A Joe Biden/Barack Obama ticket passes Constitutional muster according to legal experts

[riverine]

But what about the 22nd Amendment that forbids someone from RUNNING for POTUS for a third term?

Michael Dorf, a professor at Cornell Law School, gave his opinion on the issue in an interview with the Washington Post in 2015.

“The drafters of this language [of the 22nd Amendment] knew the difference between getting elected to an office and holding an office,” Dorf explained. “They could have just said ‘no person may hold the office of president more than twice.’ But they didn’t.”

Indeed, Dorf even signaled that the present-day Supreme Court’s hands would be tied on the matter. In a case from 1968, the Court ruled eligibility requirements that restrict people from running for federal office had to be read with a narrow interpretation — that is, the letter of the law mattered more than a broad interpretation of the rules. To rule differently now would thwart the established precedent created more than 50 years ago.

Looking at the 22nd Amendment with a narrow lens, it’s clearly written in a way to allow a former president to run as someone else’s vice president. It may not have been the collective authors’ intent for that to have happened, but they didn’t consider disallowing it either.

https://hillreporter.com/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-in-2020-32771

The Amendment is LITERAL and allows him to serve again. Take that Federalist Society! Those are the words of the Constitution!

President Obama, we need you now to save your legacy.

[Hoyt]

1. I'd rather Obama were Secretary of State to clean up international trump failures.

My guess is he is perfectly happy now, as he fully deserves.

[riverine]

4. I'm willing to bet anything that he is not happy with the jackass liar in the White House and would

be willing to go to extraordinary lengths to see he is defeated.

What could be more fitting than booting him out like this?

[Hoyt]

9. I agree, he'll heavily endorse the Democratic nominee. Doubt he'd take on

full time government service again, though. Will be glad to be wrong.

[treestar]

43. True. And Secretary of State is also on the list of succession

Though I suppose he could do it as he could be skipped over. But the VP exists to be able to step in.

[Tarheel_Dem]

2. It may be constitutional, but I guarantee Michelle would divorce him.

[ancianita]

11. Yep.

[Cha]

33. Michelle would just put

her foot down.. and that would be the end of that discussion.

[Tarheel_Dem]

39. Exactly. n/t

[Iliyah]

3. I don't think Pres O would want that position.

[shanny]

5. we need to move ahead, not back

and btw have you read the 12th Amendment?

The Twelfth Amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States.”

22 Amendment aside, how do we square that circle?

[riverine]

7. Per the link concerning the 12th Amendment:

But again, that doesn’t necessarily settle the matter. It’s all up for interpretation. Is a person ineligible to be vice president (and thus, have the outside chance of becoming president) if they’re ineligible to run for president? Technically speaking, the 22nd Amendment doesn’t place any limits on former presidents to serve as president for a third term — it simply prevents them from running directly for the office of president again.

The important thing is to clear a path for Biden before the mudslinging begins.

[shanny]

8. No thanks.

I stand by my original comment. We should not go back to the future.

also too: I cannot imagine a scenario where a) Obama would want the job (the so-called "bucket of warm spit&quot ; b) Biden would want him to have the job (over-shadowed by your predecessor who is doing what? waiting for you to die?); or c) Michelle would permit it.

[Lucky Luciano]

22. Yup. nt

[EffieBlack]

44. President Obama gave his all to us. He warned us. He now owes us nothing

Not to mention, the country needs to move forward to recover from this nightmare, not spend the next several years bogged down in the litigation that would arise from such a scenario.

[AncientGeezer]

6. Nope....It's a nice twist of the 22'nd but....SCOTUS would be 9-0 against this

[mr_lebowski]

12. Reasoning of the article seems quite sound actually ...

The 22nd says you can't be 'elected to a 3rd term as POTUS', it does not say cannot SERVE a 3rd term. If the framers of the 22nd had meant that, they'd have said that.

I'd say there's a pretty strong argument to be made, and not at all sure that SCOTUS would be comfortable rejecting that argument, if properly made.

It'll never happen but it's interesting to ponder.

[AncientGeezer]

17. Wouldn't even be close in SCOTUS..9-zip

V-Potus is also an elected Office...a transfer from an elected Office to an an Office 1 can't hold Constitutionally...because they have been elected to that Office twice...there's not a drunk/stoned Town Justice that would uphold that attempt to backdoor the 22nd

[mr_lebowski]

25. 22nd amendment says you can't be ELECTED to a 3rd term

It does not say you cannot SERVE a 3rd Term.

Are you saying then, that Obama could not run for the US House, because he then might become Speaker, and hence 3rd in line for POTUS?

If you're NOT, explain ... what's the inherent difference?

I think you're wrong, and this article is correct, personally.

[MineralMan]

10. Barack Obama has no interest in such a thing.

Waste of words. Your interpretation is incorrect, anyhow.

[mr_lebowski]

14. Out of curiosity, what is your counter-argument to the article and Michael Dorf

on this subject?

How is the interpretation incorrect?

[MineralMan]

16. The clear intent of the Amendment is to

prohibit a person from serving more than two terms as President. So, Obama is ineligible, since he could become President again.

Remember why that Amendment came to be. FDR was the reason.

[AncientGeezer]

18. Yep...

[mr_lebowski]

23. I'm not sure that the 'clear intent' is as you're saying ...

As Dorf points out, it'd have been very simple for the authors to have said 'may not SERVE' >2 terms as POTUS. Instead it says 'may not be ELECTED >2 terms as POTUS'.

If you're elected as VP, you're NOT elected as POTUS. It's a different office.

We'll likely never find out but I don't think it's as cut and dry as you're saying.

[Frustratedlady]

13. Wouldn't that frost Trump and cause McConnell to have a stroke.

I'd rather see Obama on the Supreme Court or Secretary of State.

[AncientGeezer]

19. Can't be SoS.....4th in line..

[mr_lebowski]

24. 22nd amendment says you can't be ELECTED to a 3rd term

It doesn't say you can never SERVE as POTUS again after >2 terms.

[AncientGeezer]

27. You keep trying this...if you've been elected twice...your eligability has run.

SCOTUS would kill this in a heartbeat....7-2, 9-zip(should be)

[AncientGeezer]

28. Actually it kinda does say JUST that...your twisting it dosen't change that.

[mr_lebowski]

29. I ain't twisting shit ...

“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.”

Why not use "Serve As President?" (as Dorf points out)? Why not explicitly say "Nor shall they be elected as Vice President"?

It's pretty clear it says EXACTLY what I'm telling you.

However it also says this:
"Furthermore, the 22nd Amendment limits the maximum time an individual may be serve as President to 10 years, if the person should succeed to the office"

Which is another potential argument for why it doesn't say ... what you and MM are arguing it says.

I think it's very likely that if this went to SCOTUS they would rule that Obama COULD run as VP, but also ... either a) Obama could not succeed to POTUS, that if Biden were to die or whatever, he would skipped in the succession, OR b) that he may serve no more than 2 more years in that event, and at that point, succession would proceed.

Either a) or b) would, IMHO, be the correct interpretation of the 22nd.

And from my other post:
Are you saying then, that Obama could not run for the US House, because he then might become Speaker, and hence 3rd in line for POTUS?

If you're NOT, explain ... what's the inherent difference?

[AncientGeezer]

31. INTENT.....I know that may defeat your interpertation

SCOTUS would shoot your idea down...probably 9-zip

That said...it's not going to happen because Past POTUS Obama Knows the intent of the 22'nd...

You are maybe doing a thought exercise...will never happen because there are people that know the meaning of the 22'nd...and how it would play in the Courts.

You gave it a shot.

[mr_lebowski]

34. It would've been extremely easy for them to make this intent

that you're so sure of ... clear. "Nobody may serve as President for > 8 Years". Boom, done. Instead they say 'may be elected twice to office of President', specifically.

I think the case could be made that the intent in the way it was worded was that they didn't mean to make it so an 8 year POTUS later could not run for VP, or to be in The House (where they could become Speaker, who is 3rd in line), or become Sec State (4th in line, as you noted elsewhere) and on and on. Where do you draw the line? If Sec Labor is 12th in line, can Obama never be Sec Labor?

Instead they added a specific '10 year limit of serving as POTUS in case of Succession' to the part about only being elected twice.

Thus, I think you're incorrect on the intent, and that the intent is, in fact, the actual WORDS written down on the paper, when read in a literal fashion.

Also, did you see this part?

"Indeed, Dorf even signaled that the present-day Supreme Court’s hands would be tied on the matter. In a case from 1968, the Court ruled eligibility requirements that restrict people from running for federal office had to be read with a narrow interpretation — that is, the letter of the law mattered more than a broad interpretation of the rules. To rule differently now would thwart the established precedent created more than 50 years ago."

[AncientGeezer]

35. Dorf, stop.......9-zip in SCOTUS.....the 22n'd is clear

Here's Dorf....a relevant Dorf

[mr_lebowski]

37. Okay, so your entire argument basically involves saying "i'm right, you're wrong" ... over and over.

And address exactly zero of my points.

Got it. Very convincing.

Good day, sir ...

[AncientGeezer]

38. You don't have a point....the 22n'd is clear...

IF it were as you think, Obama could be POTUS again...Biden would announce Obama as his running mate Today. That would end the Primary process...it would be game over....23 other candidates would quit
POTUS Obama knows he's not now, nor will he ever be.. eligible to be POTUS again...Ever

[Orangepeel]

40. Madeline Albright wasn't eligible for POTUS

The line of succession would just skip.

The 22nd amendment doesn’t have to say that the VP has to be eligible to be president because the 12th does.

[EffieBlack]

45. One need not be eligible to be president to be a cabinet secretary

If a cabinet secretary is ineligible, they are just removed from the line of succession.

We’ve had and currently have secretaries who can’t be president - including Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, Anthony Celebrezze, Sally Jewel, and Elaine Chao

[Politicub]

15. I want to see Obama on the Supreme Court

It would be odd to see him as second banana to Biden. But stranger things have happened.

[Tarc]

20. No, it doesn't, this stupid thing comes up every few years, Dorf is in a distinct minority

it was particularly nauseating when people floated the idea of Bill being Hillary's VP.

[colsohlibgal]

21. Not Going To Happen

It may be legal but no way no how.

[Kurt V.]

26. good grief. what fantasy.

[Rebl2]

30. As much as

I like President Obama, I don’t see how he could be chosen as VP because if something happened to Biden he wouldn’t be allowed to have a third term I don’t believe.

[mr_lebowski]

32. The article if you read it does a pretty good job of explaining why

it's likely he could in fact run and be elected as Biden's VP.

Consider this ... Speaker of the House is 3rd in line, right? So could Obama not run for the House because he might be made Speaker? Could he also not be appointed Sec of State, cause that's 4th in line? Where is the line drawn?

The 22nd limits someone from being ELECTED to POTUS no more than twice, not that you may only serve as POTUS for 8 years period. In fact, it says one may serve as POTUS for no more than 10 years, explicitly, in a case of succession.

[Orangepeel]

41. The 12th amendment says that no one ineligible to be P can be VP

[mr_lebowski]

42. The article explains this ...

He's not ineligible to BE president, he's ineligible to be ELECTED President. In this case, he'd not be elected President.

22nd specifically sets a 10 year time limit on total time as President, if through succession.

Obama is eligible to BE President for 2 more years but only through succession, not through election.

People who write Constitutional Amendments are not dumb people.

Had they MEANT that a POTUS who'd served two terms became ineligible to serve as POTUS ever again, they'd have said that.

Instead they specifically said 'cannot be ELECTED to a third term as President'. Not 'as POTUS or VP'. But 'as POTUS', specifically. And then also specifically added a 10 max total time for any one person, and specifically said 'if through succession'.

It's really pretty clear that this would not rule out Obama, Bush II, or Clinton ... from being a VP.

I think the 22nd authors did not want to rule out a former POTUS from serving in a role that COULD succeed to POTUS at some point ... i.e. VP, Speaker of the House, Sec. of State, and on down the line (and where WOULD you draw the line?). But they did mean to say 'you can only serve 2 more years, period' in that situation, should you happen to succeed.

[mtnsnake]

36. Not that Obama would ever for a split second entertain the thought of running as Biden's VP,

but even if by some far fetched miracle he did think of running as someone's VP, do you really think Obama would want to run with someone who already ran for president twice & lost?