20

In the US, can a former president run for president again, at a later time?

Does it matter, whether his first presidency was one or two terms?

Note: This is inspired from the TV Series "Designated Survivor", talking about the Character "Moss". He is a former president, running again.

  • 2
    I believe its subtly mentioned that Moss retired after 1 term for personal reasons – Richard Tingle Jun 16 at 8:25
  • 34
    -1 for not reading the 22nd Amendment -- or at least giving no indication that you did, and didn't understand what was written. – RonJohn Jun 16 at 22:28
  • 2
    Interesting twist - what would happen if a 2 term pres stayed in politics, ended up as Speaker of the House or Pres. pro tempore of the Senate, and the rules of succession kicked in? – ivanivan Jun 17 at 2:32
  • 1
    @ivanivan not sure if it would be constitutional for him to accept such a position, or whether he'd not be passed over in the rules of succession were it to happen. A more realistic scenario would be a reserve officer becoming president and later activated and thus ending up in the chain somehow. – jwenting Jun 17 at 3:48
  • 1
    @jwenting a reserve officer? As in the military reserve? What has that got to do with anything? Anyway, a two-term ex president could certainly be elected speaker of the house or president pro tem of the senate; they'd just be passed over in the order of succession just as naturalized citizens are, or anyone else who is ineligible to be president. – phoog Jun 17 at 6:17
50

Prior to the passage of the twenty-second amendment, Grover Cleveland served non-consecutive terms (and Franklin Delano Roosevelt served four terms). So clearly it was legal then.

The active portion of the amendment's text is:

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.

Section 2 is just about when the amendment will be considered ratified. That was satisfied, so we don't need to care about that or the unquoted portion of Section 1 (the one person covered under that is now dead).

So no person shall be elected more than twice. Nor may a person who was raised to the office from the vice-presidency for at least two years be elected more than once. The amendment says nothing about consecutive terms. It applies whether the person wants a third consecutive term or a non-consecutive term.

There is some dispute about whether someone could be appointed vice president after serving more than six years as president, as that wouldn't be elected. If so, presumably that person could serve almost four years. But there's an argument that that should not be allowed. That argument says that someone who has been president is no longer eligible or qualified to be president. Which makes sense but is not how the amendments literally read.

The basic problem there is that the twenty-second amendment talks only about election and doesn't prohibit people in the line of succession from taking office. Meanwhile, the twenty-fifth adds a new method of appointment for vice presidents without clarifying whether such appointees are limited by the twenty-second amendment.

The dispute is basically over whether they should read the provisions literally, in which case this is a loophole. Or should they naturally extend the various provisions to come up with a reasonable system, in which case they'd make some new rule, like no one who has already served six years or more as president is eligible to become president again. In which case this would be a presidential qualification and no one could be appointed or elected vice president who didn't meet it.

  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation about the interpretation of the 12th and 22nd amendment has been moved to chat. – Philipp Jun 18 at 18:41
12

The US has a presidential term limit of two terms; it doesn't matter whether or not the terms are consecutive. If you've served two terms, you can never again be President; if you haven't served two terms, you're perfectly able to run again.

  • 7
    See Grover Cleveland, the 22th and 24th President of the US – divibisan Jun 15 at 20:24
  • 15
    @divibisan Grover Cleveland served both his terms before the 22nd amendment introduced term limits for presidents. So he is not really relevant in this case. – Philipp Jun 16 at 9:44
  • 1
    This is not correct. A citizen can serve as US president for a total of 10 years minus a day. That's three terms. – Michael_B Jun 16 at 23:27
  • 7
    @Michael_B Ten years minus a day isn't three terms according to any normal rules of rounding, and rounding error is irrelevant to the main point of the question. – cpast Jun 17 at 1:49
  • 1
    (In all honesty, I feel that I'm 75% correct here, so I'm open to another interpretation. But I don't think the "rules of rounding" is very persuasive.) – Michael_B Jun 17 at 1:58
6

In theory, a 1 term president could. In practice, the only living 1 term former president is Jimmy Carter who is 94 years old so while there is probably no legal reason why he could not run it seems rather unlikely that he would want to.

1

As was stated before, you have to read the 22nd amendment in the context of the 12th. If you have been elected to the Presidency twice (consecutive, non-consecutive), you can't run again.

You also have to be eligible to be elected President to be VP. So no, even if Biden secures the nomination, he cannot choose Obama as his running mate.

Having said that, just as was said, ANY former President could compete for and win ANY position that sits in the line of succession. If it came to that issue, he or she would be skipped over, just as was the case with Kissinger, and was the case for Elaine Chao when she was secretary of Transportation.

Also, there are no actively serving members of the military who are in the line of succession. Read the legislation properly. Also, if a military reserve officer were mobilized, they wouldn't be placed in a position where it would be possible for them to get anywhere near the line of succession. I am a military reserve officer, I know what I'm talking about.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .