U.S. Presidential Term Limit: Not quite..... Vote Bill Clinton 2004! ;-)

adambyte · #1 April 19th, 2003, 03:50 PM

btw, the title of this thread is just to get your attention... that was not me endorsing another term for Bill.

Anyway, recently in my Political Science class, we were discussing the written and unwritten rules of the presidency... And my professor told us the strangest thing: The rule that congress made says that the president may serve no more that two consecutive terms. Apparently this means although Bill Clinton couldn't run for the presidency in 2000, he could actually run for president in 2004, and serve another two terms.... crazy, eh?

bobw · #2 April 19th, 2003, 03:54 PM

Yep, and if he was elected to two more terms, he could wait another 4 years and run again.

toast · #3 April 19th, 2003, 04:49 PM

...which is not strange at all, IMHO.

?

marz · #4 April 19th, 2003, 04:58 PM

I've heard this rumor before, here's what the constition actually says:

"Article XXII.

Section 1.

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. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term."

So unfortunately for these United States, I don't see where Bill could be elected a third time without a repeal of this amendment. But I'm no lawyer.

Dusky · #5 April 19th, 2003, 05:07 PM

If marz' citation is correct, maybe Adambyte is in to gain some extra credit for proving the teacher wrong. I'd start typing up that report...

adambyte · #6 April 19th, 2003, 05:28 PM

Hot damn! I checked http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html , and Marz is, indeed, correct! Unless there's some discrepancy between this online government source and the actual amendment that was passed, it's true. It really IS two terms, max. Hot damn. Guess I'll start writing that paper. Maybe get me some extra credit!

Thanks!

Oh well. Poor Bill.

On an slightly related note, go read "Stupid White Men" by Michael Moore. It's a tiny little bit biased, and a little radical, but very well researched, and overall, a very VERY good book. An enlightening experience.

**fryke** · #7 April 20th, 2003, 04:47 AM

Let's say it is radical.
Let's say it is biased.
Let's say it is a good book.
Why do understatement? ;-)

And, you say, 'Poor Bill'. Actually, I don't know whether he'd WANT to run again. I'd say: Poor America, rather, as the US could do with a better president.

adambyte · #8 April 20th, 2003, 05:17 AM

Well, hey, I said "poor Bill" half-jokingly... I doubt he'd want to run again.

On a somewhat related note, my Political Science class is taught from the "Elitist" point of view.... being that, the reason we have the electoral college and such is because the founding fathers wanted gradual change, encouraged by a two party system... rather than chaos from a whole bunch of parties, where nobody gets a majority of the vote.

"Poor Nader?"