McCain Ineligible to be President? You be the Judge.

The New York Times published an article February 28, 2008 by Carl Hulse that may throw the proverbial wrench into Republican John McCain’s bid to become President of the United States. (left: photo of Senator McCain campaigning. Taken  from his website.)

McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 to American-born parents. The Canal Zone was a Territory of the United States, not a State or even a Possession. His birthplace was a U.S. military base within the Zone.

The Constitution of the United States states that to be eligible to be President a person must be “natural born”. The exact wording is found in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution,

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Most Constitutional experts seem to feel that McCain would win any court challenge, but clearly a challenge could prove messy and the outcome unpredictable. If it was legally challenged before or during the election it could hurt his election chances, and a challenge after his inauguration could prove disastrous for the country. What would happen if he became president, a challenge was mounted and the Supreme Court ruled against him? He would be forced to resign the presidency or be removed from office. What a shocking development that would be.

The crux of the issue relates to the definition of “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution. This would be the clause that the legal interpretation would hinge on. Several things should be in his favor in any challenge,

1) The Panama Canal Zone was a Territory of the United States. Anyone born there would likely be considered “natural born”.

2) He was born on an America military base. Surely this would be considered American soil by the court.

3) He was born to parents who were both “natural born Citizens”, that is they were born in the contiguous fifty United States of America.

If there is no challenge, at the minimum it should be clarified at some future date simply to avoid confusion. Some interesting factoids illustrate confusion that has already occurred. Fortunately, nothing major has occurred to date. However, McCain is a formidable candidate who has a very strong chance of becoming president.

• Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona was the Republican nominee for president in the 1964 election. He was born in 1909 in the then Arizona Territory, three years before it became a state.
• George Romney who was a presidential candidate in 1968 was born in Mexico. Sure seems to me this wouldn’t meet the criteria, but again it wasn’t tested, likely because he didn’t become the nominee of his party.
• FDR, Jr. who once considered running was born on Campobello Island in Canada was definitely ineligible in my opinion. 
• President Chester Arthur, whose official birthplace was Vermont, was rumored to be Canadian born. The only official proof of his place of birth is an entry in the Arthur family bible held by the Library of Congress. In fact it is very likely he was not eligible to be president. He was challenged on the issue, but never legally. See my posting in the archives of this blog which delves into that issue.
• Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California has aspirations to be president. He was born in Germany. He has been told he is not eligible, but what about George Romney in 1968. Why was he even eligible to run when he was born in Mexico?

If a challenge is mounted this year against McCain look for a special sitting of the Supreme Court to quickly resolve the issue one way or the other. To have a major controversy develop during this important presidential election would be untenable.

Further Reading:
Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section 1

New York Times, February 28, 2008, Carl Hulse
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html

Mormon President? Mitt Romney

The race for the Republican presidential nomination just heated up. Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, won the Michigan primary yesterday and is now the delegate leader. He defeated a formible candidate in John McCann, senior Senator from Arizona. Granted Michigan is considered the “home” state of Romney, but still a big win with delegates at stake.

Willard Mitt Romney was born March 12, 1947 in Detroit, Michigan. He is the son of a famous father, George Romney, who was president and chairman of American Motors and governor of Michigan from 1963 – 1969. His father ran for president on a couple of occasions. Mitt has one brother and two sisters. He is married to Ann (nee Davies) and they have five sons.

He had a close call with death in 1966 while in France on a mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He was driving a Citroen with five passengers. It was hit head-on by a drunk driver and he was thrown from the vehicle. It was thought that he had died, but it was an identity mix-up and in fact one of his passengers had been killed.

Mitt’s education consists of a B.A. from Brigham Young University (1971) and an MBA, JD from Harvard University, Law School (1975). He founded his own company, Bain Capital, a venture and investment firm in 1984. Today he is financially independent and a successful businessman and politician.

His political career began when he ran unsuccessfully as the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts against none other than Ted Kennedy. We shouldn’t count that one. Kennedys and Massachusetts, well they go hand in hand.

Next he took over as the president and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee of the 2002 Winter Olympics. At the time it was mired in controversy. He successfully got the event back on track and it ended up making money.

Mitt was elected governor of Massachusetts in 2002, but did not seek a second term in 2006 when he was up for re-election. He officially declared himself a candidate for president in January 2007 and is considered to be one of the leading candidates.

The one thing that he is battling in his campaign is his religious affiliation and the public perception of it. You see he is of the Mormon (or Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) faith. While he was living in Belmont, Massachusetts he was bishop of the Cambridge congregation, then bishop of Belmont, and in 1986 became president of the Boston-area “stake” (analogy is a diocese).

Mitt is facing the same battle that John Kennedy fought in his campaign of 1960, separation of church and state, and voter perception of religion. John Kennedy is still the only person of the Roman Catholic faith to have ever been elected to the Presidency. Can Mitt Romney become the first Mormon to be elected president? Religious affiliation is not a criteria in the Constitution of the United States for being President, nor should it be. Mitt like Kennedy before him needs to clearly demonstrate that he believes in the separation of church and state.

By the way one of the biggest misconceptions of the Mormon church is that they condone and encourage polygamy. This is totally false. It is true that in the faith’s early years the practice was encouraged and allowed, but for over one hundred years now polygamy has been illegal and forbidden within the mainstream Mormon faith.

Madame President?

Former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton is running for President of the United States. Can she win? Will Americans accept a woman as Commander-in-Chief? Many questions remain and it is all unfolding in the caucuses and primaries now being held in the United States.

Hillary Clinton is a graduate of Wellesley College and Yale Law School. She then pursued a successful career in law and public service. She was the first First Lady to be appointed to an official position. She was chair of her husband’s Task Force on National Health Care Reform and testified before Congress as part of her duties. She also continued her own law career while First Lady.

Above: Hillary meeting with President Bush in her capacity as Senator from New York. 

After her husband left office in 2000, she ran for and was elected Senator from New York. She became the only First Lady to hold national office. Her record in the Senate is exemplary and she was re-elected in 2006 to a second term. Conservatives tend to oppose her for her more liberal stand on issues, but she has many supporters. Former President Clinton, her husband, is a staunch supporter.

She was born October 26, 1947 in Park Ridge, Illinois. Bill and Hillary were married October 11, 1975 and have one child, Chelsea who was born in 1980. Hillary was First Lady of Arkansas for her husband’s 12 years of service as governor of the state.

She is the first woman in American history to have a legitimate shot at winning the presidency. The American people expect toughness, compassion and first-class decision making from their leaders.

There is a precedent. Probably the best analogy is Margaret Thatcher who was the tough Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the 1980s. When the upstart Argentine government invaded and occupied the Falkland Islands, a British colony, she responded with an naval armada that sailed to the islands and forcefully kicked them out. It would have been easy to just allow this small colony several thousands of miles away to be lost. Thatcher stood up for her principles and became known as the “Iron Lady” as a result. Clinton needs to demonstrate that she has some of those same qualities. After all the Constitution of the United States gives the President the power of the Commander-in-Chief of all military forces.

The election of 2008 is a wide-open affair. There are no incumbents, either president or vice president. attempting to get elected. Both major parties have fielded numerous candidates from all walks of life. There is a woman, a black, a Hispanic, a Mormon, a mayor, representatives, senators and governors all competing for their party’s presidential nomination.

Clinton’s recent comeback victory in the New Hampshire was impressive, but there are many more states to be won and many more delegates wooed before the winner emerges. Her chances are excellent because of the experienced team behind her in this campaign. Her husband’s sage advice will certainly not hurt her. Former President Bill Clinton has been campaigning for her, but not in an overbearing way. He appears when help is needed, then returns to the background just as quickly. I am sure he doesn’t want it to appear that he is running things. Hillary needs to show that she is the boss and the center of the campaign. So far she seems to be deftly using the assets of her former president spouse, but at the same time focusing on her own priorities.

It is a great opportunity for the Democratic Party. The Republican President Bush has been in power almost eight years. People will be looking for a change. Naturally they will be looking to the other party. Whoever the Republican nominee is must distance himself (no women running for them) from the Bush administration’s policies and show they would be a change of direction, otherwise getting elected will be a problem even if they win the nomination.

Electability is a major issue with the Democrats because they have been out of the White House for eight years.

I’m sure that when Hillary first considered a run for the White House she thought, great opportunity, not many major candidates to compete with. Now suddenly a young, charismatic challenger from her own party, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois is gathering momentum. The contest will be a real horse race. More in future posts.

Presidential Election of 1876 – Rutherford B. Hayes

The other combatant in the 1876 election was Republican candidate Rutherford Birchard Hayes. He was born in Delaware, Ohio on October 4, 1822. His father died before he was born. An uncle, Sardis Birchard, lived with the family and became his guardian and lifelong father-figure. He was the youngest of four children. Two of his siblings died young. He remained close to his sister, the surviving one. (left: Rutherford and his wife Lucy shortly after their marriage)

Hayes graduated from Kenyon College in Gambier, Ohio in 1842 at the top of his class. Then he graduated in 2 years from Harvard Law School in 1845. He was admitted to the bar in 1845 and moved to Cincinnati where he practiced law.

On December 30, 1852 he married Lucy Ware Webb. They had eight children, three of which predeceased him.

He had a distinguished military career during the Civil War. Hayes was the only president who was wounded in the war. He was wounded four times. He was promoted to Brigidier General in 1864.

Hayes started his political career as a Whig, but in 1853 joined the Free Soil party as a delegate. While serving in the war he received the Republican nomination to Congress from Cincinnati. He refused all requests to leave the military and actively campaign. Hayes was elected and served from March 4, 1865 to July 20, 1867 when he resigned because his party nominated him for Governor of Ohio. Hayes won the election and served from 1868 to 1872. In 1872 he was an unsuccessful candidate for Congress. He was going to retire from public life, but was drafted by the Republicans in 1875 to run for governor again. He served from January 1876 to March 2, 1877. He received national attention for leading a Republican sweep of an incumbant Democratic Ohio government.

At the Republican national convention in 1876 he was a dark-horse nominee for president. The favorite and front-runner, James Blaine had led the previous six ballots. Hayes was selected as a compromise candidate in order to break the deadlock.

Then came the controversial election where he apparently lost on Election Day to Samuel Tilden. After the disputed Electoral Votes were awarded, Rutherford B. Hayes was named president. It took until a few days before the end of his predecessor’s term on March 3, 1877 for this to be resolved. He was inaugurated publicly on March 5, 1877. Hayes had secretly taken the oath of office on March 3, 1877 in the White House. This was done out of fear that disgruntled Democrats and voters might disrupt the public inauguration. (below: The public inauguration with Hayes on right taking the oath of office)

He served as the 19th President of the United States from March 3, 1877 to March 4, 1881. Hayes did not seek re-election in 1880. When he accepted his party’s nomination he had pledged to serve only one term. In his inaugural address he proposed the Constitution be amended to have a one-term limit for the presidency combined with an increase in the term to six years. This proposal never went anywhere. His most famous saying was from his inaugural address:

“He serves his party best who serves his country best”

After his presidency he served on the Board of Trustees of Ohio State University. Hayes died of a heart attack in Freemont, Ohio on January 17, 1893.

 This concludes my examination of the election of 1876.

Presidential Election of 1876 – The Deal

This was the second closest and most disputed presidential election in American history. Certainly it was the most contentious of 19th century America. The 2000 election of Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Albert (Al) Gore, Jr. stands as the closest and most contentious. Republican Rutherford B. Hayes won the 1876 election over Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, but in the end the election had to be decided by an Electoral Commission. (left: Samuel J. Tilden, Democrat from New York)

On election day, November 7, 1876 Tilden defeated Ohio’s Rutherford Hayes in the popular vote, and had 184 electoral votes to Hayes’s 165, with 20 electoral votes in dispute. A constitutional crisis loomed.

Hayes’s predecessor was Ulysses S. Grant, a Republican, who was finishing out his second term. A weak economy and rampant corruption in his administration had lost support for the Republicans. In fact on December 15, 1875 the House went so far as to overwhelmingly pass a resolution asking Grant not to seek a third term. He had previously denied that he would do so, but he did try later in 1880 to run again.

Republican candidate Rutherford Hayes was nominated on the 7th ballot as a party compromise. He was previously a member of the House of Representives and a governor of his home state of Ohio. He was a reformer who wanted to get rid of corruption and put the federal government on a new path.

The National Greenback Party was formed to advocate the use of greenbacks (paper money not supported by the gold standard). They nominated manufacturer and philanthropist Peter Cooper for president. This party wanted the gold standard abolished and a free supply of paper money used to help the working class.

The Democrats nominated Samuel J. Tilden, the governor of New York, for president. He had become a national figure as a crusading reformer. Tilden stood for an end to corruption, withdrawal of federal troops from the South, tariff reform, a ban on Chinese immigration, and a halt to railroad subsidies.

These were the three main presidential candidates. Of the three, Hayes was the relative unknown. An unusual fact related to campaigning at this time – it was actually considered improper for a candidate to actively pursue the Presidency, neither Tilden or Hayes stumped for votes, that job was left to surrogates. Certainly a far cry from today’s presidential politics.

Election Day, November 7, 1876, Samuel Tilden won 250,000 more popular votes than Hayes. In fact the popular vote really doesn’t have anything to do with the actual election of the President of the United States (see my posting on “How is the President Elected? The Answer May Surprise You” in my blog archives). Far too much emphasis is placed on its importance. Anyway the Republicans refused to concede the election to Tilden disputing the returns from Florida (sound familiar?), Louisiana, South Carolina, and Oregon.

On December 6, 1876 two competing sets of Electoral Returns were submitted from these states and a constitutional crisis erupted. The constitution provides that if neither candidate has a majority of electoral votes, then the Presidency will be decided by Congress. At the time the Congress was controlled by the Democrats. They could easily have voted to give Tilden the election. To bring order to the process President Grant requested that Congress set up an Electoral Commission. This temporary commission consisted of five members from each of, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. The political make-up of the members was eight Republicans and seven Democrats. Their assigned task was to sort out the election results.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Bradley, a Republican member of the Commission, submitted a legal opinion on February 9, 1877 favoring the election of Tilden. Under pressure from fellow Republicans he reversed his decision. The Commission then voted not to examine individual state returns, and awarded Florida’s electoral votes to Hayes. Subsequently on February 16, 23, and 28, 1877, they awarded electoral votes from the other disputed states to Hayes. They declared Hayes as their choice for president. Congress still had ratify the Commission’s findings.

Republicans from Hayes’s home state of Ohio met with Southern Democrats on February 26, 1877. The Southerners agreed to support the election of Hayes with conditions. This was a secret meeting held before the Congressional vote on the Commission’s findings. The deal became known as the Compromise of 1877. Hayes had to promise to withdraw federal troops from the South, appoint a Southerner to his Cabinet, and look into railroad subsidies. He earned the nicknames “Rutherfraud” and “His Fraudulency” for this back-room bargain.

On March 2, 1877 Congress voted to ratify the Commission’s findings and officially declared Republican Rutherford B. Hayes (photo to right) as the 19th President of the United States. He was inaugurated three days later. The Democrats and many of the electorate were outraged. Samuel Tilden became, like Al Gore after him in 2001, the almost President.

The final results of the election of 1876 were:

Rutherford B. Hayes, Republican  Electoral Votes 185   Popular Vote 4,034,311 (47.9%)
Samuel J. Tilden, Democratic     Electoral Votes 184   Popular Vote 4,288,546 (51.0%)

In this election year it is always interesting to look back at previous events. More postings to come.

Illegal President? Chester Alan Arthur

Chester Arthur became the twenty-first President  on September 19, 1881 when President James Garfield succumbed to his gunshot wounds.  Garfield was shot in a Washington, DC train station by Charles Guiteau on July 2, 1881. Arthur was elected Vice President of the United States on a ticket with Garfield in 1880. The Constitution of the United States requires that to be eligible to hold the office of Vice President or President one has to be born in the United States .

Below: Garfield assassination 1881.

His country of birth is very much in doubt. No birth certificate has ever been produced that proves he was American by birth.

His father immigrated to Quebec, Canada and raised his family there, before moving to Vermont. It is claimed that his son Chester was born in a cabin in Fairfield, Vermont in 1829. Fairfield is only a few miles from the Canadian/US border.

Many of his opponents accused him of not being eligible to be Vice President or President because he was a British citizen born in Canada. No undeniable proof has ever been brought forth either way. Arthur himself neither denied or defended his eligibility. He remained silent on the issue. The Arthur family bible held by the Library of Congress has family entries showing his birth as Fairfield, but this is not irrefutable proof. His father wanted him badly to be an American and that is why the family moved to Vermont. He also encouraged Chester in his political career.

Arthur Hinman, a New York lawyer, published a story in the New York Times of December 22, 1880 on then President-elect Arthur. Apparently Hinman was “employed by the Democratic National Committee to obtain evidence to prove that Arthur was an unnaturalized foreigner”. He later published a book, “How a British Subject Became President of the United States”. An article related to the content of this book was published in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle of June 2, 1884 which claimed:

“Chester Alan Arthur was born in Dunham Flats, Canada on {sic} March, 1828, and that he represented himself to have been born at North Fairfield, Vermont”

Another author, Thomas C. Reeves wrote a biography of Arthur, “Gentleman Boss: the life of Chester Alan Arthur, New York: Knopf, 1975″. He dismisses Hinman’s theory but admits that Arthur lied about his age. This would have had no effect on his eligibility for the Presidency though.

Perhaps we will never know the entire truth, but it was extremely easy to cross the border in 1829 and accurate birth records were not kept in either Canada or the U.S. Canada was a British Colony until 1867 so if he was born in Canada in 1829 he would technically be a British citizen, still ineligible to hold either the office of Vice President or President of the United States.

Chester A. Arthur was very likely an illegal President who should not have been allowed to hold the office. At the very least he should have been asked to prove his birth before being nominated in 1880 as his party’s Vice Presidential candidate.

Another historical mystery that remains unsolved.

Footnotes:

The Library of Congress does indeed have the Arthur family Bible (Philadelphia, 1857, LC call number: BS185.1857.P5, Rare Bk. Coll., Bible Coll.). The birth record for the 21st President reads: “Chester Alan Arthur–fifth child & eldest son of William Arthur and Malvina his wife,–born Oct. 5, 1829, at Fairfield, Franklin
Co. Vt.” 

President Arthur had a fatal kidney disease. He knew he was dying during his presidency. He did seek the nomination in 1884 in an effort to hide his illness, but was unsuccessful. He died in 1886, just a year after leaving the presidency.

Presidential Primer #5 – Succession

To maintain a stable democracy it is important to have a clear succession procedure in the event of the death of the president.  (Left: President William Henry Harrison, first President to die in office.) This also applies to a resignation or removal from office (impeachment). When these types of events occur it is usually a time of confusion and vulnerability for the government.

Again let’s look at what the Constitution of the United States laid out for these contingencies. Keep in mind that this is what was in the original Constitution.  Amendments were made later to clarify presidential succession. I will discuss those later on.

Article II, Section 1 states:

“In the case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or in ability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.”

This section did not clearly state that the Vice President automatically became President on the death, removal from office, or resignation of the President. In fact it seems to say that the Vice President would only be an “acting” President until they could elect a new President. Very much subject to interpretation.

The first test of this took place when President William Henry Harrison died one month after taking office in 1841. His Vice President John Tyler was not liked and when he took it upon himself to take the “Oath of Office”, there was confusion and great controversy. Many in the Congress attempted to nullify the oath taking and appoint their own choice for President. Finally a vote in the House of Representatives confirmed him as President and his presidency was formally recognized.

What this did was effectively set a precedent in law. Constitutionally it was still foggy and should someone mount a serious challenge to a succession in the future it might succeed.

The Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution modified Article II, Section 1, but this was not ratified until February 23, 1967. After President Kennedy’s assassination on November 22, 1963 lawmakers realized that a clearer succession procedure was needed to avoid any future confusion or doubt as to who the new President would be.

Amendment XXV, Section 1 states:

“In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.”

As you can see this is very clear. Further, it built in another safeguard by filling the vacant Vice Presidency that occurs when he succeeds to the Presidency. In some cases the office of Vice President has been vacant for almost four years. Examples of this are when President Harrison died one month into his term, Tyler served virtually an entire term without a Vice President. (Right: John Tyler, first Vice President to succeed to the Presidency.) Then when President Franklin Roosevelt died a few months into his fourth term, Harry Truman served FDR’s remaining term (almost four years) without a Vice President. Fortunately nothing happened to either President, but certainly some uncertainty would likely have occurred when the Speaker of the House succeeded, for he would be the next in line. This eventuality was covered off by Amendment XXV, Section 2 which states:

 “Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.”

The first time this provision was used was December 1973. President Richard Nixon appointed Rep. Gerald Ford as Vice President when Spiro Agnew was forced to resign in scandal. Subsequent to that Ford succeeded to the Presidency after Nixon’s resignation to avoid likely impeachment. He then appointed Nelson Rockefeller to be his Vice President. The Congress ratified the appointments in both cases. (Left: Gerald Ford, first to be appointed Vice President under Amendment XXV.)

Finally there has always been confusion about what happens if a President becomes incapacitated and can’t discharge his duties. The primary point of contention has been at what point is he unable to do that and who decides that an “acting” President is needed.

Section 3 of the Amendment states:

“Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate (the Vice President) and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.”

Several examples of this have occurred where Presidents have had minor surgery that required general anesthetic. Vice Presidents have been “Acting President for several hours.

If the President is unable to resume his duties and can’t notify Congress himself the Amendment states:

“the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue”.

Then after a vote in Congress if it is agreed that the President is unable to function:

“the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President”

So for example if a President slipped into a coma, the Vice President would only be “Acting President”.  Only on the President’s death would he officially become President.

Presidential Primer #4: How long does the President serve?

 

Above: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the only person ever elected President of the United States more than twice. He was elected to four consecutive terms starting in 1933 until his death in 1945.

The President’s term of office was defined in the Constitution, Article II, Section I as follows:

“He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years”

Notice that there is no mention of the number of terms the President could serve. There were no term limits in the original Constitution.

George Washington, the first President, felt strongly that one should only serve a maximum of two terms and he actually preferred only one term. He stood for election a second time only because he was told the country needed his leadership desparately in its first years.

Amendment XX was ratified January 23, 1933 to clarify the term of the President.  Section I of the Amendment states:

“The terms of the President and Vice President shall  end at noon on the 20th of January”

Previously their terms ended on March 4th of the year following the presidential  election, but this was not a constitutional requirement. March 4, 1789 was the date that the first U.S. Congress convened in New York City, so that was the date selected for terms to end every four years. As a result of the Amendment now every four years on January 20th at noon the sitting president’s term ends and a new one is sworn in. If the incumbant president has won re-election then he too must be sworn in for his second term.

The new President is constitutionally required to take the oath of office as follows:

“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”

 

Above: President Abraham Lincoln taking his second oath of office in 1865. He is standing in the middle of the photograph.

Many Presidents have served two terms. President Grover Cleveland even served two non-consecutive terms. Several have sought third terms, but were unsuccessful.

Finally after 151 years (1789 to 1940) a president was elected to a third term. This man was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who in fact even went on to a fourth term in 1944. This was unprecedented in American history.

As a result Amendment XXII was ratified February 27, 1951 to set term limits. This reads as follows:

“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.”

Further it went on to exempt the sitting President (at the time Harry Truman): 

“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.”

Truman had assumed the Presidency only one year into FDR’s fourth term (1945) so normally he would not be able to seek a second election. However, he was exempted by this Section. He did seek a second election but was unsuccessful.

That is why George W. Bush the sitting President as this is written, never again will be eligible to be elected President. The same holds true for the another recent two term President, Bill Clinton. Clinton is still relatively young but this amendment prevents him from trying again.