Bill Clinton COULD BE VICE PRESIDENT. What do you think about THAT?

[in_cog_ni_to]

Scott Gant is a partner with Boies, Schiller & Flexner in Washington. Bruce Peabody is an assistant professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson University in Madison, N.J.


<snip>
While the political advisability of such a move is subject to legitimate debate, the legal issues are more straightforward. The only serious question about the constitutionality of Clinton assuming the vice presidency relates to the interplay of the Constitution's 12th and 22nd Amendments.

The 12th Amendment was ratified following the election of 1800, which produced sustained electoral uncertainty after Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, Jefferson's designated vice president, received the same number of electoral votes. The election was sent to the House of Representatives, which took 36 ballots to select Jefferson. The 12th Amendment thereafter required that electoral votes be cast separately for president and vice president, and specified that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president shall be eligible to that of vice president of the United States."

A century and a half later, the states ratified the 22nd Amendment, largely as a response to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's four electoral victories. The amendment bars individuals from being "elected to the office of the president more than twice."

The 22nd Amendment is often described as prohibiting an already twice-elected president, such as Clinton, from again serving as president. But the text of the amendment suggests otherwise. In preventing individuals from being elected to the presidency more than twice, the amendment does not preclude a former president from again assuming the presidency by means other than election, including succession from the vice presidency. If this view is correct, then Clinton is not "constitutionally ineligible to the office of president," and is not barred by the 12th Amendment from being elected vice president.<snip>

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0613/p09s02-coop.html

[MonkeyFunk]

1. It's technically possible

but not politically possible. Won't ever happen, so it's not worth arguing the minutiae of contradictions in the constitution.

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. Why do you say it wouldn't EVER happen? How do you know? n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

5. because

the whole idea is ridiculous. He's not going to run to be Vice President, nobody is going to ask him, and nobody is going to go through the hassle of having the courts resolve the contradictions.

[MrModerate]

3. "While the political advisability of such a move is subject to legitimate debate. . ."

Pretty much says it all.

It's more likely they'll clear the way for Arnold Schwartzenegger to run than Bill Clinton. Besides, Bill is plenty useful not being a member of government. In fact, I'd argue he's *more* useful in a less constrained role.

[monktonman]

4. Have we not had enough of the Clintons?

Do we really need another dynasty?
I think not. Enough of these two already, fucking sell-outs.

[MonkeyFunk]

6. You should look

up the definition of "dynasty". It doesn't mean what you think it does.

[emilyg]

30. No.

[stevedeshazer]

7. Given the extraordinary powers afforded VP Cheney, Repubs should be scared shitless

What's good for the farmed fowl shooter is good for the former President.

Maybe he'll work on foreign policy and fix his biggest mistake by getting Nafta and GATT annulled.

Okay, probably not. :(

[UTUSN]

8. My first knee-jerk was sparked by the partnership of BOIES, that paragon of legal acuity

who now consorts (with his freedom of association) with Faux wingnuts. (I realize it's the partner, not BOIES, spouting off.)

My next response: Naw, anybody keying into the spirit of the Amendment is that nobody who has held the office twice can hold it again. The so-called technicality is just a glitch.

But, that said, in a post Shrub-CHEENEE world, all illegalities are on the table (if it will benefit Rethugs).

[L. Coyote]

9. What? Cheney/Bush in 2008??

[GreenPartyVoter]

39. GAH! You cares me when I read that

[undeterred]

10. Bill/Hillary What's the difference?

Compared to the shit we're dealing with now I would be happy to have either of them as President.

[in_cog_ni_to]

15. ANYONE is better than the psycho in power now. I just saw some clips of Bill campaigning

for Hillary and wondered if he could be VP. I googled it and this is what I found (in the OP).


I just saw a vision of repuke heads exploding all over the USA. That's all. I really don't WANT him to be VP, I just thought it was an interesting thought and found the explanation for him being able to run as VP, thought provoking.:)

The most appealing thing about him running as VP is the repuke reactions to it!:rofl: They would be FOAMING AT THE MOUTH over it. It would be quite 'amusing', that's all.

[undeterred]

23. To tell you the truth the most appealing thing about her

is that he comes with the deal. He's not perfect but he is incredibly smart and ran the office well. I think because of him she will be much better than she would be without him. Having said that, Edwards is my choice now.

[CTyankee]

11. Uh, I don't think about that.

Only so much brainpower left in my head.

[acmavm]

12. Oh shit, aren't things bad enough right now? Let's make things better.

We need to get the corporate whores out of government, not make it a tag-team sport.

[montanacowboy]

13. Yep, just what we need , Two Clintons!

and then some more Bushes, and then some more Clintons.......

[Red Zelda]

No more Clintons. No more Bushes.

Make that a law.

[Red Zelda]

14. No more Clintons. No more Bushes.

Make that a law.

[FARAFIELD]

16. he couldnt be elected Vice Pres

Why would he first of all. But the constitution lays out earlier that the Qualifications for the Vice President are the SAME as the PResident, so while its a nifty arguement, for constitutional purposes you must think of the candidate and his running mate as interchangeable. and since clinton has been elected twice, he would be ineligible

[Yupster]

I agree with your interpretation

The only legal question I'd have is could he be appointed VP for a resigned or died VP? I agree that his election would be unconstitutional.

PS - I am not in favor of this. Just wondering the legality.

[hughee99]

17. It will NEVER happen...

You could say what you want about "technically possible" and such, but I'm not sure it even is.

The last think Hillary wants to see is Bill's name on the bottom of someone else's presidential ticket, the second to last thing is to see his name at the bottom of her presidential ticket (which opens up an ADDITIONAL set of legal issues).

[illinoisprogressive]

18. maybe but, I personally am so sick of both the clintons.

[Peregrine Took]

19. Thanks, but no thanks.

[porphyrian]

20. No, he leans too far to the right. I'd rather not. - n/t

[Individualist]

21. I say NO to DLC

[illinoisprogressive]

22. It is far past time to quit the bush clinton treadmill.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. In one word? Ugh!

Enough with the DLC and the Clintons.

I voted for him twice but my nose will never be the same and my ability to accept the "lesser of two evils" argument has been irreparably diminished.

[NNN0LHI]

25. Beats the hell out of Cheney n/t

[sellitman]

26. Move on please.

I've had enough of the Clintons.
I've had enough of the bushes

It's time for new blood.

[peacebird]

27. much tho I love Bill - i STILL wouldn't vote for HRC

[Rosemary2205]

28. time to move on.

The Big dog is great talent but it's time to move on to the other great talent we have. IMHO

[mod mom]

29. Free trade & corporatism is ruining this country! We need a populist who puts people

first. Pres Clinton is a very smart man & very charismatic but we need new leadership for this point in our nation.

[defendandprotect]

31. I'll take Michael Moore, please . . .

[billyoc]

32. The DLC must be removed from the Democratic party.

They are the enemies of working people on every continent.

[dkofos]

33. I think it will never happen.

[Neshanic]

34. Tchnically possible, physically nauseating. I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.

[spartan61]

35. One of my students asked me this same question and I honestly

couldn't answer it, so my student and I wrote to Harvard School of Law. The answer we received was from Professor Arthur Miller who said that this question has been asked by Constitutional scholars for many, many years and they have not been able to come up with an answer.

[VP505]

36. I am not particularly

interested in seeing something like that happen, but it sure would be fun watching the massive RePublic wave of heart attacks and heads exploding.:evilgrin:

[Cleita]

37. I don't think it's the intent of the Constitution that the Vice President

be not able to become President. What if he had to assume duties if even for only a few hours like Cheney did yesterday? Wouldn't that violate the 22nd ammendment? Of course, who is paying attention to that quaint old document anymore these days. :boring:

[AlGore-08.com]

38. The political fallout would be that Hillary Clinton would loose in a landslide

Because so many voters, Independent and Democratic as well as Republicans, would be suspicious that her candidacy is a sham designed to get Bill Clinton back into the White House illegally. Whether Clinton was a good or bad President would not make the selection seem any less unconstitutional.

Even if she did somehow manage to win with Bill Clinton as her running mate, inside 20 seconds the Republicans would challenge this in court and fight it all the way to the Supreme Court. If there's anybody on this board who thinks that the Alito Court will agree with Gant's argument, I'd like to show them this fabulous bridge I have for sale in Brooklyn...

[Perky]

40. Technically Possible but ONLY for two years I think

but he could only assume the presidency for two years because he is only allowed to be president for 10 years in total.