[GavinMcG]

There is no such restriction. Article II never specified any limit on how long someone could serve.

The 22nd Amendment limits only who can be elected to the office of President. Since a VP becomes President through devolution, not election, it doesn't limit who may serve as VP.

[dudul]

Isn't there a 10 year limit as well though? Especially for this case where someone serves as president without being elected?

That being said, I'm not sure either if the restriction in the parent exists.

Edit: a reference I found afterwards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_office#Federal

[GavinMcG]

Not exactly. The 22nd Amendment would prohibit the second election of someone who had served for more than two years without having been elected.

For example, if Gerald Ford had been elected president after he finished Nixon's term, he would be ineligible to be elected a second time, since he initially served for a little over two years and five months.

That doesn't change the fact that the 22nd Amendment only restricts the election of a president. If someone has already served in the office for ten years, they could still be the VP who upon whom the presidency devolves, because there is no constitutional restriction on such eligibility.

[ardy42]

> The 22nd Amendment limits only who can be elected to the office of President. Since a VP becomes President through devolution, not election, it doesn't limit who may serve as VP.

So it would be constitutional to give Obama a third term through a Putin-esque sham where Biden runs at the top of the ticket then immediately resigns after taking office?

[GavinMcG]

Many would argue so.

There are things everyone agrees about, but for everything else, constitutionality isn't really established until it's been enacted and then ruled on by the Supreme Court.

Would the Supreme Court allow such a move to stand? It's possible, especially without clear evidence that the campaign and resignation was planned and executed specifically to circumvent the 22nd Amendment.