Ford's third term

The POD here is that in 1980 the deadly word "co-presidency" never comes up; Ford takes Reagan's offer of the nomination for VP without anything more than the routine assurances that "*of course* you'll be consulted, *of course* you'll have an important role," etc. 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. 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. (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...
 
The POD here is that in 1980 the deadly word "co-presidency" never comes up; Ford takes Reagan's offer of the nomination for VP without anything more than the routine assurances that "*of course* you'll be consulted, *of course* you'll have an important role," etc. 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. 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. (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...

Ford would not be eligible for another term in 1984, as he already served more than half a term from 1974-77. The only way Ford could run in 1984 is if his initial ascent to the Presidency was delayed until after January 20th, 1975, or if his succession of Reagan occurred after January 20th, 1983.
 
Ford would not be eligible for another term in 1984, as he already served more than half a term from 1974-77. The only way Ford could run in 1984 is if his initial ascent to the Presidency was delayed until after January 20th, 1975, or if his succession of Reagan occurred after January 20th, 1983.

I specifically anticipated that objection in my post: "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 specifically anticipated that objection in my post: "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!)"

Right, my understanding is that this part of the constitution is interpreted in layman's language as, "serving more than half of one term is akin to being elected to a term." Hence, in serving from 74-77' and and 81-85' Ford would be ineligible for election to the Presidency in 1984.
 
Right, my understanding is that this part of the constitution is interpreted in layman's language as, "serving more than half of one term is akin to being elected to a term." Hence, in serving from 74-77' and and 81-85' Ford would be ineligible for election to the Presidency in 1984.

Suppose there's a court case, and the Supreme Court decides that the literal language of the Amendment, not a layman's interpretation, is what is decisive?
 
Suppose there's a court case, and the Supreme Court decides that the literal language of the Amendment, not a layman's interpretation, is what is decisive?

It's important to note that what I stated above us not the layman's interpretation, but rather the traditional interpretation stated in layman's language. To be frank, the likelihood of this outcome is not within the area of my expertise.
 
We're sort of getting distracted here. Let's assume that the courts accept the analysis I gave and say that Ford can run in 1984. Then what?
 
I suspect that the loophole would be closed quickly. The prospect of Vladimir Putin-esque character carefully arranging to run as VP, with the understanding that his Medvedev analog would immediately resign, thus allowing perpetual rule by one person 'legally', would scare people's socks off. IMO.

What the SCOTUS would decide, I'm sure I don't know, as some of their 'interpretations' seem awfully creative, but I wouldn't be surprised if they ruled that the 'layman's view' was the clear intent, and uphold that. Or they could do something off the wall and say, 'Well, OK, but you've got to resign before that 10 years is up' or that anyone who'd served >6 years as president, whoever it happened, was ineligible for the Presidency, and thus for the Vice Presidency. Or something.
 
I suspect that the loophole would be closed quickly. The prospect of Vladimir Putin-esque character carefully arranging to run as VP, with the understanding that his Medvedev analog would immediately resign, thus allowing perpetual rule by one person 'legally', would scare people's socks off. IMO.

This could work, ONCE, MAYBE. When it comes time for a reelection no one is going to vote for anyone who even remotely looks like they're going to support that guy again. And the OP has already stated he wants to discuss Ford's Presidency in 1984, not the details of him getting there.

We're sort of getting distracted here. Let's assume that the courts accept the analysis I gave and say that Ford can run in 1984. Then what?

Who has Ford picked for VP? Some ideas:

Bob Dole- Ford's old VP nominee. However he already lost once with him.

Howard Baker- Senate majority leader, a moderate conservative

Ted Stevens- Senate majority whip, and suspected successor to Baker

Robert Michel- House minority leader, Newt would later (1990's) criticize him for being too soft

Trent Lott- House minority whip, a conservative supporter of Strom Thurman

Personally, however, I like John Danforth- he was considered a child prodigy of the Republican Party, pulling off miraculous wins in heavily democratic areas. There were rumors he would run in 1980, but nothing came of it. His youth would balance Ford's age, and allow him to be politically neutral, having not been around long enough to be labeled conservative or liberal. Plus it would give the Republican Party a great candidate to run in 1988, without having someone too old.
 
IMO, the OP's interpretation of the 22nd amendment is constitutionally correct, though I can't imagine that Ford would do such a thing.
 
How about Laxalt, as the closest thing you can get to Reagan, both ideologically and geographically?
Wouldn't Ford's position as Reagan's former VP already secure the votes that Laxalt would bring to the table? Reagan fans are already going to vote for Ford, it's other demographics he needs to secure.
 
Wouldn't Ford's position as Reagan's former VP already secure the votes that Laxalt would bring to the table? Reagan fans are already going to vote for Ford, it's other demographics he needs to secure.

Many Reaganites were upset that Reagan was even considering Ford, and relieved when the negotiations fell through. ("Reagan-Ford was not a dream but a nightmare to these conservatives." https://books.google.com/books?id=jn9mEDvqdZAC&pg=PA213) They would still vote for Reagan-Ford of course, but only because of Reagan. They would still be suspicious of Ford, and he would have to do something to allay their suspicions.
 
Assuming all goes constitutionally as you say: I honestly think that, come 1984, Ford is going to face a massive resistance from the Republican Party's conservative flank and, probably, even from the moderates. Twice he was put up as VP even thou the conservatives didn't want him, twice he became President without being elected to the position, and now he's going for what many will think is an unconstitutional power grab, something that'll make everyone ill at ease regardless of what is actually constitutional.

They might have put up with Ford as President for those four years because there is no realistic chance of unseating him before the primaries, but if Ford tries to be elected again in his own right there's definitely going to be some push back, and it'll be personal, and it'll be nasty. Not sure who'll lead the charge against him thou.
 
Assuming all goes constitutionally as you say: I honestly think that, come 1984, Ford is going to face a massive resistance from the Republican Party's conservative flank and, probably, even from the moderates. Twice he was put up as VP even thou the conservatives didn't want him, twice he became President without being elected to the position, and now he's going for what many will think is an unconstitutional power grab, something that'll make everyone ill at ease regardless of what is actually constitutional.

They might have put up with Ford as President for those four years because there is no realistic chance of unseating him before the primaries, but if Ford tries to be elected again in his own right there's definitely going to be some push back, and it'll be personal, and it'll be nasty. Not sure who'll lead the charge against him thou.

This. Ford would likely avoid the whole constitutional question and probably work behind the scenes to ensure his Vice President got the nomination in 1984 against some Reagan legacy candidate. But even then you've got a massive fight on your hands.
 
This. Ford would likely avoid the whole constitutional question and probably work behind the scenes to ensure his Vice President got the nomination in 1984 against some Reagan legacy candidate. But even then you've got a massive fight on your hands.

How could Ford work to get his Vice President the nomination when ITTL he was Vice President? Unless you mean his 74'-77' VP, Nelson Rockefeller, but he retired from politics in 1977, and the liberal wing of the Republican party was NAMED after him, so I doubt he'd get the nomination.
 
How could Ford work to get his Vice President the nomination when ITTL he was Vice President? Unless you mean his 74'-77' VP, Nelson Rockefeller, but he retired from politics in 1977, and the liberal wing of the Republican party was NAMED after him, so I doubt he'd get the nomination.

I'm saying if Reagan is shot and killed, rather than run for a controversial "third term" in 1984, Ford would likely go the easier route and try and get his new, unelected Vice President, whoever that is, the nomination over the neoconservative candidate.
 
Top