The Democratic Candidates

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

Definitely a gray area:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/former-president-becomes-vice-president/

The Founding Fathers placed no limits in the U.S. Constitution regarding how many times any one person could be elected (or otherwise serve) as President of the United States. However, in 1947 (after Franklin D. Roosevelt had broken with tradition and the Democrats won five consecutive presidential elections), Congress passed the 22nd amendment, ratified by the requisite number of states in 1951, which created a two-term limit for future Presidents. That amendment (along with earlier constitutional restrictions) would seem to disqualify Barack Obama from ever again attaining the office of President or Vice President of the United States, as he was elected to, and served, two full terms in that office between 2009 and 2017.

However, the wording of the 22nd Amendment doesn’t literally say that no one can be President for more than two terms; only that no one can be elected President more than twice.

Presumably this still leaves open the loophole (intended or not) that one who had already been elected twice could still serve as President again by attaining that office through other means — particularly, by being elected or appointed Vice-President (and thus becoming next in the line of presidential succession) when the sitting President dies, becomes incapacitated, or resigns.

America again with it's weird and badly written laws.

"We don't know if Trump can be arrested while being President" etc etc.

This is Ross and Rachel level of interpretation:



"Be elected two times" or "Be the president for more than two terms" - it should be pretty clear what the people figuring out the rule meant?

(Would be cool to have Obama Bidens VP with the soul purpose of Biden wanting the US to get another term of Obama)

What seems normal and easy to understand can certainly have some different interpretations over hundreds of years.

Then keep it updated. 

I get fighting over how to play Monopoly. But a countries foundation shouldn't be less clear than Monopoly.

Check yourself before you Trump yourself.

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

Definitely a gray area:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/former-president-becomes-vice-president/

The Founding Fathers placed no limits in the U.S. Constitution regarding how many times any one person could be elected (or otherwise serve) as President of the United States. However, in 1947 (after Franklin D. Roosevelt had broken with tradition and the Democrats won five consecutive presidential elections), Congress passed the 22nd amendment, ratified by the requisite number of states in 1951, which created a two-term limit for future Presidents. That amendment (along with earlier constitutional restrictions) would seem to disqualify Barack Obama from ever again attaining the office of President or Vice President of the United States, as he was elected to, and served, two full terms in that office between 2009 and 2017.

However, the wording of the 22nd Amendment doesn’t literally say that no one can be President for more than two terms; only that no one can be elected President more than twice.

Presumably this still leaves open the loophole (intended or not) that one who had already been elected twice could still serve as President again by attaining that office through other means — particularly, by being elected or appointed Vice-President (and thus becoming next in the line of presidential succession) when the sitting President dies, becomes incapacitated, or resigns.

America again with it's weird and badly written laws.

"We don't know if Trump can be arrested while being President" etc etc.

This is Ross and Rachel level of interpretation:



"Be elected two times" or "Be the president for more than two terms" - it should be pretty clear what the people figuring out the rule meant?

(Would be cool to have Obama Bidens VP with the soul purpose of Biden wanting the US to get another term of Obama)

What seems normal and easy to understand can certainly have some different interpretations over hundreds of years.

Then keep it updated. 

I get fighting over how to play Monopoly. But a countries foundation shouldn't be less clear than Monopoly.

Check yourself before you Trump yourself.

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

Definitely a gray area:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/former-president-becomes-vice-president/

The Founding Fathers placed no limits in the U.S. Constitution regarding how many times any one person could be elected (or otherwise serve) as President of the United States. However, in 1947 (after Franklin D. Roosevelt had broken with tradition and the Democrats won five consecutive presidential elections), Congress passed the 22nd amendment, ratified by the requisite number of states in 1951, which created a two-term limit for future Presidents. That amendment (along with earlier constitutional restrictions) would seem to disqualify Barack Obama from ever again attaining the office of President or Vice President of the United States, as he was elected to, and served, two full terms in that office between 2009 and 2017.

However, the wording of the 22nd Amendment doesn’t literally say that no one can be President for more than two terms; only that no one can be elected President more than twice.

Presumably this still leaves open the loophole (intended or not) that one who had already been elected twice could still serve as President again by attaining that office through other means — particularly, by being elected or appointed Vice-President (and thus becoming next in the line of presidential succession) when the sitting President dies, becomes incapacitated, or resigns.

America again with it's weird and badly written laws.

"We don't know if Trump can be arrested while being President" etc etc.

This is Ross and Rachel level of interpretation:



"Be elected two times" or "Be the president for more than two terms" - it should be pretty clear what the people figuring out the rule meant?

(Would be cool to have Obama Bidens VP with the soul purpose of Biden wanting the US to get another term of Obama)

What seems normal and easy to understand can certainly have some different interpretations over hundreds of years.

Then keep it updated. 

I get fighting over how to play Monopoly. But a countries foundation shouldn't be less clear than Monopoly.

Check yourself before you Trump yourself.

I understand what you are saying, but I don;t think you understand how hard it is.  

For example; I do a specific line of work and I move to different locations within the same company.  At each of these companies I am in charge of working with site leadership to develop a certain set of rules/standards.  Well guess what?  Each time we work through the same issues of interpretation.  And if you try to be too prescriptive you end up with a ridiculously long document that still leaves situations out.  With humans, I do not think there is anyway to make stuff full proof.  But then again, the founding father's knew that...hence the supreme court as a separate branch.

mcgruff10 said:

I d love a Biden/Obama ticket. I m definitely not a fan of booker or warren.  

Would be like a movie if that happend. Haha. 

"And this time around, I will be Joes bitch"

*Obama laughs*

*Everyone laughs*

*Pearl Jam plats the inaugural*

I’m voting for Beto because I like his air drumming.

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

Definitely a gray area:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/former-president-becomes-vice-president/

The Founding Fathers placed no limits in the U.S. Constitution regarding how many times any one person could be elected (or otherwise serve) as President of the United States. However, in 1947 (after Franklin D. Roosevelt had broken with tradition and the Democrats won five consecutive presidential elections), Congress passed the 22nd amendment, ratified by the requisite number of states in 1951, which created a two-term limit for future Presidents. That amendment (along with earlier constitutional restrictions) would seem to disqualify Barack Obama from ever again attaining the office of President or Vice President of the United States, as he was elected to, and served, two full terms in that office between 2009 and 2017.

However, the wording of the 22nd Amendment doesn’t literally say that no one can be President for more than two terms; only that no one can be elected President more than twice.

Presumably this still leaves open the loophole (intended or not) that one who had already been elected twice could still serve as President again by attaining that office through other means — particularly, by being elected or appointed Vice-President (and thus becoming next in the line of presidential succession) when the sitting President dies, becomes incapacitated, or resigns.

America again with it's weird and badly written laws.

"We don't know if Trump can be arrested while being President" etc etc.

This is Ross and Rachel level of interpretation:



"Be elected two times" or "Be the president for more than two terms" - it should be pretty clear what the people figuring out the rule meant?

(Would be cool to have Obama Bidens VP with the soul purpose of Biden wanting the US to get another term of Obama)

What seems normal and easy to understand can certainly have some different interpretations over hundreds of years.

Then keep it updated. 

I get fighting over how to play Monopoly. But a countries foundation shouldn't be less clear than Monopoly.

Check yourself before you Trump yourself.

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

Definitely a gray area:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/former-president-becomes-vice-president/

The Founding Fathers placed no limits in the U.S. Constitution regarding how many times any one person could be elected (or otherwise serve) as President of the United States. However, in 1947 (after Franklin D. Roosevelt had broken with tradition and the Democrats won five consecutive presidential elections), Congress passed the 22nd amendment, ratified by the requisite number of states in 1951, which created a two-term limit for future Presidents. That amendment (along with earlier constitutional restrictions) would seem to disqualify Barack Obama from ever again attaining the office of President or Vice President of the United States, as he was elected to, and served, two full terms in that office between 2009 and 2017.

However, the wording of the 22nd Amendment doesn’t literally say that no one can be President for more than two terms; only that no one can be elected President more than twice.

Presumably this still leaves open the loophole (intended or not) that one who had already been elected twice could still serve as President again by attaining that office through other means — particularly, by being elected or appointed Vice-President (and thus becoming next in the line of presidential succession) when the sitting President dies, becomes incapacitated, or resigns.

America again with it's weird and badly written laws.

"We don't know if Trump can be arrested while being President" etc etc.

This is Ross and Rachel level of interpretation:



"Be elected two times" or "Be the president for more than two terms" - it should be pretty clear what the people figuring out the rule meant?

(Would be cool to have Obama Bidens VP with the soul purpose of Biden wanting the US to get another term of Obama)

What seems normal and easy to understand can certainly have some different interpretations over hundreds of years.

Then keep it updated. 

I get fighting over how to play Monopoly. But a countries foundation shouldn't be less clear than Monopoly.

Check yourself before you Trump yourself.

I understand what you are saying, but I don;t think you understand how hard it is.  

For example; I do a specific line of work and I move to different locations within the same company.  At each of these companies I am in charge of working with site leadership to develop a certain set of rules/standards.  Well guess what?  Each time we work through the same issues of interpretation.  And if you try to be too prescriptive you end up with a ridiculously long document that still leaves situations out.  With humans, I do not think there is anyway to make stuff full proof.  But then again, the founding father's knew that...hence the supreme court as a separate branch.

Guy one: Oh wait... can a President sit more than  two terms or not?
Guy two: I don't know. These old, dusty texts from the 1800s are not as self-explanatory as they thought...
Guy one: Okey. Then let fix that. "A President can only serve for two terms period". Lets vote on that. Everyone in agreement?
Everyone: Yes.
Guy one: Done... oh wait, what does it say here about everyone owning guns like we're stuck in the 1800s? Lets change that too.

Alrighty then, nevermind.

Obama can definitely be vice-president. If he was and the president died or resigned, he would be passed over in favor of the Speaker of the House for succession. Though technically, the 22nd amendment says you can't be elected twice, but doesn't specifically say you can't serve more than two terms...so maybe he would be able to finish out the term of the president if he was VP.

While this notion of Obama as VP is sorta silly, it's actually the type of outside-the-box thinking that I want to see out of the Democrats for the 2020 election. Not necessarily this, but something other than the status quo. 

mcgruff10 said:

The more I think about it the more I love the biden/obama ticket.

What do you think about Bernie? 

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos 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. 

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos 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