How long a president?

What's the maximum amount of time someone can serve as U.S. President?

If you're like most people -- including most well-educated people -- the answer isn't what you think it is.

This has been on my mind since I saw this Youtube short.

It's one of those videos where someone asks people some basic knowledge questions.One of the questions was: "In years, what's the maximum amount of time someone can swerve as U.S. President?" It's something I've addressed tangentially in this blog. And it interests me because almost everyone will get it wrong.

I'd be willing to bet that the questioner was looking for people to answer ten years. That's based on the 22nd Amendment, which set term limits for the Presidency. You can only be elected President twice. But if you serve as president for more than two years of someone else's term, you can only be elected once. So, the thinking goes, if you get elected Vice President and then move up to the presidency upon the death or resignation or -- I suppose -- impeachment, conviction and removal from office) of the President with exactly two years left in his term, you can still get elected to two four year terms and serve a total of ten years. If, when you move up, there are more than two years left, you can only get elected once, and therefore serve less than eight years.

But that answer isn't right. Suppose you serve the ten years as described above. Then, after you leave office, you get elected to Congress and become Speaker of the House,* and then the President and Vice President both die. In that event you become President again and you have now served more than ten years. You can't get elected President again. But after the end of the term you can become Speaker of the House again, and then elevated to the Presidency again. Since there's no limit to the number of times that pattern can be repeated, there is really no limit to how much time you can serve as President -- subject to the whims of mortality.

So the correct answer: There is no limit.

__________________________

*Someone told me that you don't actually have to be a Congresscritter to become Speaker of the House. I don't want to bother researching it, since it doesn't really affect the analysis

constitutional questment ii: eligibility for the presidency

I was thinking about who ca be president -- the eligibility rules and whether Congress can change them by simply passing a law.

Backing up, let's start with the eligibility requirements, as defined in the Constitution. Article II, Section 1 reads as follows: 

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows: 

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. 

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representatives from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall choose from them by Ballot the Vice-President.  

The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.  

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.  

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.  

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.  

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:-"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The fifth paragraph above defines three eligibility requirements: natural born citizen, 35- years old, a resident for 14 years. Easy, peasy, George loves Weezie.

So, of course, Congress cannot loosen the requirements. Suppose passed a law saying that the minimum age requirement is 30, or that you don't have to be a natural born citizen. Such a law wouldn't pass constitutional muster.

But suppose Congress tightened the restrictions. For example, suppose they passed a law saying simply "No one shall become President who shall not have attained the age of 40." What then? Such a law wouldn't contradict the Constitution. The document doesn't actually prohibit the addition of more requirements.

So, based on that, it would seem that Congress could add requirements. But I suspect that that would rankle some, and would be met with the argument that that was not the intention. I'm not convinced by such an argument.

But the Article above also defines the election process*. What if the electors choose a 35-year-old? The law passed by Congress prohibits that person from being President. But if he or she was elected by the process defined by the Constitution, then I don't see how the law passed by Congress can actually override that election.

So I guess I arrive at the same place as most people, but I take a more circuitous route.

*The process was changed by the Twelfth Amendment, but not in a way that materially affects this analysis

claire as running mate? more annoying stupidity in house of cards

Not that I'm about to stop, but why am I watching this shit?

The shit I'm referring to is House of Cards, the Netflix original series. The latest offense came in Season 4, Episode 3. Claire Underwood tells her husband, who is running for President, to make her his running mate. Seriously, Netflix, WTF?

I get that they wanted drama, and so far the figfhting between the Underwoods has been the major source of conflict. But, while the principles address the debatable issues about whether the move would help him get more votes, they totally ignore the practical matter of it costing them electoral votes in their home state.

I quote the 12th Ammendment to the Constitution:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;

What this means is that when the electors vote, they must vote for either a Presidential of Vice Presidential candidate from outside their state. Assuming Frank and Claire both live in South Carolina, being running mates means that each elector from South Carolina can vote for Frank for President or Claire for Vice President, but not for both. Giving up those electoral votes would be bad strategy. If the show is going to go there, they at least need to address the issue.

Incidentally, I wrote about this a year ago, in addressing the possibility of Hillary Clinton picking Bill as her Veep. As I discussed, the pundits who say she couldn't because he was term-limited out are wrong.

The bigger problem is that Claire is a poorly-written character. She's inconsistent. I said as much after viewing the episode with her outburst in Moscow. At the beginning of the series, Claire was running a not-for-profit, and benefiting from her relationship with her husband who was then a Congressional Whip. It seems as if the writers decided they didn't like that story line, so they had her move on. But then they just didn't know what to do with her. If they can't find a role fpor her where she can be consistent, then just kill her off and let the show move on without her.

constitutional questment i: wherefore section 2?

I've been reading over the Constitution, and have come across some points that I have questions and comments (i.e., "questments") about. Rather than try to post a list of them, I'll do them one at a time. That way if I tyhink of more, I can post them too, without it looking like an addendum. So here goes with "Constitutional Questments."

The fifteenth amendment establishes that voting rights will not be denied on the basis of race, color or previous condition of servitude. That's in Section 1. Section 2 reads "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

What's the purpose of the second clause? The only explanation I can think of is a concern that a state could limit voting rights, and then argue that the Federal government can't come in and enforce the rule stated in Section 1. In that event the amendment would be toothless.

Is that it? Is there another reason?

a billary ticket?

Hillary Clinton's nomination for the presidency is becoming more and more inevitable (unless you read yesterday's Wall Street Journal, but let's ignore that for the moment). And so I turn to the question of who her running mate will be. Before I go any further, let me note that I am not endorsing or undorsing any candidate or position. I am posting this because of a particular question that I find interesting and that I think most of the punditocracy gets wrong.


The question is of whether Bill Clinton can be her running mate. Back in 2008 (the last time her nomination was inevitable), Hillary went on some talk show and was asked about whether she would pick Bill as her running mate. Or maybe Bill was on a show and asked about whether he would be her running mate? I don't remember which one was asked, and I can't find the clip. Anyway, whichever Clinton was on the show, (S)he answered that it's been looked into and Bill can't be veep. And most pundits agree. But they're wrong.


Now, since I'm saying that they're wrong, I suppose I should explain why. So let's start with the reasoning that has Bill ineligible. It comes down to the 12th and 22nd Amendments to the Constitution. The relevant language of the 22nd Amendment is:

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.

Since Bill was elected twice, he is no longer eligible to be elected President. So how does that speak to his possible candidacy for the number 2 spot? That's where the 12th Amendment comes in. The relevant language is:

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

So, the logic goes, Bill is ineligible to be President (22A), and therefore ineligible to be Vice President (12A). Seems pretty straightforward. So where do I disagree? The assertion that Bill is ineligible to be President (courtesy of 22A) is wrong. To see why, let's imagine a mirror universe (but leave out the Spock beard. That was always creepy). Bill, after leaving office decides to run for Congress. Popular as he is, he gets elected, and then gets elected Speaker of the House. Finally, in a tragic day for this country, both the President and Vice President die of food poisoning. What happens? Bill Clinton is next in line for the Presidency. I contend that he becomes President, since 22A prohibits him from being elected President but it does not prohibit him from becoming President.


Now that we've established that Bill can be President (assuming he is elevated to that position through some process other than being elected to it), 12A does not prohibit him from being Vice President.


QED.


Having said that, I note that Hillary would never choose him as running mate. Since they are both residents of New York, none of New York's electors would be able to cast votes for both of them. That's also courtesy of 12A, which states:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;

But I still think it's an interesting question, moot though it may be.