Ford's third term!

[David T]

POD: During the 1980 negotiations on Gerald Ford as Ronald Reagan's possible running mate, the dreaded word "co-presidency" never comes up. Ford is satisfied with the conventional reassurances, "*Of course* you'll be consulted, *of course* you'll have an important role," etc. Ford is chosen as Reagan's running mate (some conservative delegates at the convention will be upset, but they were also upset by the choice of GHW Bush in OTL...) and the Reagan-Ford ticket is easily elected. (Ford can easily change his legal residency back to Michigan, so there is no problem with two Californians on the ticket.)

Now suppose Reagan is killed in 1981. (Somehow the fact of Ford rather than Bush being vice-president infinitesimally affects Hinckley's aim or Reagan's position--let's say Reagan is chuckling while recalling a Saturday Night Live skit on vice-president Ford he saw the other night, and moves a little. Anyway, you get the idea.)

Now assume that the (second) Ford administration is not too different from the first Reagan one--that Ford pretty much adheres to Reagan policies if only because as vice-president he defended them out of loyalty and feels he can't go back now, and anyway he knows that he will face a revolt by the conservative wing of the GOP if he tries to backtrack too much. (After all, Reagan's near-victory in the 1976 primaries taught Ford how dangerous conservative primary opposition can be. In fact, in some ways, Ford might be *more* conservative than Reagan, not daring to go along with TEFRA, for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Equity_and_Fiscal_Responsibility_Act_of_1982 Reagan could make occasional departures from "Reaganite" positions without worrying too much about alienating the GOP Right; Ford has less leeway.) As in OTL there's a recession in 1982, a loosening of credit by the Fed, and a subsequent recovery. All in all, though the Republicans lose ground in the 1982 elections, by 1984 Ford is much more popular than he had been during his first term.

Now the interesting thing is: Ford can run for--and probably win--a third term in 1984! Yes, even though he served over half a term from 1974-77 and will have been serving a nearly full term from 1981-1985. Read the 22nd Amendment closely: "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 President more than once." (My emphasis.) Ford did hold the office of president for more than two years in 1974-77; but he was not *elected* president either then or in 1980 and therefore, unless I am missing something, there is no constitutional reason he cannot be elected in 1984. (It will after all be his first election to the presidency!)

I suppose that he could face arguments that he is trying to get around the "spirit" of the amendment, first from conservative primary opposition in 1984 and then from Mondale or whoever else won the Democratic nomination. But with the advantage of incumbency at a time of peace and prosperity, with a sufficiently conservative record to satisfy most of the Right (which in any event would have no candidate of the stature of Reagan) and with the likely Democratic candidates all having weaknesses of their own, I would bet on Ford. (In 1985, once he is finally president in his own right--not Nixon's or Reagan's choice for vice-president who then became president--he may be less conservative than I portray him as having been in 1981-84.)

And if anyone thinks he would be too old to run in 1984, remember that he was over two years younger than Reagan...

 

[AdmiralBlake]

interesting, although constitutionally im not sure he could run in 1984, I personally don't think he could, but im not a constitutional scholar

if he did become president in 1981, then the question is who would be his veep? Dole? Bush? Connally?

 

[Fubart Solman]

He might be able to run. The constitution is a bit vague on the matter. He might be able to get away with it because he still hadn't been elected to a term of his own.

"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..." - 22nd Amendment

 

[Bacs]

1973, Technically speaking, Ford was elected by the Senate and House to the Vice-Presidency and assumed the office of President for more than two years. It may not be the traditional way we look at an election, but it was a vote nonetheless, just not by the people or electors. Besides, the whole "more than two years" clause nulls the "election" stance. If you serve two years or over of the elected person's term, you have, in essence, served one term.

1981, when Reagan is killed and Ford assumes the office once again, he will serve another two to three years. This time, however, he would have been elected by the electors and people on election day. When Ford assumes the office, this will be his second term.

1984, Ford is term limited, although his two terms amount to around six years and two months.

Two or more years serving as President, you become a replacement President.
Less than two years then you basically have a trial-period President.

---

A. Now, how this is plausible is if Nixon holds off for as long as he can, and resigns with less than two years to go on his Presidency. Ford will still become President, but will not serve out the allotted time and is therefore eligible for his two full terms. Of course he runs for an election, but loses in '76. B. If Nixon can hold out no longer than what he did in OTL, then Ford serves one term and is eligible for reelection.

A Reagan/Ford ticket is elected in 1980, and Reagan is shot not at the beginning of his term, but toward the end in early-mid '84. With Reagan dead, and Ford assuming less than two years of this Presidency, this will probably create a Constitutional crisis. Ford under scenario A., neither time, has served more than two years as President under someone else who was elected, so technically he still has both of his eligible terms intact. Although he has served nearly three years as President already, being the 38th and 41st President, neither time did he serve over two years upon ascension. So theoretically, considering Nixon and Reagan are different people who qualify as different terms, Ford is eligible for his two terms still. B. Ford, having served what is considered a full term in the 70's, but not in the 80's, is still eligible for one more term.

 

[David T]

1973, Technically speaking, Ford was elected by the Senate and House to the Vice-Presidency and assumed the office of President for more than two years.

The Twenty Fifth Amendment certainly does not refer to it as an election. It says, "Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress." http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

Nobody says that Supreme Court justices or cabinet officers are *elected*, even though the Senate votes on their confirmation . Why should confirmation by both houses of Congress make the appointment of a vice-president an "election" any more than confirmation by the Senate does for other offices?

I can understand the argument that the "spirit" of the Twenty Fifth Amendment is that no person should served more than ten years as president, but that is not what the actual *language* of the Amendment provides. Suppose Obama appointed *Bill* Clinton Secretary of State in early 2009, and a few months later a terrorist attack killed not only Obama but everyone in the line of succession ahead of Bill Clinton (the VP, the Speaker of the House, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate). I see no reason why he could not serve as president until 2012.

 

[Kaiser K]

Suppose Obama appointed *Bill* Clinton Secretary of State in early 2009, and a few months later a terrorist attack killed not only Obama but everyone in the line of succession ahead of Bill Clinton (the VP, the Speaker of the House, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate). I see no reason why he could not serve as president until 2012.

That comparison doesn't work. As Clinton served two full terms (8 years), And thus is term limited.

 

[Bacs]

The Twenty Fifth Amendment certainly does not refer to it as an election. It says, "Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress." http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

Nobody says that Supreme Court justices or cabinet officers are *elected*, even though the Senate votes on their confirmation . Why should confirmation by both houses of Congress make the appointment of a vice-president an "election" any more than confirmation by the Senate does for other offices?

I can understand the argument that the "spirit" of the Twenty Fifth Amendment is that no person should served more than ten years as president, but that is not what the actual *language* of the Amendment provides. Suppose Obama appointed *Bill* Clinton Secretary of State in early 2009, and a few months later a terrorist attack killed not only Obama but everyone in the line of succession ahead of Bill Clinton (the VP, the Speaker of the House, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate). I see no reason why he could not serve as president until 2012.

Okay, that is a misunderstanding on my part and I apologize if it caused any confusion.

Amendment Breakdown.

Under Nixon:

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice," -Ford was never elected.

"And no person who has held the office of President," -Ford held the office of President.

"Or acted as President, for more than two years of a term," -Ford served more than two years of a term.

"To which some other person was elected President," -Nixon was elected President, and Ford filled out his term.

"Shall be elected to the office of the President more than once," -Ford is eligible for (1) reelection.

Under Reagan:

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice," -Ford was never elected President, served more than two years as President (thereby counting as a term), and has been (elected/chosen/confirmed) as Vice-President, ITTL.

"And no person who has held the office of President," -Ford, ITTL, held the office of President, and will hold it again after Reagan's death.

"Or acted as President, for more than two years of a term," -Ford, ITTL, served more than two years of a term, and will serve more than two years of a term after Reagan's death.

"To which some other person was elected President," -Nixon was elected President, and Ford filled out his term. Reagan was elected President, and Ford will fill out his term, ITTL.

"Shall be elected to the office of the President more than once," -Ford is ineligible for reelection, ITTL, having filled out more than two years of both Nixon and Reagan's terms.

Essentially, Ford gets screwed over and receives one term for the cost of two.

See, even though Ford was never elected, he still received a term that lasted longer than the men he replaced (not counting Nixon's previous election). Therefore, he will fulfill the elected term although he wasn't the man elected for it neither time. If you spend more time in the office than the guy you replaced, it basically becomes your term. Get him to where he serves less than two years, and there is where your problems will arise.

 

[David T]

That comparison doesn't work. As Clinton served two full terms (8 years), And thus is term limited.

He can't run again after serving out Obama's (first) term in 2009-2012, because he had been elected president twice. Ford can not only serve out Reagan's (first) term but can also be elected in 1984, for the simple reason that (until 1984) he had never been *elected* president. In both cases, someone can serve as president for over ten years without violating the Twenty Second Amendment.

 

[Kaiser K]

He can't run again after serving out Obama's (first) term in 2009-2012, because he had been elected president twice. Ford can not only serve out Reagan's (first) term but can also be elected in 1984, for the simple reason that (until 1984) he had never been *elected* president. In both cases, someone can serve as president for over ten years without violating the Twenty Second Amendment.

No. Clinton wouldn't be able to serve out Obama's first time because he already served the max 8 years and 2 full terms (The 10 years thing only applies to those who serve less then 2 years of a term I believe)

 

[David T]

No. Clinton wouldn't be able to serve out Obama's first time because he already served the max 8 years and 2 full terms (The 10 years thing only applies to those who serve less then 2 years of a term I believe)

Read the text of the 22nd Amendment again: "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." (my emphasis)

Nowhere does it say that someone who has served two full terms as president can't serve more years as president. It just says he can't be *elected* president again.

 

[Bacs]

Read the text of the 22nd Amendment again: "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." (my emphasis)

Nowhere does it say that someone who has served two full terms as president can't serve more years as president. It just says he can't be *elected* president again.

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

Clinton is Constitutionally ineligible for the Office of the President of the United States, having been term limited, and is therefore ineligible for the Vice-Presidency under Obama.

 

[GeographyDude]

But William Jefferson Clinton would be eligible to be appointed Secretary of State under Obama (I think).

And then if bad events happened taking the lives of several other people, he might well find himself next in line.

 

[GeographyDude]

Read the text of the 22nd Amendment again: "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." (my emphasis).

David, I think you're right. I think a scenario in which Ford is Reagan's VP in 1980, a slight change in the trajectory of the bullet, a troubled young man who was poorly served by his psychiatrist by the way (the psychiatrist advised the family to cut him off on money, and the family later sued this shrink)

Alright, but then it would be a controversy in 1984. Might make the cover of Time Magazine: "Can Ford Serve Another Term?" that kind of thing.

Letter of the Amendment, Yes. Spirit of the Amendment, probably not. Almost a complex thing which is not anticipated.

 

[Meadow]

But William Jefferson Clinton would be eligible to be appointed Secretary of State under Obama.

And then if bad events happened, he would be next in line.

But he wouldn't be able to become President, having served two full terms already. He would be skipped, just like the foreign-born members of the line of succession.

 

[GeographyDude]

Further question, is there some way President Ford in late 1983 or early '84 could take it to the people? And I mean over and above the Presidential primaries. Some way which addresses the question of Constitutional appropriateness?

I can think of this analogy. In 1990, President Bush was facing a budget decision, after making a campaign promise in '88 not to raise taxes.

And it wasn't just any campaign promise. It was something people really remembered, the "Read my lips. No new taxes."

However, if President Bush had called three focus groups of average American citizens, say one in New England, one in the South, and one out West, he could then credibly claim that the American people had released him from the promise. (And 'focus groups' were kind of newly in vogue back then)

I wonder if President Ford could have done something similar?

 

[GeographyDude]

But he [Bill Clinton] wouldn't be able to become President, having served two full terms already. He would be skipped, just like the foreign-born members of the line of succession.

That's a possibility, too.

I'm not an expert. Nor are most of American citizens. And perceptions and whether something is accepted is a big aspect of it, too.

 

[David T]

But he wouldn't be able to become President, having served two full terms already. He would be skipped, just like the foreign-born members of the line of succession.

Once again, persons who have served two full terms as president are *not* under the 22nd Amendment ineligible ever to become president again. They are ineligible to be *elected* president.

Article II, section one 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." No one who does not meet those qualification shall be eligible to the office, no matter how he or she gets there, whether through election or place in the line of succession. Hence a naturalized Secretary of State like Kissinger or Albright would be passed over.

Contrast this with the Twenty Second 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 President more than once." Once again, it does not say that a person who has served two terms is not eligible for the office of the presidency; it says that he or she is ineligible to be *elected* president again.

 

[Kaiser K]

Once again, persons who have served two full terms as president are *not* under the 22nd Amendment ineligible ever to become president again. They are ineligible to be *elected* president.

Article II, section one 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." No one who does not meet those qualification shall be eligible to the office, no matter how he or she gets there, whether through election or place in the line of succession.

Contrast this with the Twenty Second 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 President more than once." Once again, it does not say that a person who has served two terms is not eligible for the office of the presidency; it says that he or she is ineligible to be *elected* president again.

No, Anyone who has served two full elected terms (8 years, 10 for those that serve less then 2 of another). is automatically ineligible to serve any more. Even if the precise wording of the amendment doesn't state that.

Bill Clinton can't serve as President of the United States anymore, As he was term limited. and is constitutionally ineligible.

 

[David T]

No, Anyone who has served two full elected terms (8 years, 10 for those that serve less then 2 of another). is automatically ineligible to serve any more. Even if the precise wording of the amendment doesn't state that.

Bill Clinton can't serve as President of the United States anymore, As he was term limited. and is constitutionally ineligible.

So the "precise wording" of the Amendment is irrelevant? I think that when the Twenty Second Amendment said "shall be elected," it has to be interpreted as meaning what it says.

 

[Delta Force]

So the "precise wording" of the Amendment is irrelevant? I think that when the Twenty Second Amendment said "shall be elected," it has to be interpreted as meaning what it says.

I think being elected in this case will include succession in addition to being elected by the Electoral College. Otherwise being foreign born wouldn't matter for becoming President or Acting President through succession, and it certainly does because they have keep track of who is barred from succession.