Biden-Obama is 'Plan C' ticket
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
With President Joe Biden today dismissing critics of his poor debate performance with former President Donald Trump, a "Plan C" is being urged to help his wounded reelection effort across the finish line first on Election Day.
Advocates of "Plan C" said the solution to Trump's surging campaign and Electoral College advantage is a simple one: replace Vice President Kamala Harris with former President Barack Obama.
"A Biden-Obama ticket would have a much better chance of beating Trump," said legal scholar John Banzhaf, a professor at George Washington University Law School.
"Barack Obama is probably one of the few persons whom a majority of Americans would want and trust as president, so Plan C might be the least objectionable of a number of very unpopular and dubious options now open to Biden and the Democratic Party," he said on Thursday.
Forget "Plan B" of Replacing Biden
Instead Consider Plan C
Let Biden Run With Barack Obama For VP
Yes, It's Constitutional, Say Many Experts
Public Interest Law Professor John Banzhaf
George Washington University Law Schoolhttps://t.co/Myt8BieypZpic.twitter.com/jkJbzmVFd1
— John Banzhaf (@ProfBanzhaf) July 1, 2024
Banzhaf cited analysis by constitutional scholars dismissing concerns that the 12th and 22nd amendments bar a former two-term president from the vice presidency.
"The 22nd Amendment, which is most frequently cited as a bar to Barack Obama ever serving as president again, doesn't — according to its carefully crafted and very narrow exclusionary language," Banzhaf said.
The key sentence in the amendment says, "No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice, and no person who has held the office of the 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."
Banzhaf said "while this amendment may bar Obama from 'being elected' to the office of president again, it obviously and by its clear language doesn't prohibit him from being elected as vice president, and subsequently becoming president by succession without ever being elected to the office again."
He used the same argument to challenge the 12th Amendment.
"According to the overly precise language deliberately carefully chosen by the drafters, Obama cannot 'be elected to the office of the president,' but there's nothing to say that he cannot be elected to the office of the vice president, and then succeed to the presidency if Biden becomes unable to perform his presidential duties or simply resigns. In other words, Obama is not now 'ineligible to the office of president' and therefore ineligible to run for vice-president; rather he is only ineligible to be 'elected' to the office of the president, not ineligible to attain the office by succession," he wrote in an email.
Banzhaf's email reiterated points he made in a blog post for GWU after the Biden-Trump debate a week ago.
While it is highly doubtful that Obama would want the vice presidency or would take it from Harris, he has been deeply concerned that Biden is blowing his chances of reelection.
Banzhaf said that having Obama as Biden's backup might give the country renewed confidence in the president. And, alternatively, Biden could run and win with Obama and then resign if he is as ill as some have speculated.
He said that plan would also allow him to break his promise not to pardon his son Hunter Biden from a gun conviction.
"Rather than simply offering the public the opportunity to have a second-term Biden president supported and backstopped by a very popular and clearly very capable former president Obama, and having someone with experience and a proven record as commander in chief should Biden not be able to continue to serve at anytime during a second four-year term, Biden might even consider announcing before the election that, if elected president, he would resign shortly after his inauguration so that Obama can then become president," Banzhaf wrote.
He added, "In addition to claiming that stepping down is the statesman-like thing to do, Biden could argue that resigning would be necessary to permit him to break his promise not to pardon his son, Hunter Biden. Indeed, letting Obama take over would also limit the adverse political fallout of going back on his previous commitment."
Tags
Who is online
125 visitors
My goodness,... The brainstorming over Biden losing his grip on the reigns of power is impressive.
We know Biden's mental faculties are of no concern to many of his faithful followers.
Too many fools believe Biden possesses some semblance of competency despite what they see and hear.
It seems very likely that Obama is pretty much the puppet master manipulating Biden's strings behind the scenes right now. Biden is too dumb and passive to come up with all the radical far left shit that's coming out of his administration.
I don't think the masses are ready for another Obama disaster.
What a mess.
All of Democrats own making.
You (no surprise) give the GOP a pass.
The Ds have failed to put forth a sound candidate and are now in scramble mode after the debate. It was their job to put forth a good candidate who could win (especially against Trump) and they screwed that up.
The GOP, however, had the opportunity via a primary to pick a suitable person as their nominee. They had a very clean opportunity (they did not have an incumbent who was determined to run) to rid the nation of Trump yet they discarded younger, better candidates and stuck with that scoundrel.
Both parties failed but the GOP had a much easier path to give this nation a good choice. The GOP instead produced arguably the worst nominee in our nation's history.
Why deliberately state something false?
Where did I give the GOP this mythical pass?
Can you provide a quote?
I think Biden's current troubles are the Democrats fault.
Instead of lying, they told us Biden was perfectly fine.
Did he LOOK fine to you at the debate?
Look, I know you just want to get in the usual stuff about Trump, but is he the topic?
A republicans chose a rapist and a convicted felon. Only way of going lower than that is to choose a pedophile that hung out with Epstein.
And that relates to the possibility of Biden being replaced how exactly?
Many times on the flight log of the Lolita express
The mess is the current election.
That mess is the fault of both the Ds and the Rs.
Not just the Ds. Mostly the Rs.
Bill Clinton has already had two terms and Prince Andrew wasn’t born here.
Had to check and make sure I was on the right article.
THIS one is about the possibility of Biden being replaced, and your comment (no surprise) has zero to do with quoting me giving the GOP a pass as you claimed.
Doesn't matter. What does matter is that the Republicans control the WH and both House of Congress. Whatever works. I would have preferred DeSantis/Haley, but the left would have demonized them also
I think everyone knows what partisans seek. What amazes me is that partisans (at least on the R side) are willing to elect a traitor — a vindictive, narcissistic, loose-cannon scoundrel who is the only PotUS in our history who tried to steal a presidential election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement. For most on the R side it does not matter who the nominee is ... just as long as the R is next to the name.
The left will keep pretending Biden is actually a legitimate candidate. Sad, isn't it?
I think 'the left' recognizes that Biden should not be running for office. That should be obvious given the turmoil in the D party right now. But they (and I think everyone should realize this) know that if they cannot find a way to win the presidency, then Trump will be PotUS and now armed with a level of immunity well beyond what most rational minds imagined. Thus their actions are (appropriately) focused on ensuring that does not happen.
Wow, so many on the left recognize it that Biden swept the primaries.
Makes sense, ha!
I am not interested in the hysteria about the SCOTUS decision nor what some imagine it allows a President to do.
Are you operating in the present or the past?
In the present, the D party is dealing with reality post the debate.
I suggest you think in terms of the present rather than rely upon dated factors of the past.
Your question is ignorant.
Who among the top ranking Dems or former Presidents have said to replace Biden?
You are pretending that the D party is not currently scrambling to see if they are sticking with Biden.
I believe they will stick with him since all other options are arguably perilous, but one would be politically blind to not see what has been taking place since the debate.
Nope, that is merely your erroneous conclusion.
I do take note you failed to mention any big name Democrats calling for Biden to drop out, though!
And then you say Biden will most likely stay in.. Kind of like not quite believing Dems will replace him.
I guess not enough Democrats thought Thursday was so bad after all.
You are in a tiny minority of people who (inexplicably) believe all is normal in the D party right now.
Yeah Texan, both of those facts can coexist. The D party can be in a state of panic right now and the D party can also very likely not replace him.
I recommend you keep repeating that and illustrate to everyone your failure to understand what is taking place in the D party right now.
Again, if you are assigning things to me, quote me. Seems to happen frequently.
What is considered normal to you?
Seems like logic dictates Dems to replace him.
Since it doesn't appear that will happen, the Democratic Party is acting illogically.
Just because you don't think I know something has no bearing on reality.
perhaps, your reality, but that's because someone set your course bearing on incorrect coordinates
your comment is worthless
as is the pseudo reality you dwell within
Your comment is consistent with the other one.
Worthless attempt at insulting me that fails so miserably.
"Some People", huh?
Which people?
Sorry to you an opinion is worthless, yet, perhaps if you applied such logic unto you opines, all would be fine
Still a worthless comment.
You DO understand I am not the topic, I hope!
I understand a small fraction of that which is comprised to create the whole, and I see what my perception formed, after viewing our country become D formed, and it is a norm quite abbey, way out of our country's norm. Your continued claim how both are just the same and to vote third party or abstain is totally wrong, as the case is quite plain, Trump and his hand picked agents, no and not secret, are creating court terms never needed before the Lying, Sexually assaulting Rapist & convicted felon, insurrectionist not quelling, thief of Top Secret Briefs Depends on people like you to diminish voting and turnout, so
I will call out, that which i feel and often see, exampled by you Tex
Or maybe you don't get that i am not the topic.
We're talking people currently running for POTUS. Try to keep up.
Who are we? Keeping up with you requires frequent braking.
Then stop trying, you are constantly off topic and refuse all attempts to get on topic.
I’m sorry that you will continue to be disappointed.
Do Democrats and leftists really think the Supreme Court will overturn the 12th and 22nd Amendments if Biden can't serve as President?
The duty of becoming President would fall to the Speaker of the House. If it is Republican the first thing they would do is jettison Obama as VP.
Democrats think if they prop Joe's carcass up in the corner with a smile on his face their minions in the media and sheeple will claim he is fit to serve. Since Obama is already in control of this administration through his former administration officials (many of which serve in Biden's administration) why would he even consider becoming VP and risk tarnishing his legacy?
The desperation on the left is palpable.
Only problem with their "plan c" is Obama is intelligible for office at that level.
Since he has served 2 terms as president , he can not serve as vice president.
Reason being , if something should happen to Biden he can't take over due to term limits.
But since the POTUS can do as he pleases now, Biden could simply appoint Obama as president....nothing anyone could do about it.
That comment is not grounded in fact or reality.
I have think that the court is guilty of gross overreach and[✘]
That or just stirring the pot of shit.
I have personally thought , IF trump returned to office , it would just end up being a repeat of 2016 -2020, so far , I have not been disappointed.
IF you really believe that crap, I hear there's a couple bridges for sale.
Have a happy 4th gyreen
That's an awesome idea. I doubt Obama wants the job though, or Michelle.
Having read many comments about how the President can order American civilians to be killed with impunity, I have to question the intelligence involved to come up with something so damn stupid.
Happy 4th Mark!
True...
For the sake of the discussion , only way Biden could attempt to appoint Obama is if he and Harris run and win , he talks Harris into stepping down , and nominates Obama , there is no appointing, which then goes to the Senate for the needed 60 confirmation votes. He can't do it during the convention because even by Dem national commitee rules obama is an ineligible candidate , even if they do change their own rules, they can not change the constitution.
I am just going to say the statement I am responding to in the most polite manner I can , is BS from the start because it failed to follow the constitutional requirements or process lined out. Something we learn in government class in school, or at least we use too.
Perfect example of democrats overriding the Constitution. To most of them, it is nothing more that a piece of paper.
Why not?
Lol I believe it has to do with a certain constitutional amendment that limits how many terms any one person can serve as president, it is very plainly worded and very hard to misunderstand.
Yes, and the argument the seed presents is that only applies to being elected to a third term. I don't see anything that would make him ineligible to run for VP. As such he would be next in line for succession. It would be a blatant attempt at an end-around but...
Greg, the VP slot has the same qualifications required as the president to serve, they must also be qualified to be president , the 22nd amendment disqualifies Barak Obama because he has already served 2 terms as president.
That ain't rocket science.
Sorry, I was preoccupied with a grill and some beer. I don't see anything in the 22nd that precludes anything in relation to the vice-presidency. The 12th, yes. Then the argument comes down to the wording of the amendment.
Sorry , I don't see the argument, Obama is basically ineligible to hold office that leads to the presidency through succession, that includes any office that does so.
Matter of fact and I'm not sure but I think when it comes to the presidency and VP, that is the only disqualification for office other than a conviction for treason.
Having already served the 2 allowed terms in one would definitely make one an ineligible candidate for the lower office because they cannot if need be take the higher office.
I didn't write it , but I damn sure know how it works.
About the best that one that would like Obama as VP could happen was he MIGHT be able to serve as VP but after holding the top spot, I don't see him playing second fiddle to his former second, but if anything were to happen to Biden or he should step down, then the VP assending to the presidency would be skipped, and the next in line of succession would become president. Since Obama as VP. Would be ineligible for the office of the president per the 22nd amendment.
Nah, current SCOTUS majority will find a way to rule around that if Trump wins and decides to stick around for a 3rd or 4th term.
That is as farfetched as those claiming the President can murder his rivals.
I have one really one single big take away from this ruling.
I have just stated elsewhere, IF trump should win , this term would be basically a repeat of his last one with the opposition, meaning impeachments for any and all reasons.
What this ruling basically can mean is any charges the house wishes to bring , might first have to go to court to see if immunity applies. It could also mean , that the charges can be brought without review , sent to the Senate for trial and thrown out because of immunity ( the course I think it would take personally).
Of course this all hinges on , who is control of the house, who controls the Senate , and what the trials judge decides.
Now, before anyone says it only benefits trump, I remind that bill Clinton would have benefited as well with his little impeachment for a consentual little tryst with the OG hawk tuah girl Monica.
You also have to remember that Biden was not president when he stole classified documents from Scifs. The SCOTUS decision does not allow for immunity when not president.
Rather than contrive something like this, it would seem better to pick a solid D governor like Tim Walz. While I recognize the lack of name recognition, this at least makes logical sense as a ticket. Then Tim Walz could pick a solid V.P. to shore up the ticket. Get a team of vibrant, experienced, grounded individuals for the Ds (ideally moderate) and those who are sick to death of both choices will likely move to the Ds.
( And here is a crazy thought, imagine V.P. Oprah to bring in major league name-recognition and trust albeit with no experience. )
That said, it seems that sticking with Biden might be the only realistic option for the Ds at this stage. I think their window of opportunity is closed.
Oprah? I don't think you could pay her enough to give up control of her financial empire to get her on board.
That VP pick smells of fantasy and desperation to me.
At least my suggestion of Michelle is grounded in both reality and possibility of her likely chances, which have lately been validated by the media over the past couple days, IF she could be convinced.
It was an example of an action to help deal with the lack of time remaining in the campaign to get sufficient name recognition. I know it is unlikely. I figured the parenthesis and ‘crazy’ would suffice to show that this was not the point of my comment.
It would almost certainly be Michelle Obama. That’s how you get around the amendments
Democrats are stuck with Joe.
And after ridiculing the GOP for party disunity, it sure would look bad for Democrats to have a free-for-all convention just because a few Dems woke up at last and believe what their eyes saw and ears heard.
I disagree, but I'm keeping my mouth shut as to why I think why.
This could open up some interesting possibilities
For instance let's say that Buden/Obama won the election and the Republicans gain control of the House and perhaps even the Senate.
And then God forbid, President Biden passed away suddenly - that would make the Republican Speaker of the House President since Obama is constitutionally precluded from being president for more than two terms.
I don't believe that's how the 22nd Amendment reads. Obama cannot be elected to the office as he's already held two terms, but I think he could be someone's VP and move into the office should the sitting president vacate the chair.
I concur, according the 22nd textually, Obama could complete Biden's term. He just could not be elected again as PotUS.
I think SCotUS would, however, rule that the V.P. must meet ALL constitutional requirements of the presidency per the 12th amendment:
The term "constitutionally ineligible" is a hook to expand the notion of "cannot be elected" into "cannot hold".
Given what the SCotUS just did with its invented absolute and presumed immunity and its invented inadmissibility of evidence related to any official act, it would be easy for them to provide a "cannot hold" ruling. And in this case, I think that would be a correct read of original intent in spite of the literal text.
Part of me wants to time travel back to May 20th, 1962.
Find that oriental guy that told my mother when her water broke and she went into labor," may your child live in interesting times",
And duct tape his mouth shut......
Snuffy
You are probably correct, thanks for the info
Thanks. But TiG brings up a valid point. The last line in the 12th Amendment
This could be used by some in the Supreme Court to state that Obama having already served two elected terms as President is now constitutionally ineligible to resume that office or to serve as VP. It's splitting hairs IMO but with all other things being done today this will also probably be brought into the discussion.
What a world we live in....
It is actually quite logical. No President can serve more than two terms.
So, if Obama is allowed to be Joe's VP and Joe dies in office, what happens then?
Thing is, an individual can serve more than two terms as PotUS. A V.P. could assume the presidency with less than two years remaining, and can then be constitutionally elected twice.
What the CotUS textually prevents is a person being elected to the presidency more than twice.
I think (I know) the intent was to prevent a never-ending presidency in response to FDR's fourth election. The idea was to impose an absolute limit of 10 years.
The inverse, what we are discussing, of having Obama serve as V.P. and then ascend to the presidency would no doubt be deemed unconstitutional if he would accumulate more than 10 years. But given the awkwardness of a term-limited V.P. who could possibly assume the presidency when more than two years remain would likely be preemptively prevented by a SCotUS opinion.
But, of course, this scenario is extremely unlikely. Interesting, but merely academic.
Lawrence Tribe would probably agree,
Do you disagree?
Couple that from the 12th amendment with the following in the 22nd:
And I think the result would be clear to anyone, and certainly to the SCOTUS, that in this case Obama had already been elected twice and served the two terms and is therefore constitutionally ineligible to be the POTUS again, and therefore per the 12th the VP as well. This appears to be both the original intent AND the literal text of the COTUS.
As you pointed out in 10.1.6, if Obama had never been elected before and were to serve as Biden's VP now and Biden passed or resigned after his second year of his second term, then Obama could become president and then be elected for two more terms after that.
I'm not sure how 8 becomes 10, but I am reminded of a former member who is notable for 3 things:
1) she seemed laser focused on debating me.
2) she once declared that a McClatchy Report article on Michael Cohen being in Prague proved the Steele Dossier. The story was later debunked and she somehow forgot that she stood by it.
3) she insisted on reading everything carefully herself, such as the US Constitution. The amazing thing is that she always took away the opposite of what was written.
2 4 year terms + a maximum of 2 years of a succession makes 10 years maximum that an individual can serve as PotUS.
I detailed this @10.1.6
I am reminded of a member who constantly put forth false information that matched his desires ...
Current members are off limits.
I find that facts are what counts.
Facts are supported by quality evidence and sound reasoning. Stretching evidence to try to reach a preconceived and desirable condition is NOT reasoning based on facts.
Correct.
I'll let you have the last word.