can be President seems a bit broken. However amazing those 1800s papers with your constitution is.

    But that's kiind of off topic in this thread. 

    BERNIE 2020
    It was ratified in the 50's after FDR was elected 4x.  
     Yeah I don’t understand. There is a constitutional amendment that says a person may only be elected president 2x.  So it’s there.

    Now strict view would allow a former president to take over as president if they were the VP when the president had to leave office. But they couldn’t run for election. It seems written plainly clear. 


    hippiemom = goodness
  • ikiTikiT USAPosts: 8,158
    Boot egde edge seems smart AF.  Seriously.
    Bristow VA 05132010 Montreal QC 09072011 Worcester MA 10152013-10162013 Charlottesville VA 10292013 Phoenix AZ 11192013 Leeds UK 07082014 Memphis TN 10142014
    Hampton VA 04182016 Columbia SC 04212016 Fenway Park Boston MA 08072016 Amsterdam NL 06132018

    EV Providence 06152011 
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 16,700
    edited March 11
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    mrussel1 said:

    Or, if you are not weirdly ignorant. You would understand that things (like a society) change with time, and you might have to update, change or clarify it in the future and the things you cover might not be everything that will come up in the next couple of centuries. Like for example, if a President can be president for two terms or if he can be elected for two terms.

    Just a thought. 
    We don't re-write our Constitution and form new governments ever 30 years like most of the rest of the world.  Our document has stood the test of time.  So you'll have to excuse the weirdly ignorant Founding Fathers in favor of the geniuses that can't write a Constitution that survives a half century.  It was structured in such a way that they understood times would change, only setting down concrete principles.  The rest would be left to the branches of gov't.  This is what Cincy tried to explain to you, which you somehow think is counter-argued by a a conversation with Guy 1 and Guy 2.  If only Jefferson were as smart as you... 
    We don't re-write our "fundamental laws" that often either, but we adjust and add to them when we feel it is needed. So that questions don't need to be up in the air or things written for a different time needs to be forced into being applied to a modern world. It is not done "on a whim" though.

    The "form new governments"-thing I don't understand what you mean by. 

    If your constitution with these "concrete principles" are instead of concrete - diffuse, and there are these branches deciding how to interpret the text and set precedent - then Obama should stress-test that part to figure out those concrete/diffuse principles. Haha. I just think that is one fundamental thing that should have been clarified sometime during all this time -- the same with if a president can be arrested for a crime. Write some god damn amendments people.

    OBAMA TWENTYTWENTY


    Obama served his 2 terms, time to move on.  All politicians should be placed on term limits...ALL
    I do think Spiritual Chaos has a point here...not as to whether it's time to move on or the pros/cons of Obama weaseling back in.  This is a strangely written rule. There are things in our constitution that are open to interpretation and law kind of has to be more often than some would like.  But this "not elected more than twice" business is really, really odd.  It almost seems like it was intentionally written to be less-restrictive so we could use common sense to determine what's right later.  But if the idea was truly to avoid something like Obama becoming VP (and, potentially) president after serving two full terms, then it was really poorly done.

    Per the letter of that rule, I'd say Obama can be elected VP.  That said, it would be a terrible move.  Yes, Obama was reasonably well-liked, moreso than Trump. But I think most people would see it as trying to weasel a candidate in on a technicality and it would backfire with the middle-of-the-road voters and those on the fence about Trump for whatever reason.

    Why the hell is the 22nd written that way anyway?  Maybe it's so someone like Obama can still do something that would put him in the Line of Succession without anyone balking.  Could one interpret "elected to the office of the President..." as including the VP election?  Maybe, but if that was the intent, it was not well-written.

    It wasn't that long ago so maybe history records why it shook out this way, but I'm supposed to be working...
    Well, for starters, I doubt Obama is interested in being VP.  And I guess you'd need a constitutional expert to the weigh in.  I have not heard anyone suggesting Obama is re-entering politics other than the star-struck 10 club members who can not move on...
    You both bring up good points, and it stands to reason that it was written the way it was in order to not be overly restrictive and create a new Constitutional crisis.  What I mean by that is that line of succession is set, and the intent was to allow that to take place in the event of catastrophe.  That means a former president can be Speaker or VP without changing the line of succession.  The fact that it is written "elected twice" is the plain language that Obama can be VP or Speaker without interrupting the line.  I don't know how you would interpret it any other way without inventing words or intent that doesn't exist in the words.  
    What would be the point of Biden/Obama presidency?  I thought Biden was interested in only one term, so why would he have a running mate that has no chance to elected president when Biden is finished?
    Read the last page. This is just what we have been discussed - because the US don't know it's own rules. Regarding Obamas third term.


    Not every country can have clear cut rules like Sweden. 
    That is not an excuse. 


    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
This discussion has been closed.