About US politics and former Presidents
June 27, 2009 4:11 PM Subscribe
Can a former US President serve in a powerful capacity in a subsequent administration? They clearly wouldn't be able to serve as VP, but could they hold some other high office such as Secretary of State? If not, do those of you living in the US regard this as a desirable or undesirable attribute of your political system?
I think Lolie meant if the former-president had already served the maximum 8 years—the VP having to be able to step in if something happens to the president, but having served the limit of 8 already, the former-prez-VP would be unable to do so, thus not meeting the requirement to be a VP.
posted by blueberry at 4:22 PM on June 27, 2009
posted by blueberry at 4:22 PM on June 27, 2009
Wikipedia and the requirements to be US VP
Under the Twenty-second Amendment, the President of the United States may not be elected to more than two terms. Scholars dispute whether a former President barred from election to the Presidency is also ineligible to be elected Vice President, as suggested by the Twelfth Amendment.[7][8] However, there is no similar such limitation as to how many times one can be elected Vice President.
Not clearly, but a possible reason.
I took a look through other Wikipedia things and it doesn't seem that a former US President couldn't hold another position. But I'm no political expert.
posted by theichibun at 4:23 PM on June 27, 2009
Under the Twenty-second Amendment, the President of the United States may not be elected to more than two terms. Scholars dispute whether a former President barred from election to the Presidency is also ineligible to be elected Vice President, as suggested by the Twelfth Amendment.[7][8] However, there is no similar such limitation as to how many times one can be elected Vice President.
Not clearly, but a possible reason.
I took a look through other Wikipedia things and it doesn't seem that a former US President couldn't hold another position. But I'm no political expert.
posted by theichibun at 4:23 PM on June 27, 2009
nothing in the US constitution prevents a former President from holding any other government, except President.
Taft became a Justice (and eventually Chief Justice) of the US Supreme after serving as President
posted by Flood at 4:25 PM on June 27, 2009
Taft became a Justice (and eventually Chief Justice) of the US Supreme after serving as President
posted by Flood at 4:25 PM on June 27, 2009
It's an open question as to whether a two-term former President could serve as Vice President (there's no doubt that a one-term President could), but it seems reasonable that they could hold a Cabinet position; in the event of needing to invoke the chain of succession (Vice President, then Speaker of the House...) I imagine it would just jump over them. In general, this is unlikely to happen, simply because it would lead to a situation where a cabinet officer could draw more attention than the President he or she served. It's also noteworthy that there was a serious hope by a lot of people that Al Gore would be offered a Cabinet-level position in the Obama administration - either Secretary of the Interior or a new position focused on Environmental affairs.
posted by Tomorrowful at 4:25 PM on June 27, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Tomorrowful at 4:25 PM on June 27, 2009 [1 favorite]
And Lolie, you're asking only about a former-president coming back to serve a different role in the executive branch, right? Not a former-president moving to the judicial or legislative branch, right?
posted by blueberry at 4:28 PM on June 27, 2009
posted by blueberry at 4:28 PM on June 27, 2009
I dont see this supreme court refusing an ex-president to be a VP and ascending to president if the current president died. The wording is about being elected more than twice, not being president more than twice. There's no election if the president dies and the VP needs to take over. So Clinton/Clinton 2016 is completely doable.
posted by damn dirty ape at 4:30 PM on June 27, 2009
posted by damn dirty ape at 4:30 PM on June 27, 2009
I think Lolie meant if the former-president had already served the maximum 8 years—the VP having to be able to step in if something happens to the president, but having served the limit of 8 already, the former-prez-VP would be unable to do so, thus not meeting the requirement to be a VP.
This just isn't correct. The 22nd Amendment says, "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice ..." (emphasis added). There is no reason why a former president cannot serve as a vice president. As a vice president, the former president is qualified to be elevated to the presidency, because such elevation would not be by election.
posted by jayder at 4:55 PM on June 27, 2009
This just isn't correct. The 22nd Amendment says, "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice ..." (emphasis added). There is no reason why a former president cannot serve as a vice president. As a vice president, the former president is qualified to be elevated to the presidency, because such elevation would not be by election.
posted by jayder at 4:55 PM on June 27, 2009
damn dirty ape, according to factcheck.org, a clinton/clinton ticket would be difficult. One of them would have to move because the president and vice president can't be residents of the same state, according to the 12th amendment (for example, cheney switched from texas back to wyoming when he ran with bush).
The factcheck article also points to another part of 12 amendment, the one that theichibun mentions, "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
It could be possible, I suppose. If a ticket w/ a former president as VP won the election, I'm sure there would be a bitter fight to rival what's going on in minnesota. I assume neither party would be willing to risk the effort, expense, and office by endorsing such a ticket.
posted by necessitas at 5:08 PM on June 27, 2009
The factcheck article also points to another part of 12 amendment, the one that theichibun mentions, "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
It could be possible, I suppose. If a ticket w/ a former president as VP won the election, I'm sure there would be a bitter fight to rival what's going on in minnesota. I assume neither party would be willing to risk the effort, expense, and office by endorsing such a ticket.
posted by necessitas at 5:08 PM on June 27, 2009
John Quincy Adams served for many years in Congress after he was president.
I really don't see why someone else couldn't do the same, just because they have a fat pension doesn't mean they have to retire.
posted by mareli at 5:12 PM on June 27, 2009
I really don't see why someone else couldn't do the same, just because they have a fat pension doesn't mean they have to retire.
posted by mareli at 5:12 PM on June 27, 2009
Apart from the above, in 2000 Thomas Friedman half-seriously pitched the idea that Gore could run for president with Bill Clinton filling out the ticket -- at last, a veepee with no skeletons in his closet! Seems to Michael Moore took this a step further by suggesting a Gore-Clinton ticket which would be inaugurated and then on January 21, Gore could resign and have Bill Clinton become President, whereupon he would appoint Gore as VP. I'm having a hard time Googling this, though as searches which include "Clinton as Vice President" mostly speculate on Obama's picks in 2008.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 5:34 PM on June 27, 2009
posted by ricochet biscuit at 5:34 PM on June 27, 2009
Mod note: few comments removed - don't do that here, thanks
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:32 PM on June 27, 2009
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:32 PM on June 27, 2009
The VP could be a former, now term-limited president. However, if the sittng president died, the VP would be ineligible to serve and the speaker of the house would be president. I'd be in favor of a constitutional amendment barring it.
But it does point out a strength of the constitution, they have a backup for the president in the wings with full power and legitimacy the minute he or she steps into office.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:07 PM on June 27, 2009
But it does point out a strength of the constitution, they have a backup for the president in the wings with full power and legitimacy the minute he or she steps into office.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:07 PM on June 27, 2009
a strength of the constitution, they have a backup for the president in the wings
Well, there's no reason it has to be a separate office (with only one other constitutional duty, breaking ties in the Senate). Many states have no separate Lieutenant Governor, for example -- the role is held by another office such as Attorney General or Secretary of State (an office whose duties vary quite widely at the state level, as it happens).
There are those who would abolish the Vice Presidency, including some former holders of the office (not necessarily living). It's only recently that it's been treated as a right-hand-man for the President, and that is only tradition, not law. As recently as the 1970s we had a vacancy (twice) that was not treated as an emergency despite this taking place at the height of the Cold War. I think I would prefer either abolishing the office or codifying some of these duties into law.
As to the question of whether a President should serve a successor President, many actually do cooperate, as subtly as a back-channel or as obviously as a special envoy (e.g. Carter to N. Korea for Clinton). This isn't always bound by party lines, either. It's a sort of unwritten tradition that doubtless does make our republic a little bit stronger.
But serving in a more formal role such as a Cabinet officer would be problematic. Many Secretaries of State, for instance, have had significant policy differences with their Presidents, and they haven't had the stature of having held the Oval Office. There were questions whether Hillary Clinton would be an appropriate SoS, and she was merely a rival candidate. She's obviously put to rest most speculation that she might run a rogue Foggy Bottom operation, but the administration is still young. So in practical terms, a President would probably be risking much unless she were to assign the ex-President to a job where he could do a lot of good and not screw things up very much.
posted by dhartung at 11:41 PM on June 27, 2009
Well, there's no reason it has to be a separate office (with only one other constitutional duty, breaking ties in the Senate). Many states have no separate Lieutenant Governor, for example -- the role is held by another office such as Attorney General or Secretary of State (an office whose duties vary quite widely at the state level, as it happens).
There are those who would abolish the Vice Presidency, including some former holders of the office (not necessarily living). It's only recently that it's been treated as a right-hand-man for the President, and that is only tradition, not law. As recently as the 1970s we had a vacancy (twice) that was not treated as an emergency despite this taking place at the height of the Cold War. I think I would prefer either abolishing the office or codifying some of these duties into law.
As to the question of whether a President should serve a successor President, many actually do cooperate, as subtly as a back-channel or as obviously as a special envoy (e.g. Carter to N. Korea for Clinton). This isn't always bound by party lines, either. It's a sort of unwritten tradition that doubtless does make our republic a little bit stronger.
But serving in a more formal role such as a Cabinet officer would be problematic. Many Secretaries of State, for instance, have had significant policy differences with their Presidents, and they haven't had the stature of having held the Oval Office. There were questions whether Hillary Clinton would be an appropriate SoS, and she was merely a rival candidate. She's obviously put to rest most speculation that she might run a rogue Foggy Bottom operation, but the administration is still young. So in practical terms, a President would probably be risking much unless she were to assign the ex-President to a job where he could do a lot of good and not screw things up very much.
posted by dhartung at 11:41 PM on June 27, 2009
The VP could be a former, now term-limited president. However, if the sitting president died, the VP would be ineligible to serve and the speaker of the house would be president. I'd be in favor of a constitutional amendment barring it.
As Jayder notes above, the amendment says no person shall be elected president.
Should a situation like that happen it would be interesting how it played out - no doubt going to the supreme court. IANAL or a CS (Constitutional Scholar) IA, however AFGFQ (A fat guy from Queens) thus uniquely qualified for armchair speculation....
1) person *does* become president because amendment said elected. He just cannot run again. Ergo we have a very long-lived lame duck.
2) person simply gets passed over, he can stay as VEEP.
3) person is forced out as VEEP because since he/she is next in line, there is no constitutional provision for getting passed over, ergo, constitution says VEEP is next in line yet this VEEP can't serve, ergo, the locks are changed at the Vice-presidential offices?
posted by xetere at 7:23 AM on June 28, 2009
As Jayder notes above, the amendment says no person shall be elected president.
Should a situation like that happen it would be interesting how it played out - no doubt going to the supreme court. IANAL or a CS (Constitutional Scholar) IA, however AFGFQ (A fat guy from Queens) thus uniquely qualified for armchair speculation....
1) person *does* become president because amendment said elected. He just cannot run again. Ergo we have a very long-lived lame duck.
2) person simply gets passed over, he can stay as VEEP.
3) person is forced out as VEEP because since he/she is next in line, there is no constitutional provision for getting passed over, ergo, constitution says VEEP is next in line yet this VEEP can't serve, ergo, the locks are changed at the Vice-presidential offices?
posted by xetere at 7:23 AM on June 28, 2009
Response by poster: And Lolie, you're asking only about a former-president coming back to serve a different role in the executive branch, right? Not a former-president moving to the judicial or legislative branch, right?
Yeah. Some politicians are awesomely talented in certain areas, so I was wondering whether there's any legal impediment to a former President holding the office of Attorney-General, Secretary of State, or similar.
And I did assume that the two term rule would make it difficult for a former President to become Vice_president.
posted by Lolie at 4:00 PM on June 29, 2009
Yeah. Some politicians are awesomely talented in certain areas, so I was wondering whether there's any legal impediment to a former President holding the office of Attorney-General, Secretary of State, or similar.
And I did assume that the two term rule would make it difficult for a former President to become Vice_president.
posted by Lolie at 4:00 PM on June 29, 2009
In addition to Taft and Adams: Andrew Johnson was elected to the Senate after his Presidency, although he died shortly after taking office.
posted by Chrysostom at 12:19 PM on July 7, 2009
posted by Chrysostom at 12:19 PM on July 7, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by delmoi at 4:17 PM on June 27, 2009