Posted on 05/29/2017 10:49:26 AM PDT by Be Careful
It all adds up.
Lol
For antichrist?
He is constitutionally eligible to be president, but not constitutionally eligible to be elected president.
22nd keeps him from being elected
He could be VP to a president that resigns.
He is sleepy enough.
Sleezy not sleepy. If he is vp then he becomes prez without being elected prez upon resignation.
When William Henry Harrison died in office, some thought John Tyler would then be "Acting President" (for 47 months of the 48-month term), but he insisted on being called President. He got away with it, and he, Andrew Johnson, Chester Alan Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, and Harry Truman were all considered Presidents when the President died in office. The 25th amendment finally stated in so many words that "in case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President," but the 20th and 22nd amendments had already effectively conceded the point.
Constitution says VPOTUS must be eligible to be POTUS. Obozo is not eligible to be POTUS (again) therefore is not eligible to be VPOTUS. QED
He is as eligible as he was the first two times. He just can’t be elected prez.
That would be 1776 to 1865 or so.
He wasn't eligible for either previous term. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.
The Constitution and the rule of law didn't stop him before, why should he worry about it now?
Wrong. He wasn't eligible for either previous term. See: Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.
The Constitution and the rule of law didn't stop him before, why should he worry about it now?
The Constitution means whatever the ruling elitists of the uniparty say. That includes their hand-picked, black-robed stooges.
It doesn't to me. Please explain how you arrived at this epiphany of yours.
The US Constitution never spoke to the legality of slavery, therefore eliminating any actions of the US Congress and Executive on its legality as the Constitution was written.
If correct, the first case regarding slavery to be heard by the Supreme Court was in 1841, but not on the subject of slavery as being legal.
Over the next 15 years, the Supreme Court heard other cases regarding slavery, but none on the legality of the practice.
I believe that the Dred Scott case was the first to explore the legality of slavery.
From an article:
"Dred Scott decision, formally Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sandford, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on March 6, 1857, ruled (7–2) that a slave (Dred Scott) who had resided in a free state and territory (where slavery was prohibited) was not thereby entitled to his freedom; that African Americans were not and could never be citizens of the United States; and that the Missouri Compromise (1820), which had declared free all territories west of Missouri and north of latitude 36°30², was unconstitutional.'
Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of 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.
The 12h Amendment lists qualifications, but does not mention the two election limit. So the 12th is not a disqualifier in and of itself.
Moving on to the 22nd Amendment: 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.
That amendment states only that an eligible person cannot be
elected more than twice.
It is interesting that the authors of the amendment did not simplify the law by stating that no individual could serve more than eight years as President rather than focusing on the issue of election.
In my thinking, I agree with several here that see loopholes in the law that a dominant political party could use to force their candidate into serving more than two terms.
Interesting point. The 22nd merely prohibits a president from being elected more than twice. If he is made President by some other means, than the letter of the 22nd is kept though the spirit may be violated.
Does the 22nd prohibit the appointment of a previous President?
Not according to the letter, but the salient question would be is this contrary to the intent?
I'm thinking that it is contrary to the intent of the 22nd, but I could understand how people could view it the other way.
That pesky Constitution - I quit.
No, I'm right.
Of course you are, but it doesn’t matter. Like I said earlier, the Constitution means whatever the elites say it does. Nothing you can do about it either.
The Office of the President is not like the Governor of California. Two terms limitation means no more than two terms,,...even if he changes his gender and name.
The “elites” failed to keep Trump out of the White House. Putting Obama again in it would be hocus pocus beyond them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.