Is it possible, Clinton as VP?

[YEM]

I'm sure this has been disscussed, but is this actually a possibility? Wouldn't a ticket with Bill as VP be close to a guarantee into the White House? how about even Hillary as VP?

[hlthe2b]

1. No.... Constitution requires the VP to be eligible to be President...

Clinton, having filled two elected terms as President is thus no longer eligible to become President and thus not VP.

[Hamlette]

3. no time to look it up but doesn't the consitution say

can't "be elected" president more than twice?

I think he is eligible as he is not being elected prez.

[Gman]

6. I don't think this is correct because

Amendment XXII

Section 1. 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 the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Nothing prohibits Clinton from being elected VP. As VP, he can become president should the sitting president not be able to fulfill his/her duties. However, he would not be able to run for election to a full term.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

10. I don't think that's true.

The Constitutional provisions at issue are (i) the last sentence of the XII Amendment and (ii) the XXII Amendment. I do not think that, when one considers what these two provisions actually say, that Bill Clinton is precluded from running for, being elected as, and serving as the Vice-President.

Specifically, the last sentence of the XII Amendment states: "No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

The issue, therefore, is whether Clinton's having been twice elected President renders him "constitutionally ineligible to the office of President" now, thereby making him ineligible to serve as Vice-President. I think not.

The XXII Amendment states, as relevant here, that "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." (emphasis added).

It seems to me that, by its plain terms, the XXII Amendment operates merely to preclude Bill Clinton from being "elected" President; it does not render him constitutionally "ineligible" to the office. The criteria for constitutional "eligibility" are those set out in Article II, Section 5: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, shall be ELIGIBLE to the Office of the President; neither shall any Person be ELIGIBLE to that Office who shall have not attained to the Age of thiry five Years, and have been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Bottom line: Bill Clinton is not, by operation of the XXII Amendment, rendered constitutionally "ineligible to the office of President," and, thus, is not precluded by the XII Amendment from serving as Vice President.

[hlthe2b]

12. See my post 9

If you have some research time and can go to some of the major law sites... this has been discussed in the past.

Ultimately, I suppose someone could push the issue and require our "friends" the supreme court to rule, but the legal consensus I've seen in the past have concluded 'no way'....

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

15. No "resorts to authority" please . . . .

If you can refute my analysis, based on the pertinent provisions of the Constitution, have at it. Otherwise . . . .

[hlthe2b]

19. MPD, I let you know that this has been argued on legal sites before...

and the gist of what I recall of their argument. As I am not a constitutional lawyer, I can only make you aware of what I have read and you can certainly choose to check it out or not. That's fine.

But, I believe we are in agreement that short of a court decision there is room for interpretation. My point was, that if you have time to do a search, (which I do not right now as I'm already nearly late for work), the legal community seems to say the ultimate decision would be no.

Thus, the bottom line would require someone to try it and let it be challenged in the Supreme Court.

[niceypoo]

2. The loonie GOP in my chatroom......

are worried about hillary running in the future. They see her as unbeatable. Ive been bringing up the possibility of her being VP lately and they just CRINGE at the thought. Love it!

[bryant69]

4. Yeah, but

Two problems.

1). Hillary brings more than her share of baggage, not the least of which is that she'd have to break a campaign promise to finish her term of office in order to run. That wouldn't play very well.

2). Kerry or Edwards or Dean won't want Hillary that much; Clark might. But the first three will be looking to expand their own power bases not glom on to someone elses. Picking Hillary as a VP will automatically make themselves look a little smaller. (Clark's power base is already wrapped up in the Clinton's so he may have a different opinion).

Bryant
check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Skittles]

5. I think the freepers would have a mass stroke

it sure would be fun to watch

[Trajan]

11. I have been talking down claims that Hillary would run ...

I MUST change tactics ....

I have missed golden opportunities to infuriate RW'ers with these Hillary possibilities ....

It MUST be helpful for us to get these hateful fruitcakes panties into a big wad: all by waving the magical 'Hillary Wand' ...

"Hillary is running ... " ...

ARGHHHHHHHHHH ! ...

"Hillary is gonna be your President ... "

*gunshot sound, .. then a <thud> .. " ...

Missed opportunities .... damn ...

[Silverhair]

7. A really bad idea, aside from the constitutional problems.

It would fail for the same reason the 1980 idea of having Ford as Reagan's VP failed. It would be like trying to have a Co-President. Worse, it would make Kerry seem weak, like he is unable to stand on his own two feet and needs a crutch. That would be a disaster at the polls.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

8. Why couldn't ford have been Reagan's VP?

He served less than half a term.

[justsam]

18. didn't Ford shoot himself

in the foot when he pardoned Nixon and reagon would have lost if Ford would have been on the same ticket

[hlthe2b]

9. No... This has been discussed on Constitutional Law websites

and on DU in the past. Here are the pertinent sections:

Amendment 22 to the Constitution states, "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice". Since Bill Clinton's been elected President twice, he can't be President again.

HOWEVER:
Amendment 12 ends with, "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." So Bill Clinton seems ineligible to be Vice-President also.

The legal beagles who I recall discussing this before indicated, that while it sounds like there is a loophole, that the intent of the amendment 12 is clear and that Clinton would be inelgible.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

13. I think the DU's "legal beagles" are wrong.

The "intent" of the XXII Amendment is clear on the face of the Amendment: i.e., the preclude a person from being elected President twice. Had the intent been to render a person who has served more than 6 years as President from ever serving again as President, it would have been easy to write an amendment that said that. That is not what the XXII Amendment says, however.

[justsam]

14. i was accused of being a republican

on this board when i suggested that Hillary be VP

[hlthe2b]

20. Silly for them to accuse you of that... but

the Republicans are so obsessed with the idea, that some seize on those comments as a "potential disruptor" signal....

Welcome to DU, BTW

[KharmaTrain]

16. Time For A Clinton Embargo

Of course, we have to shut down all the "Clinton did it" crap surrounding the Iraq invasion and the "Clinton Recession" when the same goons know the economy was a lot better off prior to December, 2000 than after.

I'm also tired of the "Clinton-effect" that comes primarily from the media (they are salivating at any "Billary" red-meat) and from the Clinton's themselves. Yes, I believe these people enjoy choking chains and playing with the levers of party politics. And it's been that meddling that energizes the flying monkey right. This has always made me queazy about the Clinton's politically and why I hope both now play very low profile in the months ahead.

Sure the wingnuts are gonna play the Hillary voodoo doll routine on their own...and, yes, they see her as their Number One threat. I had to chuckle at O'Really the other night when he begrudngingly admitted his book would never outsell Hillary's. But, right now our focus should be completely on eliminating this regime.

The Clintons serve us best when they speak out with us about the lies this regime has played on this country over the past 3 years and back it up with the "we were there" credibility...the real Clinton legacy that is gaining prestige with the slime of this regime.

[NewJeffCT]

17. I think Bill Clinton would be a great Sec of State

Some, myself included, on here, think President Clinton would make a great Secretary of State. Like Madeleine Albright, the presidential succession line would skip over him if need be.

[happyslug]

21. Look at the ORIGINAL Provision for Election.

In the ORIGINAL provision the president and Vice President were the two TOP vote getters in any election. This was shown to be a failure in the election of 1800, so Amendment XII was passed. It was intended to prevent another election like 1800 i.e. the top two Vote getters FROM THE SAME PARTY would get the same number of Electoral votes.

When Amendment XXII was adopted it was a poorly drafted amendment written by the GOP leadership after their won the control of Congress in 1946 (To prevent another Roosevelt). While it has been said that the clause exempting the current President from the provision was written for the benefit of Truman, the GOP thought that Truman would lose in 1948 and thus Dewey would have been had the Benefit of the exception (The amendment was not adopted by the needed number of states till 1951, thus if Dewey had beat Truman in 1948 the exception would have applied to Dewey instead of Truman).

Article II, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution covers the ORIGINAL method of electing the President. Paragraph 5 puts down the restriction as to age (35) and that the President has to be native born.

Thus the intention of the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION is that the President and Vice President have the SAME restrictions i.e. if you can not be elected President you can NOT be elected Vice President. While Paragraph 8 says the President shall take the oath of office, it has been the practice since 1789 that the Vice President also takes the oath of Office on March 4 (Since moved to January 20 by amendment XXI adopted in 1933). All of the Above implies that the President and Vice President are subject to the same restrictions as to election i.e. CLINTON CAN NOT BE ELECTED VICE PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE CAN NOT BE ELECTED PRESIDENT.

[republicansareevil]

22. MousePlayingDaffodil has it correct, I believe.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've read the arguments, and I believe MPD has it correct. Just because a two-term President is prohibited from being elected again, doesn't mean that person is ineligible to the office of president. Eligibility requirements are spelled out elsewhere (age 35, natural-born citizen, etc.). I've never seen a sound argument to the contrary, but if someone knows of one, please post it here.