united-states president elections
POTUS term limit (hypothetical)
<p>It is frequently said that the current term limit for a US President is 10 years, consisting of inheriting the presidency for a 2 year caretaker term, then elected twice for 8 years, not necessarily consecutive.</p>
<p>Here's a hypothetical question.  I do not expect it to happen ever, but would it be legal under current US laws?</p>
<p>The President dies, and the VP takes over for slightly less than 2 years. In the next election,  he does not want to run again for President, but stands again for VP. He and his partner are elected. Then two years later the President resigns, and the VP is again elevated to nearly 2 years as  caretaker President. Repeat for a third term, nearly 2 years  as caretaker President. Then he decides to run for President himself, and gets elected twice. Thus he gets 14 years as President, total.</p>
<p>This is extremely unlikely to happen, but is it possible?</p>

<p>The relevant part of the 22nd amendment to the US constitution says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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 President more than once.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The question is dues &quot;more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President&quot; mean &quot;more than two years of any single term ...&quot; or &quot;more than two years of any and all such terms taken together&quot;. The former is closer to the plain meaning of the text, but the latter is almost surely what Congress intended, given the history of the 22nd. There is no case law, because there is no case in which a person has been elected VP and become president in two or more different terms. Indeed there is no case of a person who, having become president on the death or resignation of a president, then ran again as VP. There is no telling how a court would rule in such a situation, but I rather suspect that the 10-year limit interpretation would be upheld.</p>
