The Democratic Candidates

mrussel1 said:

Meltdown99 said:

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. 

You can usually count on me being sarcastic.  

LOL.  Sometimes it's hard to tell.

Meltdown99 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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

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!!!!!

Meltdown99 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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

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...

cincybearcat said:

Hi! said:

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5c8673f6e4b0ed0a0015ad26
Convention to be held in Milwaukee. 

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.

They should have the convention at the Foxconn plant.

Meltdown99 said:

OnWis97 said:

Meltdown99 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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

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.......

mrussel1 said:

Meltdown99 said:

OnWis97 said:

Meltdown99 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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

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?

mrussel1 said:

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

Meltdown99 said:

OnWis97 said:

Meltdown99 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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

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.