Brian Sands, former Deputy Chief of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, and author of an exposé of the top management of the Department, “Arpaio De Facto Lawman” (now out in a 2nd edition), says Arpaio is “done” and won’t be re-elected in 2016. This is reported by the Phoenix New Times today.
When I started this story, the next section was going to be devoted to character assassination from Arpaio supporters against Sands, but my searches so far found that the usual supporters of Arpaio have little or nothing to say about Sands. There’s not even an article mentioning him at Gerbil Report™.
Sands describes the legal action by Arpaio attempting to overturn Obama Administration immigration policy as a “stupid-ass lawsuit.” Smart guy.
In November of 2016, Joe Arpaio will be 84 years old. I think that is awfully old to still be a sheriff. If Arpaio doesn’t get reelected, it will be no doubt because of his age.
I doubt he will run.
Perhaps a good idea. If he steps down because of his age, he would never have to worry about not being reelected. Besides, in 2016, Obama will be gone.
how so?
Well, the election is in 2016 and we know Obama can’t be elected again so technically he won’t be out until 2017. But always, although Obama can’t be elected president again, Obama can serve as president again through presidential succession because the Constitution only bars being elected more than twice but there is no limit on serving.
I agree. Frankly, I doubt that he will complete his current term of office. He is rapidly deteriorating and getting ripped to shreds in the local media for his witheringly bad judgment.
Perhaps he will name Commandant Zullo as his replacement 😀
On December 21, 2016 Orly will be able to say “We can have him out of office within 30 days” and for once she will be correct.
And we still will not have seen the Reed Hayes report.
John, you’re sounding so reasonable . . . I’m shocked. Is this some kind of Christmas miracle? Have you finally recognized that birtherism is a scam?
Whats the difference between a 5 year old and john?
The 5 year old can be taught reason.
The only problem with the Shurf not running for re-election and winning, is that if he loses, the whole rotten house of cards he has built up over the years is going to come tumbling down, on hm, and his deputies. I have a feeling, that if the Fed court really starts tearing in to MCSO they could easily end up with as big of a mess as they had with NOPD several years ago when they basically just had to lock a bunch of them up and start over from scratch from the bottom up.
Oh, and by the way and for the record, since I haven’t said it recently enough, John, you’re and idiot.
Time is not Arpaio’s friend.
While we can imagine a political thriller where the plot point involves an outgoing or ex-president running for vice-president, it currently is an unlikely scenario and an untested theoretical loophole that probably will remain untested for some time, if only given the egos involved, not to mention the realities of power and policy. Those realities in our system stand in contrast, for example, with the Russian system, where Putin has practiced a distinct but related political maneuver. If the vice-presidential succession scenario ever were to be tested here, a la Putin, and implemented as an actual loophole, we can bet it would be amended out of existence at the first opportunity.
FDR was the first president to serve more than two terms, but he was not the first to try, and to the point at hand, he was the last. On the other hand, no ex-president has ever subsequently ran for vice-president.
That’s all to the point of likelihood. Next, considering the constitutional question…
I’m no expert on Constitutional law, but I think this scenario is excluded by the 12th Amendment;
That certainly seems the intent.
To consider the constitutional point, any test of this question would come down to a technical loophole vs. the spirit and intention of the whole. The Constitution literally read, for instance (as Akhil Amar has noted), sets up vice-presidents to preside over their own impeachment trial, but that is not going to happen. It not only is absurd but against foundational principles such as the one that people shall not be judges in their own trials. Similarly, technical hair-splitting between being *elected* (twice) vs. *serving* (two terms) is guaranteed to get the response it deserves, which would be along the spectrum of ridicule to outrage, and any ex-president brazen enough to force the issue would probably not be elected (nor chosen by the actual presidential candidate or the party), and if somehow elected nonetheless, such a vice-president would force an amendment preventing any more such silliness.
It definitely is the intent.
John is staking his claim on a hyper-technicality–that is, the difference between being *elected* (twice) vs. *serving* (twice). So the argument John is stepping into is the debate of the Constitution as founding document vs. the Constitution as computer program.
The straightforward resolution is that when the Constitution is clear, do what it says, but where it is ambiguous, open-to-interpretation, contradictory or absurd, go with the whole, go with intent and integrity of the whole document, use other tools to resolve the issue. We can argue, as we do, about those tools, which ones to use, but historically everyone uses some tool, some manner of interpretation in such instances. We have not just accepted absurd programmatic hyper-technicalities.
That said, if the hyper-technical interpretation managed to win out in such an instance, it’s possibility would certainly be amended out of existence lickety-split. And that evident absurdity demonstrates the weakness of the hyper-technical case here from the start.
We go back to Chief Justice Marshall in Sturges v. Crowninshield, 17U.S.122, 202 (1819):
“Although the spirit of an instrument, especially of a constitution, is to be respected no less than its letter, yet the spirit is to be collected chiefly from its words. It would be dangerous in the extreme, to infer from extrinsic circumstances, that a case for which the words of an instrument expressly provide, shall be exempted from its operation. Where words conflict with each other, where the different clauses of an instrument bear upon each other, and would be inconsistent, unless the natural and common import of words be varied, construction becomes necessary, and a departure from the obvious meaning of words, is justifiable. But if, in any case, the plain meaning of a provision, not contradicted by any other provision in the same instrument, is to be disregarded, because we believe the framers of that instrument could not intend what they say, it must be one in which the absurdity and injustice of applying the provision to the case, would be so monstrous, that all mankind would, without hesitation, unite in rejecting the application.”
Let’s have some satirical fun with this scenario. President Obama is not going to run as vice-president. But imagine if you will:
The Hillary/Bill ticket.
I can’t imagine why Hillary Clinton wouldn’t want her husband as her vice-president, though I believe she thinks Gore should have had Bill as vice-president on that ticket. Not.
How about that Jeb Bush/George W. ticket?
Why oh why didn’t George HW Bush keep Reagan on as vice-president? Can you imagine?
But if Barack Obama were to run for vice-president, would he run with Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton as the presidential candidate?
Either Clinton or Biden might go for it, just to say, after issuing a controversial executive action: “Go ahead. Impeach me.”
Bumper sticker: Really want to humiliate President Obama? Elect him Vice-President.
Michelle as President to Barack’s Vice-President? Get to keep the same slogan, even: Yes, We Can.
I think he’ll take the money and run.
Doesn’t he have a pile of campaign cash he’ll get to keep if he doesn’t run for office?
Pete
“I think he’ll take the money and run.”
That would be my thinking. Things currently are not looking too good for Joe.
According to Arpaio’s post-campaign finance report, dated December 3, 2012, he had $338,600.07 left in his campaign fund, having spent over $8 million to get re-elected.
That doesn’t include any money collected since then.
But he’s been raising money for the next sheriff election, _and_ for an aborted run for governor, ever since then.
I’d be surprised if he didn’t have at least a couple of million in each of those kitties.
I can’t disagree with that.
I think I’ve seen the figure of $5m somewhere but that would of course be a guess and a rumour.
In the case that the two-time President is running again as Vice President.
However, he might be in the Presidential line of succession in a lower position (e.g. as Speaker of the House), then ascend due to everyone above him stepping down (or otherwise being unable to fill the position).
Yet I agree with the conclusion because “eligible” must be read in a broad sense, i.e. not only in the sense of “being elected President” but “being legally able to become President”.
This is supported by the fact that the Constitution talks about “the President-elect [having failed] to qualify”. If “ineligible” meant the former, the ineligible candidate couldn’t possibly be a “President-elect”.
It is a matter of some controversy. It came up before in regard to Bill Clinton. Here is an academic article supporting the view that there is no constitutional trick to evade presidential term limits.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080613214946/http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDgwODVmMzcwMTQwNDM3YjU0OGE5ZjQyOTIxNmUyYzY=
As the Magic M mentions above, there is one other way that a former President could serve two full terms and still be in line to be President – run for the House of Representatives, and after being elected be named Speaker of the House. The former President would then be first in the line of succession after the Vice-President.
Such a scenario is highly unlikely to ever play out, however. For one thing, the only ex-President to later serve in the House of Representatives was John Quincy Adams, Furthermore, since 1967 the prospect of having simultaneous vacancies of both the President and the Vice-President was made nearly impossible with the ratification of the 25th Amendment. Previous to 1967 there was no mechanism for selecting a new Vice-President in the event of a vacancy, but now if a Vice-President becomes President due to the death or resignation of the President, the new President gets to appoint a Vice-President (subject to confirmation by the Congress).
If LBJ had died in 1964, the then Speaker of the House, John McCormack, would have become President because there was no Vice-President that year. However, thanks to the 25th Amendment Nixon was able to select Gerald Ford to be Vice-President after Spiro Agnew resigned, and Ford was able to select Nelson Rockefeller to be Vice-President after Nixon resigned and Ford became President.
I may be wrong here, but even in the cases of appointment or succession, the candidate has to still meet the same criteria that the original office holder did, such that while Kissinger was SOS and technically in the line of succession, there was no way he could have succeeded Nixon.
So I equally think that former two term presidents would be ineligible regardless of the mechanism.
I suspect that you are correct. It makes for an interesting theoretical question, but in real life the prospect of it ever becoming an issue is so remote as to be totally implausible.
No Presidential candidate would ever consider naming a former President to be a candidate for Vice-President, and no former President would accept if asked. As I mentioned, the 25th Amendment makes it extremely unlikely that the Speaker of the House will ever become President through succession. The President and Vice-President never travel together and they don’t make public appearances together.
You are correct. And, in fact, in cases like this the person’s name is simply left off the current line of succession. (See current list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession )
Same thing would happen to a former President who ended up on the list. While it appears a former President can’t be elected Vice President he/she could end up in a elected or appointed post on the list but would just be passed over.
As has been mentioned previously, it is POSSIBLE, that a former president could run for or be appointed to either the house or senate, and could conceivably end up as Speaker or Pro Tem, but even so they would be disqualified by the succession act. So, I don’t see a scenario that could otherwise happen to get around the qualified requirement.
What would happen if, theoretically, a speaker was a naturalized citizen and was put in the position that both the Prez and VP had been put out of the picture for some reason?
He would be skipped in succession. See: The Presidential Succession Act codified at 3 U.S.C. § 19.
(e) says: ” Subsections (a), (b), and (d) of this section shall apply only to such officers as are eligible to the office of President under the Constitution.”
Madeleine Albright as Secretary of State was skipped over in the line of succession because she is a naturalized citizen.
BTW, there is another concept called the “designated survivor” used whenever the President addresses a joint session of Congress. He/she is usually a cabinet member who is absent for the address so that if something catastrophic happens, he/she becomes the President.
Ditto for Henry Kissinger.
The National Lampoon spun out the various holes that did or might have appeared in the Nixon administration’s line of succession into a comic called something like “Claude Brinegar: Thirteen Heartbeats from the Presidency”, as the Secretary of Transportation hatched his plot to claw his way to the White House by, among other things, scheming to get a foreign-born Secretary of State into place. Birthers would categorize this under “non-fiction.”
Retirement fund.
In the line, yes, but with an ‘asterix’ next to his name. The baton would pass to the fourth one in line – the Secretary of State.
Sure they do. All the time.
This is a big f’ing deal…
Yup. And reminding birthers that Arpaio is going to retire as a millionaire thanks to their gullibility is great fun.
I don’t consider an announcement in the White House to be a public appearance, any more than the State of the Union address is a public appearance.