The Democratic Candidates

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos 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...

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

Seems to me there are two clear outcomes to this hypothetical and implausible situation.

1. Biden makes it through his term, and since Obama has been elected for President twice, he would not be eligible to run after Biden's first term. The DNC would have to nominate other candidates.
2. Biden doesn't make it through his term, and though Obama has been elected twice, a transfer of power due to an incapacitated/otherwise unable to serve President is not an election. I see no problem. 

Am I missing something? 

BTW, as for the rationale behind two term limits, if a President somehow convinced Congress and Senate to bow to the will of the Executive Branch (something which can't be outright prevented) unilaterally, how would you fix that situation without a term limit? That's just one thought I have which would make me not even entertain that notion. 

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos 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...

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

Seems to me there are two clear outcomes to this hypothetical and implausible situation.

1. Biden makes it through his term, and since Obama has been elected for President twice, he would not be eligible to run after Biden's first term. The DNC would have to nominate other candidates.
2. Biden doesn't make it through his term, and though Obama has been elected twice, a transfer of power due to an incapacitated/otherwise unable to serve President is not an election. I see no problem. 

Am I missing something? 

BTW, as for the rationale behind two term limits, if a President somehow convinced Congress and Senate to bow to the will of the Executive Branch (something which can't be outright prevented) unilaterally, how would you fix that situation without a term limit? That's just one thought I have which would make me not even entertain that notion. 

It seems far fetched that Obama would want to return to the executive branch, but if he was to become Biden's VP,  my understanding is he would be able to serve as president for an additional 2 years if something were to happen to Biden. I'm not sure if this has been posted here yet:

"
A president is limited to serving for 10 yearsin office. He or she can only be elected to two full terms according to the 22nd amendment to the US Constitution. However, if an individual becomes president through the order of succession, then they are allowed to serve an additional two years."

I don't think that second sentence is right.  It's not in the amendment.  I think they are taking one piece of it out of context.  The amendment says "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once".  

I don't read that a person maxes at 10 years, it means that if you become President by order of succession, and there is more than 2 years left in that term, you can only be elected once more.  A great example is Johnson, who became President in '63, deep into Kennedy's term.  He could be elected twice more.  If Kennedy were killed in '61, then only once more.  So Obama could become president by order of succession regardless of when it took place in a term, but could never be elected again period. 

mrussel1 said:

Hi! said:

So let’s do Carter/ Obama 2020. Carter resigns with two years left, then Obama becomes President naming Bill Clinton as his vp. Obama resigns with one year remaining. Clinton takes over with one year remaining, naming Biden as vp. 2024 election we have Biden run for President with Obama in the vp spot.

All that would have worked, except you don't get to name your VP after the election.  But I like where your head is!! 

mrussel1 said:

@BS44325

You'll enjoy this.  https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/dont-laugh-bernie-can-win/

benjs said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

@BS44325

You'll enjoy this.  https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/dont-laugh-bernie-can-win/

I'm not laughing...I believe he can win. 

I'm curious to hear - if you believe he can win, do you believe this is just the next pendulum swing and part of the typical cycle, or do you see this as a move to the left (or none of the above)?