WI: Does the vice president only serve one term?

Hi, I've been looking at the list of vice presidents of the United States and other countries and I thought. What would be the politics, the elections and the government if the VPOTUS could not be reelected for another consecutive mandate. what would happen? its viable?

Hypothetical example:
John Biden only serves 2009-2013 and Obama chooses Clinton as VPOTUS for the period 2013-2017.

Let's say that this limitation would have been put in the constitution before 1789 or in an amendment prior to 1950.
 
And WHY does this come about? It makes no sense to limit the VP when the POTUS is (at your POD) able to run as many times as he can get elected.
 
And WHY does this come about? It makes no sense to limit the VP when the POTUS is (at your POD) able to run as many times as he can get elected.

Perhaps to avoid "abuses"?

but if it is done before amendment 12, it could be seen to limit the candidate of the "opposition party" to remain for 8 years ..

and they never change the term.
 
Maybe one guy is Vice President for every single president in every term during the Era of Good Feelings. That combined with the EoGF going on for a good few decades longer would make Congress pretty mad.

That would mean voting separately for President and Vice President and does not answer the question I asked: What 'abuses'? It seems rather ASB the way it is being proposed by the OP.
 
That would mean voting separately for President and Vice President and does not answer the question I asked: What 'abuses'? It seems rather ASB the way it is being proposed by the OP.
No it wouldn't. It would just have to be a one-Party system (Era of Good Feelings) and mean the same guy proving immensely popular yet rhetorically flexible enough to fit as VP under every consecutive president's party– Jackson, maybe? He was super popular and very flexible when looking at his rhetoric vs his policies. Plus, he openly campaigned after power.

Maybe Burr could do the same thing at an earlier time period.

Unlikely, but not ASB.
 
You'd have to have a Vice- Prez who every-
one, & man do I mean EVERYONE, hated.
The only Vice-Prez who comes even close to
matching this description is Agnew(as for two other controversial Veeps, Aaron Burr
was personally liked by most people, & Cal-
houn was of course popular in the South).
Spiro of course is outside the time frame set
up by the OP.
 
No it wouldn't. It would just have to be a one-Party system (Era of Good Feelings) and mean the same guy proving immensely popular yet rhetorically flexible enough to fit as VP under every consecutive president's party– Jackson, maybe? He was super popular and very flexible when looking at his rhetoric vs his policies. Plus, he openly campaigned after power.

Maybe Burr could do the same thing at an earlier time period.

Unlikely, but not ASB.

What thread do you think you're posting on? This one is that the VP can only serve ONE TERM, then has to be changed like underwear. The specific example used was:
Hypothetical example:
John Biden only serves 2009-2013 and Obama chooses Clinton as VPOTUS for the period 2013-2017.[/
 
omit the abuse. With the other thing I said, is it viable?

Not as proposed. It's irrational to limit the VP without first addressing limiting the President.

Personally, I want no VP choices. Whoever wins, gets to be POTUS, second place gets the VP slot, and third (Libertarian probably) gets first shot at a position usually appointed by the President......(but, as I've pointed in out in my Tudor alt TLs, I'm evil that way:winkytongue:.)
 
What thread do you think you're posting on? This one is that the VP can only serve ONE TERM, then has to be changed like underwear. The specific example used was:
What I was replying to is the argument that the one term rule couldn't happen as there would be no circumstances for an amendment do just the VP to serve one term and not the POTUS. I was just providing an example of a scenario where Congress would go "okay, we need to get this VP situation back in hand."
 
What I was replying to is the argument that the one term rule couldn't happen as there would be no circumstances for an amendment do just the VP to serve one term and not the POTUS. I was just providing an example of a scenario where Congress would go "okay, we need to get this VP situation back in hand."

And your example was not realistic. Politics has always been partisan, whatever they wish to call the parties. In the 18th century, politics was not an profession, these guys had farms/businesses to run. The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves about all these professional politicians, the retirement system, etc. The system was set up in an era where the reason for the salary was pay the guy who ran things while you 'served your country'. To have this amendment (or inclusion in the constitution) in 1789 is, frankly ASB.

I want to know the logic behind @TheMexican's idea. Why only the VP when the President is either not limited or limited to two elected terms? It just doesn't seem logical to limit the lesser 'power' instead of the higher one, imo.
 
And your example was not realistic. Politics has always been partisan, whatever they wish to call the parties. In the 18th century, politics was not an profession, these guys had farms/businesses to run. The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves about all these professional politicians, the retirement system, etc. The system was set up in an era where the reason for the salary was pay the guy who ran things while you 'served your country'. To have this amendment (or inclusion in the constitution) in 1789 is, frankly ASB.

I want to know the logic behind @TheMexican's idea. Why only the VP when the President is either not limited or limited to two elected terms? It just doesn't seem logical to limit the lesser 'power' instead of the higher one, imo.
True, I was just trying to offer a scenario. Except, I only mentioned Burr as a side note. The Era of Good Feelings was not 1789, it was directly after the War of 1812 until the rise of Jacksonian politics.
 
And your example was not realistic. Politics has always been partisan, whatever they wish to call the parties. In the 18th century, politics was not an profession, these guys had farms/businesses to run. The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves about all these professional politicians, the retirement system, etc. The system was set up in an era where the reason for the salary was pay the guy who ran things while you 'served your country'. To have this amendment (or inclusion in the constitution) in 1789 is, frankly ASB.

I want to know the logic behind @TheMexican's idea. Why only the VP when the President is either not limited or limited to two elected terms? It just doesn't seem logical to limit the lesser 'power' instead of the higher one, imo.

Then would it bring more disadvantages? I had thought that with several "crazy" reasons like:
* To force the president to find another partner if he wants to re-elect
* To be a different person, make the jump-off in the congress
* Make the VPOTUS rotate person every 4 years and avoid "wear"
 
Top