The absolute "BEST CHOICE" for VP,if he will do it? Absolutly Assures us a win..Barack Obama!!

[Stuart G]

In answer to this question on Google:..."Can a president run for vice president after 2 terms?

"Additionally, neither the Constitution's eligibility provisions nor the Twenty-second Amendment's presidential term limit explicitly disqualify a twice-elected president from serving as vice president."

You want to be sure to win, absolutely sure...well that is it. You don't think Obama would do it? I don't either, but it would be a dream....Assures us winning, and no more Trump!!

Maybe Obama would do it to save this countr..After all it is a good country, lots of good people..Why not save this country from this idiot. And out Trump and his jerks would go..

[Warpy]

1. Barack Obama is not qualified to assume the office of president.

He termed out and is ineligible.

Sorry to poop on your parade, but Biden will likely need someone a little to the left, anyway.

[getagrip_already]

5. yup, he's limited to 10 years....

and he has served 8.

He would not be eligible since he couldn't serve the remaining term at inauguration

Michelle however, would be an excellent choice..

[Stuart G]

7. Then let's go with Michelle..that would do it for good for Trump and his clan..

[at140]

8. Michelle would positively insure Biden victory.

[FailureToCommunicate]

13. Michelle has said positively "No" to that idea. Unfortunatly.

[Warpy]

16. Um, no

A VP who assumes the office of president with less than 2 years to run in that president's term can theoretically have an additional 8 years in office. However, someone who is termed out is ineligible.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. I doubt he'll go there. He would have to make a substantial case that Obama is needed as VP.

yes i know he understands the presidency and could fix things faster than anyone. But you have to convince voters and silence critics.

[tman]

3. Trump would have a nervous breakdown

[Stuart G]

6. Yes..indeed...just with the announcement of it...not even the election..no text..

[totodeinhere]

4. But would he be eligible to assume the presidency if the office became vacant.

?

[at140]

11. The simple answer is NOT eligible

and afaik the VP has to be eligible to run on the ticket.

[totodeinhere]

15. Then that pretty much eliminates him from consideration.

What if God forbid the GOP took control of Congress in 2022? Then a Republican would be next in line for the presidency.

[at140]

18. I see what you are getting at...the Speaker of the House?

[KPN]

9. That WOULD be awesome. Chances?

I’m thinking zero to the 10th power. Unless you meant a Michelle in which case 2-percent.

[left-of-center2012]

10. The Obama's are sick of the Washington crowd

No way in Hell would either come back into government.

[Stuart G]

12. All Trump would be doing is knocking Michelle Obama. Make him look like a bigger fool than

he currently is...And that seems impossible, but that one would do it...

[Tarc]

17. Constitutionally ineligible

[GulfCoast66]

19. This. nt

[wyldwolf]

20. It would be constitutional - despite what the naysayers here say - though highly unlikely.

This conversation surfaces in every primary season about either Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.

Now, someone here is going to dig his/her heels in and still say it isn't legal even though it is.

Why the Constitution permits a Gore-Clinton ticket from 2001

Vice President Al Gore, whose campaign needs a serious jumpstart, cannot afford a similar luxury. Instead, Gore must choose a running mate who will generate a sense of excitement.

Who would be a better choice than the most charismatic and skillful politician of his generation, William Jefferson Clinton?
l
Indeed, New York Times editorialist Thomas L. Friedman has already suggested President Clinton as a potential veep choice for Gore. To be sure, Friedman made this suggestion jokingly. But Clinton's charisma is no joke. With Clinton on the ticket, many swing voters might choose Gore over Bush (although those suffering Clinton fatigue might well swing the other way).

Prognostication aside, the prospect of a Gore-Clinton ticket raises an interesting constitutional question: Can a man who has been president for eight years be elected and serve as vice-president?

Language of the 22nd Amendment

Tremulous Republicans and other naysayers will no doubt claim that the 22nd Amendment would bar a Clinton vice-presidency. This amendment, enacted after FDR was elected president for the fourth time, imposes a two-term limit on presidential candidates.

Now, the language of the amendment certainly does not expressly apply to a vice-presidential candidate. But other constitutional provisions guarantee that the vice-president becomes president upon the death, incapacity, impeachment, or resignation of the president.

Thus, if a two-term president like Bill Clinton became vice-president, that would raise the specter of a possible third Clinton presidential term, a specter that would become a reality if any of these unfortunate events were to befall a President Gore. Some might argue that, as a result, a Clinton vice-presidency (and that of any two-term president) would be unconstitutional.

In support of this argument, one might also cite the 12th Amendment, which provides, in pertinent part, that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

President Clinton is certainly ineligible to be elected to another presidential term, based on the 22nd Amendment. Some might infer from the 12th Amendment that he is therefore also ineligible to be elected to a vice-presidential term.

Constitution permits a Clinton vice-presidency

But these naysayers would be wrong. The Constitution permits Clinton to be elected vice-president, and if necessary to ascend for a third time to the presidency as careful attention to the language of the 12th and 22nd Amendments shows.

The 12th Amendment would allow a Clinton vice-presidency. Its language only bars from the vice-presidency those persons who are "ineligible to the office" of President. Clinton is not ineligible to the office of president, however. He is only disqualified (by the 22nd Amendment) from being elected to that office.

This is no mere semantic distinction. Article II of the Constitution carefully defines exactly who is "eligible to the Office of President": anyone who is a natural born citizen, at least 35 years old, and has been a U.S. resident for at least 14 years.

For example, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is ineligible for the office of president because she is a naturalized, rather than a natural born, citizen. Accordingly, the 12th Amendment renders her ineligible to the office of vice-president as well.

But Bill Clinton can serve as vice president, because the 22nd Amendment's prohibition on running for a third presidential term is not a condition of the office of president.

The 22nd Amendment states: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person (who has served more than half a term) shall be elected to the office of the president more than once."

The language is quite clear. It places no limits whatsoever on how many terms someone may serve as president, only how many times he can be elected.

In other words, the 22nd Amendment does not set conditions on what the 12th Amendment calls eligibility to the office of president. Anyone who is born here and has lived here for 14 years becomes eligible to be president on his or her 35th birthday and is then so eligible forever.

Thus, if. Clinton were to be elected vice president and ascend to the presidency based on, for example, Gore's resignation, then nothing unconstitutional would have occurred. Clinton would have been elected to the presidency only twice though he would serve as president thrice. Under the 22nd Amendment, that is perfectly permissible.

The spirit of the 22nd Amendment

Nonetheless, it could be argued that permitting Clinton to run for, and be elected to the office of, vice president violates the spirit if not the letter of the 22nd Amendment.

The argument is a weak one, however. The 22nd Amendment was adopted in part simply to formalize the tradition unbroken until FDR that American presidents should not seek a third term.

It was also a reaction to the growth in the power of the president in the 20th Century. But in seeking the vice-presidency, a job in John Nance Garner's unforgettable phrase, "not worth a bucket of warm spit," Clinton would hardly be bidding for dictatorial powers.

Furthermore, Republicans trying to fend off the winning Gore-Clinton team lack moral standing to invoke the spirit of any constitutional provision, in preference to its plain language.

George W. Bush proudly calls himself a "strict constructionist" who hews to the letter of the Constitution. And the exegesis of the 22nd Amendment that I have provided here is exactly the sort of "textualism" that Bush's judicial heroes Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas routinely applaud.

Of course, even if Gore were to offer him the number two spot, Clinton might turn it down. That would be a mistake for Clinton and for the country. He thrives on campaigns and we, as a people, thrive on him.

Michael C. Dorf is vice dean and professor of law at Columbia University, where he teaches civil procedure and constitutional law. He is the co-author, with Laurence H. Tribe, of the book "On Reading the Constitution." Michael C. Dorf is also a FindLaw contributor.

Now, anyone here can say 'I disagree.' But unless that person is more qualified than a constitutional law professor, their opinion won't mean much.

[Journeyman]

21. I thought the big consideration was a VP who could win on their own in 2024 . . .

Even if Obama could run as VP (and there's some grey area there that may preclude it), he definitely couldn't run for President in 2024, so we'd lose whatever "leg up" in 2024 we hoped to gain with Biden's VP.

[Stuart G]

22. To me..the big consideration is this:"Who would help us win in November." WE MUST WIN IN NOVEMBER in

order to ..SAVE THIS COUNTRY!!!..