Jump to content

Talk:Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scenario

[edit]

If Biden were to select Obama as his running mate, then Biden were to die, would Obama be allowed to be president?  Nixinova  T  C  19:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I am not an expert. But this refers to the question how the 12th and 22nd Amendment interfere with each other. That is, if a former Two Term President would wish to run for Vice President, it would have to be clarified by the Supreme Court. I would assume, that there are several options.
  1. it is unconstitutional: Someone ineligible to the presidency is bared from a ticket, or to be elected into it on a later occasion under all circumstances. This applies to a position on the presidential line of succession too, either in its entirety, or, only for as long as there is no Vice President.
  2. it is partly possibly: Someone who has served as a Two Term President is eligible to serve as Vice President only in the second half of a term, because if the person has to take over the renewed presidency would be shorter than half a presidency. The person would have to be elected according to the 27th Amendment. There is no reason to ban the Person from any other Place on the Presidential line of Succession in its first half for as long as there is a Vice President.
  3. it is possible: A Two Term President can be elected as Vice President, because if the Person would have to take over again, that renewed Presidency would end automatically on the day it would last longer than half a term. Afterwards Option 1 would apply, since no constitutional time to be spent in the Presidency is left over.
I assume Option 1 is the most likely one, although Option 2 and 3 would not be unconstitutional either. CF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.81.97.190 (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Twenty-Second Amendment prohibits anyone from being elected President more than twice. It does not address becoming President by other means, such as election as Vice President and then succession to the Presidency. The "more than two years" in the 22nd refers to previous service, such as the distinction between Lyndon Johnson (who served less than two years of Kennedy's term) being eligible to then run for two full terms, vs. Gerald Ford (who served more than two years of Nixon's) only being eligible to run for one full term. There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates a President leave office before the time when the original four-year term expires. JTRH (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the wording of the 22nd Amendment makes a distinction between being elected more than twice and serving more than twice, that is, gaining the office in a way other than being elected President. I would simply ask if this distinction makes any sense. What possible reason could the framers of this amendment, and those who ratified it, have for prohibiting more than 2 elections, but not more than 2 terms? 71.162.113.226 (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether the distinction "makes any sense." What matters is the words that are used. If the amendment read, "No person shall be eligible to serve as President of the United States for more than two full terms" or "more than ten years," that would clearly prohibit a former two-term President from serving as VP, since he would then be ineligible to succeed to the Presidency. But that's not how it's phrased. JTRH (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law is not a trivial one, especially at the Constitutional level, and there is no fixed way to “break the tie.” 96.237.184.133 (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, anyone have ideas for improving the Interaction with the Twelfth Amendment section? Drdpw (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "it is unclear" is unsourced. The "some" in "Some argue"... is one opinion piece in a conservative publication specifically arguing against Bill Clinton becoming Vice President. Hillary Clinton never stated the source of the "advice" that Bill Clinton would be ineligible to be her running mate. I have heard of the existence of a law review article arguing that position, but I've never seen it, and I don't know whether that was where she got it from. In the absence of better sourcing, I'm not convinced that this "controversy" actually exists. The language of the Constitution is not, in fact, ambiguous. JTRH (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm 100% in agreement with JTRH. The constitutional language isn't ambiguous, and in fact seems expertly drafted to avoid this concern. The sole citation listed here from any legal source is a blog post by one attorney in Blandon, Pennsylvania. I hope that's not sufficient for wikipedia to endorse this as a bone fide "controversy." Peezy1001 (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What remedy is there if the people defy the 22nd Amendment?

[edit]

This amendment doesn't prevent someone actually being chosen by the people (write-in, for example) for an excessive term as POTUS. Is this amendment actually more authoritative than the will of the majority's election decisions? I believe a case could be made successfully that it is not, but I am no legal scholar. -Ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.71.78.176 (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You’re presenting your layperson’s opinion as fact and inviting discussion on that opinion; this page is not a forum for general discussion. If you have changes to propose, please present them in “change X to Y” format. Thank you. Drdpw (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It prevents the electors from voting for that person, Congress from certifying the electoral vote, and the person being administered the oath for a third term. JTRH (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You could also ignore all the laws of the land & see how far that gets you. Like Drdpw said, best to have that conversation elsewhere. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this amendment actually more authoritative than the will of the majority's election decisions?
Yes
172.56.235.144 (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-consecutive terms

[edit]

It was stated above that no one had a third term until FDR. This is inaccurate. Cleveland had a third term, although there was a gap between terms 2 and 3. Most of us believe that the intention of the 22nd Amendment was to prevent a Roosevelt-style third term, but in actual fact, the wording ("No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice") would also prevent a Cleveland-style third term. Someone should point this out in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeves (talk • contribs) 12:22, June 1, 2022 (UTC)

Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms, not three terms. -- Vaulter 16:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though he won the popular vote three times, Cleveland was elected to the office of the president only twice. The article is accurate – no one prior to FDR had a third term in office. Also, though the 22nd Amendment would have, were it fully in affect at the time, indeed precluded him (along with Grant and T. Roosevelt) from election to a third term, there is no good reason to point out this bit of hypothetical trivia in the article. Drdpw (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reason Truman was exempt from the amendment

[edit]

The amendment states that “But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress…”. Giving full exemption from the article to the person in office when it was sent to the states (i.e. Truman). Regarding someone in office at the time of ratification, it only says that it doesn’t affect their ability to finish out their term (not their ability to run again). If the provision mentioned in the first paragraph of this comment hadn’t been there, Truman would not have been eligible to run in 1952.

I tried to correct this in the article (with a note explaining the issue), but it was reverted with a note merely saying the original language was correct (which it clearly isn’t).209.134.40.250 (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it again, I see that you are correct. I will restore your edit, Mea culpa. Drdpw (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. One thing, there is now an unclosed parentheses after the first “1952” in the paragraph. I wasn’t sure whether to add a closing parentheses or delete the opening one.209.134.40.250 (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should list all presidents to whom 22nd Amendment applies/applied

[edit]

Earlier today, I added in the presidents (Ike, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama and eventually Trump) to whom the 22nd Amendment applies or applied. I was reverted 🙄. I'm starting this discussion to propose that the list be added back in.


Somebody said "it's most presidents since DDE"...not really true...JFK, LBJ, Ford, Carter, Bush Sr. and Biden are NOT (or were not) subject to the 22nd Amendment. pbp 00:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It only adds a couple hundred characters, if that. It would only be a small fraction of the length of the article.
How would anybody know WHICH HALF without the list?
And it's VERY important to the significance of the article to explain TO WHOM the amendment applied. It's not an Amendment like prohibition that applies to everybody. pbp 20:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The one salient point that could, after January 20, 2025, be added to the paragraph is: The current president, Donald Trump, is barred election to a third term by the amendment. Drdpw (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:

Support—I don't think it's unreasonable to include, particularly since it is a smaller list than our intuitive sense of things might suggest, but I think saying it only applies to those presidents is odd wording. It applies to every president/candidate, just as any law restricting action applies to anyone capable of taking the prohibited action. Clearer wording might be to explain that only those presidents have faced conditions in which their actions were directly impacted by the amendment? Dunno, either way I think it's reasonable to include a short list that enhances understanding of the role the amendment has played since its passage. — penultimate_supper 🚀 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, it applied to Johnson, who served less than half of Kennedy's term, in that he could be elected twice on his own, and to Ford, who served more than half of Nixon's second term, in that he could only be elected once on his own. It also applied to Carter, Bush (Sr.), and Biden, they simply got elected only once. (It applied to Kennedy as well, but he died having been elected only once.) That all makes for a convoluted explanation. Drdpw (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drdpw: I thought the wording of the edit you just did was really nice btw, and think "has barred ... from serving a third term" is a nice way to word things in terms of the issue @Purplebackpack89: is thinking about as well. — penultimate_supper 🚀 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's gotta list all seven, not just say there are seven. Why is listing all seven twice-elected presidents so controversial. pbp 00:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My third opinion was that it makes sense to list all of them. I might have made that less clear with my reply complimenting User:Drdpw's edit, but I just meant that I liked the way they finessed the wording to provide more clarity in their most recent edit, I wasn't going back on my third opinion. Peace. — penultimate_supper 🚀 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Penultimate supper: though I disagree with the (other editor's) assertion that listing the names is very important to the article, I hear what you are saying about it not being unreasonable to include them. Thank you for your input. Drdpw (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worth adding to 'Attempts at repeal'?

[edit]

Only today, president-elect Trump apparently joked in a meeting with House Republicans: "I suspect I won’t be running again, unless you say, he’s good, we got to figure something else". Source: [1] 156.55.110.45 (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The chatter about repealing the 22nd amendment will doubtless be non-stop for the next four years. You raise a good question though, at what point do we view the chatter as no longer NOTNEWS? Drdpw (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know there is a source for this, but I think until there's either repeated talk, campaigns or consideration by caucuses, or legislation introduced, it's not worth adding to the article. Now, I suspect repeated talk or more serious coverage that leads to widespread discourse is on it's way real soon. — penultimate_supper 🚀 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump should not be on the list of those to whom the Amendment applies

[edit]

Seems odd to state in the Effects section that Trump is one of the presidents whom "the amendment has barred ...from election to a third term". When Trump is duly elected to a second term, inaugurated and reaches the end of a second term in 2029, this will be true, assuming that the Amendment is still in force at that time.

Seems more elegant to redraft to say that it is anticipated that the amendment will prevent a third Trump term. MosheDov1 (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is accurate now, and will be unless / until the 22nd Amendment is repealed. Drdpw (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&oldid=1257473959"