It's not gonna happen, but it's cool that Bill Clinton COULD be VP

[LibInternationalist]

[papau]

1. Nope - not by election - Consitution forbids.

He can't serve all for 4 years - only 2 - if VP becomes President, so can not run for VP.

[LibInternationalist]

2. where does it say that in the constitution?

it only says he can't be ELECTED president

[RememberTheCoup]

8. Forget it, TN4Gore...

Pretty soon you're going to have about 100 DUers telling you why it isn't Constitutionally possible. I agree with you that the Constitution doesn't prohibit it. I've never seen a good argument that shows it is prohibited, but I have seen at least one very convincing argument from a Constitutional law expert that shows it is possible. I'll try to find it...

[Warpy]

12. Not quite

What the constitution does say is that the Vice President must be a qualified presidential candidate, that is, legally able to run on his own.

The executive branch is closed to Clinton, unless somebody puts him in the cabinet.

[RememberTheCoup]

13. The Vice Dean of Law at Columbia University disagrees with you.

Read post #11 then tell us why you think he's wrong.

edit: fixed typo (Columbia, not Colombia!) :silly:

[papau]

15. Boy was I wrong! - post number 11 says it all - Clinton for VP!!!!!

:-)

[SaveElmer]

3. 12th Amendment - Last Line

Boy this has come up a bunch of times today

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States

[LibInternationalist]

5. He ISN'T constitutionally ineligible to the office

he's constitutionally ineligible to be ELECTED to the office -- there is a distinct difference

[bowens43]

7. You're wrong.

He is ineligible for the office of president, that makes him ineligible for the office of VP.

[bowens43]

4. No , he COULDN'T be

The 12th Amendment prohibits it.

"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

[LibInternationalist]

6. see above -- it's a loophole that should probably be fixed

but it isn't fixed yet

[bowens43]

9. There's no loop hole.

[LibInternationalist]

10. have you READ the 22nd amendment?

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.


Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.

[Fridays Child]

17. Exactly. He is ineligible only by election, not by succession.

eom

[RememberTheCoup]

11. Read this.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/08/columns/fl.dorf.goreclinton.08.01/

about the author:
"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."

snippets:
"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."

[mb7588a]

26. The Poli Scientist in me doesn't buy that...

The words are just too similar. Has there been any historical analysis of the meaning of the words and any questioning of the original intention of the authors of the amendment?

[prodigal_green]

14. bizzare

but I had a dream about this EXACTLY about two weeks ago.

[RememberTheCoup]

16. One more.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/03/opinion/03GIL.html?ex=1078894800&en=4dd33637d9112a3e&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

about the author:
"Stephen Gillers is a professor of law at New York University."

snippet:
"The first objection, the constitutional one, can be disposed of easily. The Constitution does not prevent Mr. Clinton from running for vice president. The 22nd Amendment, which became effective in 1951, begins: 'No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice.'

No problem. Bill Clinton would be running for vice president, not president. Scholars and judges can debate how loosely constitutional language should be interpreted, but one need not be a strict constructionist to find this language clear beyond dispute. Bill Clinton cannot be elected president, but nothing stops him from being elected vice president.

True, if Mr. Clinton were vice president he would be in line for the presidency. But Mr. Clinton would succeed Mr. Kerry not by election, which the amendment forbids, but through Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which provides that if a president dies, resigns or is removed from office, his powers 'shall devolve on the vice president.' The 22nd Amendment would not prevent this succession."

[The_Counsel]

18. The Constitution Is Clear, But So Is The Loophole...

"Section 1. No person shall be ***elected*** to the ***office of the President*** more than twice..."

Clinton was elected in 1992 and ’96, making him ineligible in this regard.


"...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."

This is actually a variation of the first statement, which is the ONLY reason why it doesn’t apply to Clinton.


"But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress..."

Doesn’t apply to Clinton, as he never served in Congress, much less was a member at the time this amendment was drafted.


"...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."

The ONLY person to whom this could have applied was, I believe, Dwight Eisenhower. He’s STILL not eligible, however, as he’s dead...


"Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress."

Done. The amendment is law.

Now, for the loophole...

Clinton isn’t exactly barred from the office of President as much as he’s merely barred from being ELECTED to the office. There is nothing in the constitution barring Mr. Clinton, or anyone, from being elected Vice-President as many times the electorate wishes as long as he's eligible for the office. There is no term limit on the Vice-Presidency, only the Presidency.

Clinton, having been elected twice, is clearly eligible for the office. He just can’t be re-elected. At this point, he has a better chance at being President than, say, Arnold Schwarzenegger or Jenifer Granholm.

Now, the bad news...

Does anyone here really believe that a ticket with Clinton on it would be successful? Let’s say, for example, that John Kerry picks Bill Clinton as his running mate this year. POOF! There went any advantage he may have had as far as a solidified base, because the GOP-ers would be just as unified (if not more so) in simply stopping Clinton. Trust me on this, kids: this is a BAD idea. We’re better off letting the disgruntled conservative vote stay home. As much as I like Clinton, I’d prefer it if he stayed the hell away from the ticket – especially this year...

[RememberTheCoup]

19. I've seen at least one other thread...

...promoting the idea of Clinton as VP, but I haven't read the responses on that thread. I agree with you that it would be a terrible idea - for the reason you mentioned plus a few more I won't go into now.

But I do feel compelled to post to any thread where people are insisting that Clinton is not allowed to be VP. I don't mind people having a different opinion from me, but some people act like it's the most obvious thing in the world and anyone who thinks Clinton can be VP is engaged in wishful thinking or simply hasn't read the Constitution. Perhaps there are other Constitutional scholars who disagree with the strict interpretations offered by the two Constitutional scholars cited in this thread, and perhaps someone can provide links to their interpretations (which would have to be fairly subtle and complicated, I think). But it drives me up the wall when people just insist that they are right and don't provide any argument at all other than reciting amendments which have already been explained as not applying.

[The_Counsel]

21. Coup...

"But I do feel compelled to post to any thread where people are insisting that Clinton is not allowed to be VP. I don't mind people having a different opinion from me, but some people act like it's the most obvious thing in the world and anyone who thinks Clinton can be VP is engaged in wishful thinking or simply hasn't read the Constitution..."

Confession: I was one of those people you speak of. A discerning look at the Constitution has taught me otherwise. I had started writing that post with the title "The Constitution Is Clear," but had to add "But So Is The Loophole" because it's just as clear. In fact, if Ronnie Reagan wasn't the utter vegetable he is now, don't you think the repubs would have tried to use this loophole already? I mean, these ARE the REPUBLICANS we're talking about...

I've ALWAYS thought running Clinton for VP was a bad idea, though. It's shameful that it is that way, but there it is...

[RememberTheCoup]

22. Ha ha! Okay, then I'll go easy on you.

Should I take from your screen name that you are actually a lawyer? I am not. But I've seen this matter discussed on DU from time to time for years and that's why I know a little about it. I guess it's not the sort of thing 99% of lawyers would have much reason to think about. :)

I do seem to recall that as Reagan was nearing his second term, some Republicans were calling for a repeal of the 22nd Amendment (they must have been unaware of the loophole as well).

[The_Counsel]

25. Republicans and the Constitution

"Should I take from your screen name that you are actually a lawyer?"

Nope, but I saved a bundle by staying at the Holiday Inn... :silly:

Naw, "The.Counsel" goes all the way back to the wretched and (thankfully) defunct MSNBC Politics boards. I was "Satan's Counsel" then (it was a play on the term "devil's advocate"). I shortened it to "The.Counsel" because to many posters were wigged out by the name "Satan"...


"I do seem to recall that as Reagan was nearing his second term, some Republicans were calling for a repeal of the 22nd Amendment (they must have been unaware of the loophole as well)."

Republicans are so stupid. The whole "term limits" ammendment was THEIR idea in the first place. Getting reamed by FDR every four years for a generation apparently blurs the senses. As we can see from how poorly written Ammendment XXII is, Republicans should NEVER be allowed to ammend the Constitution...

[Robb]

20. LOL!

"He's STILL not eligible, however, as he's dead..."

:D

[tobius]

23. Kerry/Clinton 2004! Clinton/Clinton 2008! nt

[NewYorkerfromMass]

24. and as was so often said on the Johnny Carson show...

"I did not know that!" :)