Let’s say someone served two terms as POTUS, but wanted to continue to be in involved in national politics. So the person gets him/herself elected as a senator or representative. The person rapidly gains popularity with fellow party members in the house (the majority party), and eventually is named either Speaker of the House or President pro tempore of the Senate. Then the unimaginable happens. The President and VP are asassinated (and the Speaker of the house too, if the former President is now serving as a senator).

First, while I know a former president can be elected to Congress, are there any rules barring that person from being elected to Speaker of the House or President pro tempore of the Senate?

If not, is there anything in the Constitution that would prohibit that person from moving back into the Presidency if everyone before him/her in the order of succession was dead or unable to serve for some other reason?

I know this is a highly unlikely scenario, but it has me curious.

__________________
There you are!

Well, the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution provides that "no person shall be elected President more than twice, and that no person who has served as President for two or more years of a term for which another person was elected may be elected President more than once".

The key word here is "elected". From what I can tell, there's nothing which states that a President, who has served under the time provisions listed above, can't still be President. He just can't be elected to the Presidency.

As an example, let's look at Bill Clinton, and let's say Obama and Biden are in the White House.

Clinton was elected to, and served, two terms as President. Under the Constitution, he cannot be elected to that office ever again. However, the 22nd Amendment doesn't really go any further than that.

If Biden were to die, Clinton could be appointed as Vice President (pending Senate and Congressional approval) under the 25th Amendment, which allows for the appointment of a Vice President. If appointed and confirmed as Vice President, the 25th Amendment would allow for Clinton's succession to the Presidency if Obama died or was unable to fulfill the duties of the President. The duration of that Presidency, though, would extend only to the end of the term. Clinton would not be able to run for re-election.

As an aside, Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller are examples of a President and Vice-President, in office at the same time, who were not elected to their positions...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

The specific language used in the Twenty-second Amendment does not prohibit a person who has already held the office of President of the United States for two terms frm succeeeding to that office if he/she is in the lawful line of succession.

As you say, the scenario is unlikely, but there is no barrier to a former President who has subsequently attained a position within the legal succession from becoming President again.

I should point out, though, that a former President is ineligible to be elected Vice-President, since the qualifications for that office are the same as for President, and two-term former Presidents are ineligible for the office of President.

They cannot be elected to the office; that's true.

But they can be appointed to the office of Vice President...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

I don't think a two-term former President can be appointed as Vice-President, Steve, because of this language in the Twelth Amendment:

Even though the Twenty-fifth Amendment allows the appointment of a new Vice-President, it does not otherwise alter the qualifications for that office.

Oh, I agree with you, but only to a point.

The question would come down what constitutes "eligibility".

Arnold Shwarzenneger could not be appointed to the position of Vice President, because he's not Constitutionally eligible to be President. But the Constitution doesn't say that someone who's served two terms cannot serve a third. It states, simply, that a person cannot be elected to a third term.

In the ridiculously unlikely event we were ever to find ourselves faced with such a situation, I think there'd be a Constitutional battle like we've never seen before over the question of eligibility...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

So, you will insist that a person who is ineligible under the Twenty-second Amendment can be appointed Vice-President, even though the Twelfth Amendment plainly says that no one who is ineliglible for President is eligible to be Vice-President? (And the Twelfth doesn't say "elected"--it says "eligible")

I don't believe that you have thought this thing through, but you are free to hold tightly on to that opinion. At least you can thereby avoid agreeing with me. That's apparently very important to you.

Thanks for the replies. I had a feeling that it was possible, but my inclination toward laziness prevented me from combing the text of the Constitution to see if there was a distinction between election to the position and ascension via succession.

__________________
There you are!

If you go back to public discourse around this amendment, the general understanding of it was that someone could serve no more than two full terms or ten years (if they served no more than two years of the term of another President). So no, Clinton is ineligible to be either President or Vice President.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

They never should have put term limits on the office of President. It was a bad Amendment, and it has already caused more than a few problems that could have been easily avoided. It was completely unnecessary as a practical matter. FDR was the only one who was ever elected to three terms.

__________________
"The real question of life after death isn't whether or not it exists, but even if it does, what problems this really solves." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

"A day without sunshine is, you know, night."- Shannon

What were the "more than a few problems" it caused?

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

The thing is, the 22nd amendment wasn't added until it was needed. George Washington set the precedent of stepping down after two terms. Everyone followed it voluntarily after that until Roosevelt.

Curiously, the precedent was actually broken not by Franklin but by Theodore Roosevelt, who served almost all of William McKinley's second term and then one of his own. Under the 22nd Amendment, he would not have been eligible to run again in 1908 (when, after much deliberation, he chose not to), or in 1912 (when he did). However, TR lost in 1912, so his cousin was the first president to actually serve more than two terms.

The precedent being broken unambiguously in 1940, there's every reason to believe that running for third-plus terms would have become the norm had it not been forbidden. I don't see that as good for the country.

George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. Another Reagan term, even with his severe Parkinson's or what ever it was he had, would have been preferable to to the imbecile who succeeded him, he still had three times the IQ of Bush I on his worst day, and certainly another Clinton term, even with a hostile Senate and Congress, was clearly preferable to the imbecile who succeeded him. I'm sure some will think this is debatable, but no sane person would; there simply isn't any rational argument against it.

__________________
"The real question of life after death isn't whether or not it exists, but even if it does, what problems this really solves." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

"A day without sunshine is, you know, night."- Shannon

That last sentence is so astoundingly stupid and based on nothing but personal opinion it leaves little room for anyone to take you seriously.

Furthermore, you contradicted yourself from the very start. Your notion that it has caused "more than a few problems" is utterly inconsistent with your statement that it was "completely unnecessary as a practical matter".

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Ah ... thanks for jumping in and buttressing my statement. It wasn't really necessary, but I appreciate the effort nonetheless.

__________________
"The real question of life after death isn't whether or not it exists, but even if it does, what problems this really solves." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

"A day without sunshine is, you know, night."- Shannon