5 ms·

Iirc only people who would be eligible for the presidency can be elected as VP, which would disqualify Obama. This is the same reason Bernie couldn't have chose

Iirc only people who would be eligible for the presidency can be elected as VP, which would disqualify Obama. This is the same reason Bernie couldn't have chosen AOC as his running mate

GavinMcG 6y ago
There is no such restriction. Article II never specified any limit on how long someone could serve. The 22nd Amendment limits only who can be elected to the office of President. Since a VP becomes President through devolution, not election, it doesn't limit who may serve as VP.
- dudul 6y ago
  Isn't there a 10 year limit as well though? Especially for this case where someone serves as president without being elected? That being said, I'm not sure either if the restriction in the parent exists. Edit: a reference I found afterwards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_office#Federal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_office#Federal
  - GavinMcG 6y ago
    Not exactly. The 22nd Amendment would prohibit the second election of someone who had served for more than two years without having been elected. For example, if Gerald Ford had been elected president after he finished Nixon's term, he would be ineligible to be elected a second time, since he initially served for a little over two years and five months. That doesn't change the fact that the 22nd Amendment only restricts the election of a president. If someone has already served in the office for ten years, they could still be the VP who upon whom the presidency devolves, because there is no constitutional restriction on such eligibility.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > The 22nd Amendment limits only who can be elected to the office of President. Since a VP becomes President through devolution, not election, it doesn't limit who may serve as VP. So it would be constitutional to give Obama a third term through a Putin-esque sham where Biden runs at the top of the ticket then immediately resigns after taking office?
  - GavinMcG 6y ago
    Many would argue so. There are things everyone agrees about, but for everything else, constitutionality isn't really established until it's been enacted and then ruled on by the Supreme Court. Would the Supreme Court allow such a move to stand? It's possible, especially without clear evidence that the campaign and resignation was planned and executed specifically to circumvent the 22nd Amendment.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
voisin 6y ago
Why is AOC not eligible for presidency?
- arthurcolle 6y ago
  you have to be 35.
  - lostmsu 6y ago
    That requirement should have been removed around Y2K. Before that it made sense because at 35 you'd still not know much about the world.
    - crgwbr 6y ago
      You say that as if the problem of not knowing much about the world had been solved. And I say that as someone under 35.
GavinMcG 6y ago
They're different reasons. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 discusses who "shall be eligible to the Office of President". AOC doesn't meet the requirement of being 35 years old, which means she's not eligible in the first place. But the 22nd Amendment refers to who "shall be elected to the office of the President". That's not the same thing. Sorry to follow up with a second comment; it's too late to edit my original.

Iirc only people who would be eligible for the presidency can be elected as VP, which would disqualify Obama. This is the same reason Bernie couldn't have chosen AOC as his running mate

GavinMcG 6y ago

There is no such restriction. Article II never specified any limit on how long someone could serve. The 22nd Amendment limits only who can be elected to the office of President. Since a VP becomes President through devolution, not election, it doesn't limit who may serve as VP.

dudul 6y ago
Isn't there a 10 year limit as well though? Especially for this case where someone serves as president without being elected? That being said, I'm not sure either if the restriction in the parent exists. Edit: a reference I found afterwards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_office#Federal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_office#Federal
- GavinMcG 6y ago
  Not exactly. The 22nd Amendment would prohibit the second election of someone who had served for more than two years without having been elected. For example, if Gerald Ford had been elected president after he finished Nixon's term, he would be ineligible to be elected a second time, since he initially served for a little over two years and five months. That doesn't change the fact that the 22nd Amendment only restricts the election of a president. If someone has already served in the office for ten years, they could still be the VP who upon whom the presidency devolves, because there is no constitutional restriction on such eligibility.
ardy42 6y ago
> The 22nd Amendment limits only who can be elected to the office of President. Since a VP becomes President through devolution, not election, it doesn't limit who may serve as VP. So it would be constitutional to give Obama a third term through a Putin-esque sham where Biden runs at the top of the ticket then immediately resigns after taking office?
- GavinMcG 6y ago
  Many would argue so. There are things everyone agrees about, but for everything else, constitutionality isn't really established until it's been enacted and then ruled on by the Supreme Court. Would the Supreme Court allow such a move to stand? It's possible, especially without clear evidence that the campaign and resignation was planned and executed specifically to circumvent the 22nd Amendment.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

voisin 6y ago

Why is AOC not eligible for presidency?

arthurcolle 6y ago
you have to be 35.
- lostmsu 6y ago
  That requirement should have been removed around Y2K. Before that it made sense because at 35 you'd still not know much about the world.
  - crgwbr 6y ago
    You say that as if the problem of not knowing much about the world had been solved. And I say that as someone under 35.

GavinMcG 6y ago

They're different reasons. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 discusses who "shall be eligible to the Office of President". AOC doesn't meet the requirement of being 35 years old, which means she's not eligible in the first place. But the 22nd Amendment refers to who "shall be elected to the office of the President". That's not the same thing. Sorry to follow up with a second comment; it's too late to edit my original.