Is there a way for presidents to legally extend their terms beyond the maximum of four years?Proper use of the word 'term' for U.S. Presidents, andWhy is the Supreme Court not balanced in terms of their political views?Can the current President of the United States block the transfer of their office to the next elected president?Has the way Unemployment is measured changed in the last 8 years?Is there any evidence that different length terms-of-office would be more effective for a President w.r.t. global policy?Is there a way the US president could extend his immunity in the future?Is there a legal way that can be used to force the President of United States undergo a mental health examination?Is there a tendency for presidents to come from outside of “big politics” in recent years?Is there a maximum period for declassification of information in US?Does a (US) presidential proclamation have a time limit?
Miss Toad and her frogs
Is this hogweed?
Different budgets within roommate group
One folder two different locations on ubuntu 18.04
Acceleration in Circular motion
Is there a category where products don't exist because uniqueness fails?
Which centaur is more 'official'?
Should I report a leak of confidential HR information?
What is "oversubscription" in Networking?
Sum of Parts of An Array - JavaScript
Loss of majority in Westminster
Why did this meteor appear cyan?
Can you sign using a digital signature itself?
Why does a brace command group need spaces after the opening brace in POSIX Shell Grammar?
Can Access Fault Exceptions of the MC68040 caused by internal access faults occur in normal situations?
The Confused Alien
Why do I need two parameters in an HTTP parameter pollution attack?
How can I convince my reader that I will not use a certain trope?
I hit a pipe with a mower and now it won't turn
Prime parity peregrination
Can a single server be associated with multiple domains?
Is it bad to describe a character long after their introduction?
Spicket or spigot?
What exactly is a fey/fiend/celestial spirit?
Is there a way for presidents to legally extend their terms beyond the maximum of four years?
Proper use of the word 'term' for U.S. Presidents, andWhy is the Supreme Court not balanced in terms of their political views?Can the current President of the United States block the transfer of their office to the next elected president?Has the way Unemployment is measured changed in the last 8 years?Is there any evidence that different length terms-of-office would be more effective for a President w.r.t. global policy?Is there a way the US president could extend his immunity in the future?Is there a legal way that can be used to force the President of United States undergo a mental health examination?Is there a tendency for presidents to come from outside of “big politics” in recent years?Is there a maximum period for declassification of information in US?Does a (US) presidential proclamation have a time limit?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
If I remember correctly in one Episode of Stargate SG-1, the president of the United States declares some state of national emergency (world was attacked by aliens) and was able to suspend elections, weaseling around the 22nd Amendment and being able to stay in office indefinitely by keeping up the emergency state.
Is it actually possible for the president stay in office longer than the usual four years or even forever, by using some (basically) legal tricks?
united-states president presidential-term
New contributor
add a comment |
If I remember correctly in one Episode of Stargate SG-1, the president of the United States declares some state of national emergency (world was attacked by aliens) and was able to suspend elections, weaseling around the 22nd Amendment and being able to stay in office indefinitely by keeping up the emergency state.
Is it actually possible for the president stay in office longer than the usual four years or even forever, by using some (basically) legal tricks?
united-states president presidential-term
New contributor
add a comment |
If I remember correctly in one Episode of Stargate SG-1, the president of the United States declares some state of national emergency (world was attacked by aliens) and was able to suspend elections, weaseling around the 22nd Amendment and being able to stay in office indefinitely by keeping up the emergency state.
Is it actually possible for the president stay in office longer than the usual four years or even forever, by using some (basically) legal tricks?
united-states president presidential-term
New contributor
If I remember correctly in one Episode of Stargate SG-1, the president of the United States declares some state of national emergency (world was attacked by aliens) and was able to suspend elections, weaseling around the 22nd Amendment and being able to stay in office indefinitely by keeping up the emergency state.
Is it actually possible for the president stay in office longer than the usual four years or even forever, by using some (basically) legal tricks?
united-states president presidential-term
united-states president presidential-term
New contributor
New contributor
edited 2 hours ago
Brythan
75.2k8 gold badges163 silver badges256 bronze badges
75.2k8 gold badges163 silver badges256 bronze badges
New contributor
asked 8 hours ago
TakiroTakiro
262 bronze badges
262 bronze badges
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
The short answer is no. The longer answer is that this framing isn't particularly helpful.
There are a number of overlapping factors that prevent the president from legally suspending elections like some tinpot dictator. In particular Article II Section I of the Constitution and the 12th, 20th, 22nd, and 25th amendments which combine to define presidential elections and succession.
Terms ending are not directly linked to elections being held. Even if elections could not be held for some catastrophic reason, the president should still leave office at the end of their term according to the line of succession (if no elections occurred at all many of their terms will have ended at the same time, but there should be a President Pro Tempore of the Senate because Senate terms are staggered). This is all theoretical since it's never been tested and hopefully never will be.
Perhaps an even more boring reason why the president cannot simply suspend presidential elections is that the federal government does not run elections. The state governments do. A state government may have the ability to suspend or reschedule an election, and there are rules in place for if a state fails to make a selection on the prescribed day. If they still haven't named electors in time for the meeting of the Electoral College, that state will simply not cast any votes.
The only legal way around any of this would be modifying the Constitution. Because of course you can make anything 'legal' if you change the definition of what 'legal' means.
At the end of the day though, the real world isn't a game. Even if you could find some obscure and bizarre legal loophole to override precedent, the law isn't a set of magic rules. Its just rules that we made up. Nobody would have to accept it. A democratic government governs with the consent of the people. Attempting to use force to subvert the will of the people would be how a president becomes a dictator.
1
+lots for "the law isn't a set of magic rules". This simple fact is often overlooked.
– James K
4 hours ago
"the law isn't a set of magic rules" - also why the peaceful transition of power is not guaranteed, though it's happened many times over. If a President didn't want to leave and they had the support of the military, it would be tough to do much about it.
– David Rice
3 hours ago
add a comment |
The Constitution sets a presidential term at 4 years, and the 22nd amendment pretty firmly sets a two-term maximum:
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...
Since this was a Constitutional amendment, there is no legal way to extend a presidential term after 8 years (or technically 10 if you were a VP-turned-Pres mid-term) without passing a new amendment to allow it. This applies even if elections themselves are suspended for an emergency - the president's term is up when it's up, regardless of whether there's anyone else to take up the office.
Whether or not there's a illegal but effective way to stay president after two terms would be pure speculation.
There is a legal way: convince the congress and at least 3/4 of the states to amend the constitution.
– phoog
6 hours ago
@phoog Fair point. I added that qualifier.
– Bobson
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Takiro is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f42427%2fis-there-a-way-for-presidents-to-legally-extend-their-terms-beyond-the-maximum-o%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The short answer is no. The longer answer is that this framing isn't particularly helpful.
There are a number of overlapping factors that prevent the president from legally suspending elections like some tinpot dictator. In particular Article II Section I of the Constitution and the 12th, 20th, 22nd, and 25th amendments which combine to define presidential elections and succession.
Terms ending are not directly linked to elections being held. Even if elections could not be held for some catastrophic reason, the president should still leave office at the end of their term according to the line of succession (if no elections occurred at all many of their terms will have ended at the same time, but there should be a President Pro Tempore of the Senate because Senate terms are staggered). This is all theoretical since it's never been tested and hopefully never will be.
Perhaps an even more boring reason why the president cannot simply suspend presidential elections is that the federal government does not run elections. The state governments do. A state government may have the ability to suspend or reschedule an election, and there are rules in place for if a state fails to make a selection on the prescribed day. If they still haven't named electors in time for the meeting of the Electoral College, that state will simply not cast any votes.
The only legal way around any of this would be modifying the Constitution. Because of course you can make anything 'legal' if you change the definition of what 'legal' means.
At the end of the day though, the real world isn't a game. Even if you could find some obscure and bizarre legal loophole to override precedent, the law isn't a set of magic rules. Its just rules that we made up. Nobody would have to accept it. A democratic government governs with the consent of the people. Attempting to use force to subvert the will of the people would be how a president becomes a dictator.
1
+lots for "the law isn't a set of magic rules". This simple fact is often overlooked.
– James K
4 hours ago
"the law isn't a set of magic rules" - also why the peaceful transition of power is not guaranteed, though it's happened many times over. If a President didn't want to leave and they had the support of the military, it would be tough to do much about it.
– David Rice
3 hours ago
add a comment |
The short answer is no. The longer answer is that this framing isn't particularly helpful.
There are a number of overlapping factors that prevent the president from legally suspending elections like some tinpot dictator. In particular Article II Section I of the Constitution and the 12th, 20th, 22nd, and 25th amendments which combine to define presidential elections and succession.
Terms ending are not directly linked to elections being held. Even if elections could not be held for some catastrophic reason, the president should still leave office at the end of their term according to the line of succession (if no elections occurred at all many of their terms will have ended at the same time, but there should be a President Pro Tempore of the Senate because Senate terms are staggered). This is all theoretical since it's never been tested and hopefully never will be.
Perhaps an even more boring reason why the president cannot simply suspend presidential elections is that the federal government does not run elections. The state governments do. A state government may have the ability to suspend or reschedule an election, and there are rules in place for if a state fails to make a selection on the prescribed day. If they still haven't named electors in time for the meeting of the Electoral College, that state will simply not cast any votes.
The only legal way around any of this would be modifying the Constitution. Because of course you can make anything 'legal' if you change the definition of what 'legal' means.
At the end of the day though, the real world isn't a game. Even if you could find some obscure and bizarre legal loophole to override precedent, the law isn't a set of magic rules. Its just rules that we made up. Nobody would have to accept it. A democratic government governs with the consent of the people. Attempting to use force to subvert the will of the people would be how a president becomes a dictator.
1
+lots for "the law isn't a set of magic rules". This simple fact is often overlooked.
– James K
4 hours ago
"the law isn't a set of magic rules" - also why the peaceful transition of power is not guaranteed, though it's happened many times over. If a President didn't want to leave and they had the support of the military, it would be tough to do much about it.
– David Rice
3 hours ago
add a comment |
The short answer is no. The longer answer is that this framing isn't particularly helpful.
There are a number of overlapping factors that prevent the president from legally suspending elections like some tinpot dictator. In particular Article II Section I of the Constitution and the 12th, 20th, 22nd, and 25th amendments which combine to define presidential elections and succession.
Terms ending are not directly linked to elections being held. Even if elections could not be held for some catastrophic reason, the president should still leave office at the end of their term according to the line of succession (if no elections occurred at all many of their terms will have ended at the same time, but there should be a President Pro Tempore of the Senate because Senate terms are staggered). This is all theoretical since it's never been tested and hopefully never will be.
Perhaps an even more boring reason why the president cannot simply suspend presidential elections is that the federal government does not run elections. The state governments do. A state government may have the ability to suspend or reschedule an election, and there are rules in place for if a state fails to make a selection on the prescribed day. If they still haven't named electors in time for the meeting of the Electoral College, that state will simply not cast any votes.
The only legal way around any of this would be modifying the Constitution. Because of course you can make anything 'legal' if you change the definition of what 'legal' means.
At the end of the day though, the real world isn't a game. Even if you could find some obscure and bizarre legal loophole to override precedent, the law isn't a set of magic rules. Its just rules that we made up. Nobody would have to accept it. A democratic government governs with the consent of the people. Attempting to use force to subvert the will of the people would be how a president becomes a dictator.
The short answer is no. The longer answer is that this framing isn't particularly helpful.
There are a number of overlapping factors that prevent the president from legally suspending elections like some tinpot dictator. In particular Article II Section I of the Constitution and the 12th, 20th, 22nd, and 25th amendments which combine to define presidential elections and succession.
Terms ending are not directly linked to elections being held. Even if elections could not be held for some catastrophic reason, the president should still leave office at the end of their term according to the line of succession (if no elections occurred at all many of their terms will have ended at the same time, but there should be a President Pro Tempore of the Senate because Senate terms are staggered). This is all theoretical since it's never been tested and hopefully never will be.
Perhaps an even more boring reason why the president cannot simply suspend presidential elections is that the federal government does not run elections. The state governments do. A state government may have the ability to suspend or reschedule an election, and there are rules in place for if a state fails to make a selection on the prescribed day. If they still haven't named electors in time for the meeting of the Electoral College, that state will simply not cast any votes.
The only legal way around any of this would be modifying the Constitution. Because of course you can make anything 'legal' if you change the definition of what 'legal' means.
At the end of the day though, the real world isn't a game. Even if you could find some obscure and bizarre legal loophole to override precedent, the law isn't a set of magic rules. Its just rules that we made up. Nobody would have to accept it. A democratic government governs with the consent of the people. Attempting to use force to subvert the will of the people would be how a president becomes a dictator.
edited 3 hours ago
Brythan
75.2k8 gold badges163 silver badges256 bronze badges
75.2k8 gold badges163 silver badges256 bronze badges
answered 5 hours ago
TalTal
6324 silver badges8 bronze badges
6324 silver badges8 bronze badges
1
+lots for "the law isn't a set of magic rules". This simple fact is often overlooked.
– James K
4 hours ago
"the law isn't a set of magic rules" - also why the peaceful transition of power is not guaranteed, though it's happened many times over. If a President didn't want to leave and they had the support of the military, it would be tough to do much about it.
– David Rice
3 hours ago
add a comment |
1
+lots for "the law isn't a set of magic rules". This simple fact is often overlooked.
– James K
4 hours ago
"the law isn't a set of magic rules" - also why the peaceful transition of power is not guaranteed, though it's happened many times over. If a President didn't want to leave and they had the support of the military, it would be tough to do much about it.
– David Rice
3 hours ago
1
1
+lots for "the law isn't a set of magic rules". This simple fact is often overlooked.
– James K
4 hours ago
+lots for "the law isn't a set of magic rules". This simple fact is often overlooked.
– James K
4 hours ago
"the law isn't a set of magic rules" - also why the peaceful transition of power is not guaranteed, though it's happened many times over. If a President didn't want to leave and they had the support of the military, it would be tough to do much about it.
– David Rice
3 hours ago
"the law isn't a set of magic rules" - also why the peaceful transition of power is not guaranteed, though it's happened many times over. If a President didn't want to leave and they had the support of the military, it would be tough to do much about it.
– David Rice
3 hours ago
add a comment |
The Constitution sets a presidential term at 4 years, and the 22nd amendment pretty firmly sets a two-term maximum:
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...
Since this was a Constitutional amendment, there is no legal way to extend a presidential term after 8 years (or technically 10 if you were a VP-turned-Pres mid-term) without passing a new amendment to allow it. This applies even if elections themselves are suspended for an emergency - the president's term is up when it's up, regardless of whether there's anyone else to take up the office.
Whether or not there's a illegal but effective way to stay president after two terms would be pure speculation.
There is a legal way: convince the congress and at least 3/4 of the states to amend the constitution.
– phoog
6 hours ago
@phoog Fair point. I added that qualifier.
– Bobson
6 hours ago
add a comment |
The Constitution sets a presidential term at 4 years, and the 22nd amendment pretty firmly sets a two-term maximum:
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...
Since this was a Constitutional amendment, there is no legal way to extend a presidential term after 8 years (or technically 10 if you were a VP-turned-Pres mid-term) without passing a new amendment to allow it. This applies even if elections themselves are suspended for an emergency - the president's term is up when it's up, regardless of whether there's anyone else to take up the office.
Whether or not there's a illegal but effective way to stay president after two terms would be pure speculation.
There is a legal way: convince the congress and at least 3/4 of the states to amend the constitution.
– phoog
6 hours ago
@phoog Fair point. I added that qualifier.
– Bobson
6 hours ago
add a comment |
The Constitution sets a presidential term at 4 years, and the 22nd amendment pretty firmly sets a two-term maximum:
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...
Since this was a Constitutional amendment, there is no legal way to extend a presidential term after 8 years (or technically 10 if you were a VP-turned-Pres mid-term) without passing a new amendment to allow it. This applies even if elections themselves are suspended for an emergency - the president's term is up when it's up, regardless of whether there's anyone else to take up the office.
Whether or not there's a illegal but effective way to stay president after two terms would be pure speculation.
The Constitution sets a presidential term at 4 years, and the 22nd amendment pretty firmly sets a two-term maximum:
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...
Since this was a Constitutional amendment, there is no legal way to extend a presidential term after 8 years (or technically 10 if you were a VP-turned-Pres mid-term) without passing a new amendment to allow it. This applies even if elections themselves are suspended for an emergency - the president's term is up when it's up, regardless of whether there's anyone else to take up the office.
Whether or not there's a illegal but effective way to stay president after two terms would be pure speculation.
edited 3 hours ago
Brythan
75.2k8 gold badges163 silver badges256 bronze badges
75.2k8 gold badges163 silver badges256 bronze badges
answered 6 hours ago
BobsonBobson
15k1 gold badge34 silver badges79 bronze badges
15k1 gold badge34 silver badges79 bronze badges
There is a legal way: convince the congress and at least 3/4 of the states to amend the constitution.
– phoog
6 hours ago
@phoog Fair point. I added that qualifier.
– Bobson
6 hours ago
add a comment |
There is a legal way: convince the congress and at least 3/4 of the states to amend the constitution.
– phoog
6 hours ago
@phoog Fair point. I added that qualifier.
– Bobson
6 hours ago
There is a legal way: convince the congress and at least 3/4 of the states to amend the constitution.
– phoog
6 hours ago
There is a legal way: convince the congress and at least 3/4 of the states to amend the constitution.
– phoog
6 hours ago
@phoog Fair point. I added that qualifier.
– Bobson
6 hours ago
@phoog Fair point. I added that qualifier.
– Bobson
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Takiro is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Takiro is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Takiro is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Takiro is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f42427%2fis-there-a-way-for-presidents-to-legally-extend-their-terms-beyond-the-maximum-o%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown