Timeline for "Eligible" vs "Elected" in the drafting of the 22nd amendment
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 28 at 11:09 | vote | accept | Bobson | ||
| Nov 28 at 6:00 | comment | added | Italian Philosopher | @Barmar especially since there is an etymological link between the 2 words. That said, agree with you: no we won't know until SCOTUS. And these 22nd amendment repeat questions are getting tedious: no, the very stable genius can't run again legally. | |
| Nov 28 at 3:38 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Nov 27 at 23:27 | comment | added | R.M. | @Barmar "Unless the drafters of the amendment kept a record of their thought processes, ..." -- That's *literally the question: "Are there any records from the drafting of the 22nd which explain why the word "elected" was used instead of "eligible"?" -- The question goes out of its way to clarify that it's not about the validity of exploiting the distinction, it's about the records. What the SCOTUS thinks about things is completely irrelevant to this question. | |
| Nov 27 at 22:15 | answer | added | Rick Smith | timeline score: 3 | |
| Nov 27 at 22:14 | comment | added | Barmar | There was another recent similar question about the text of those succession clauses. | |
| Nov 27 at 22:00 | comment | added | Just Me | @Barmar But what happens should an ex-President who couldn't be elected again per the 22nd Amendment happen to be Speaker of the House and both the President and Vice President are removed from office by any means before either can be replaced? So, maybe "elected" and "eligible" do differ? (Just ignore the fact that the Speaker of the House isn't an "Officer" of the United States per Art II sec 1 clause 6 and per that shouldn't be third in the succession because "Officers" are appointed by the President per Art II sec 2, clause 2, and that's not a member of the House of Representatives. 🙂) | |
| Nov 27 at 20:38 | comment | added | Barmar | Unless the drafters of the amendment kept a record of their thought processes, I doubt we can know whether they worded it like this deliberately. I think most people would assume that "eligible" means "eligible to be elected". | |
| Nov 27 at 20:35 | comment | added | Barmar | I don't think we'll ever know the answer to this question, or the related one you linked to, unless someone attempts it and SCOTUS weighs in. What "scholars" say is just opinions, not the law of the land. | |
| Nov 27 at 20:26 | comment | added | ohwilleke♦ | I do not believe that this was intentional. But I can't quickly cite to sources that say so. | |
| Nov 27 at 19:38 | history | asked | Bobson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |