Former President Barack Obama remains popular among Democratic voters at a time when President Biden is seen as old, frail, and boring. If Obama threw his hat into the ring, he would likely achieve frontrunner status for the Democratic nomination and outpoll Trump in a hypothetical head-to-head contest.
Let's imagine an alternate universe where this actually happens.
Obama's candidacy would be challenged by petitioners in several states, claiming that the 22nd Amendment disqualifies anyone from serving a third term as President.
In Arizona, the court rules that the petitioners have no standing to make their challenge, regardless of its potential merits, because Congress hasn't specifically defined the period of 2009-2017 as Obama's "Previous Terms of Office."
In Michigan, a court rules that the primary election is a delegate selection process for the two major political parties and matters of qualification are not yet relevant. The Michigan Supreme Court affirms this decision.
We get a weird ruling from a district court in Colorado that the presidency is not an "office under the United States," and therefore Obama can serve as many terms as he can win elections for. That ruling would be overturned on appeal, making Colorado the first state to disqualify Obama from the primary ballot.
In Maine, the secretary of state would use the Colorado decision, in part, to determine that Obama is also disqualified from appearing on Maine's primary ballot. However, the decisions in both Colorado and Maine would be stayed pending expected appeals.
Going into 2024, Obama would be the Democratic frontrunner, presumptive nominee, and plausible 2024 election winner. The race would be his to lose. Although facing numerous pending challenges, he'd still be on the primary ballot in all 50 states with the U.S. Supreme Court yet to weigh in on his qualification to serve.
The wording of the 22nd Amendment would seem to disqualify Obama, according to legal scholars, but the Supreme Court in this universe has a 6-3 liberal majority including three Obama appointees. Another of the liberal justices has been caught taking unreported gifts from wealthy Obama supporters and the majority has demonstrated a tendency to ignore well-established precedent in favor of ideology.
Talking heads on MSNBC argue that Obama can't be taken off the ballot because of his popularity within the Democratic Party. They claim that voters must be the ones to decide whether a third Obama term would be constitutional or not. They bemoan any effort to disqualify Obama as undemocratic election interference that deprives Obama supporters of their sacred right to vote for their candidate of choice.
Conspiracy theorists see sinister hands behind efforts to deprive Obama of his third term in office. Trump and Putin? Biden and Netanyahu? Somehow Hilary Clinton may be involved? The conspiracies spin and swirl through Instagram and TikTok, driving Obama's popularity to all-time highs. To preserve their positions, prominent Democrats line up to back Obama's entitlement to a third term.
Some say the 22nd Amendment is a product of a specific moment in history. Way back in the mid-20th Century, it was enacted to prevent Grover Cleveland from coming back from the dead to run for office again. People in those superstitious times believed in ghosts and zombies, while we've clearly grown beyond such nonsense.
Others try to prove that the intent of the Framers aligned with the whims of modern Obama supporters all along. They parse every word of the 22nd Amendment through a vintage 1951 edition of Webster's Dictionary. Bill Clinton even revives his famous grammatical claim that the word "is" is highly dependent on context.
Where do you stand on the issues of this hypothetical world? Are you consistent in applying the Constitution regardless of your feelings for or against a particular candidate? Are you biased by party affiliation? What is your ideal outcome?
Let's start a conversation and I'll give you my answers in a future newsletter.
