More Stupid Kerry VP Rumors

[Ryan]

Apparently bored with the whole "Kerry/McCain" fantasy, rumors have been surfacing that Bill Clinton has been in talks with Kerry about a possible VP position which, pollsters say, would result in a landslide victory for Kerry and his Royal Slickness. Although I don't ever see BC taking a role under anyone, can anyone verify that this would even be legal? Can a president serve more than two terms under such conditions? If I were Kerry and had Clinton as a VP, I think I'd want extra security.

[Dionysos]

There are no limitations on a president being a VP before or after their term. The term limitation is strictly for the Prez.

[MysteryMeat]

Originally posted by Dionysos
There are no limitations on a president being a VP before or after their term. The term limitation is strictly for the Prez.

Yes, but what happens if a 2-term served President becomes Vice President, then the President gets shot? He then might fall into a legal loophole, and the universe might implode.

[kezarmyaj]

I remember reading an editorial or something from awhile back suggesting that kerry grab clinton for vp. that could be interesting, I would like it if he got clark or mccain though.

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by MysteryMeat
Yes, but what happens if a 2-term served President becomes Vice President, then the President gets shot? He then might fall into a legal loophole, and the universe might implode.

It's possible he gets skipped over, but I doubt it.

[johnny861]

Originally posted by MysteryMeat
Yes, but what happens if a 2-term served President becomes Vice President, then the President gets shot? He then might fall into a legal loophole, and the universe might implode.

buwahahah, presidential dogma...

[Adam D]

I believe he would become president again, although I imagine every Republican with a lawyer would be dialing the Supreme Court if that ever happened.

[thefncrow]

This is going to be the real question, and it really would require a Supreme Court ruling on the question:

From the 12th Amendment:

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

But, why does this require a court decision? Isn't that clear? Well, no, not really, because...

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.

It'll come down to semantics, virtually. The intent seems fairly clear, but the fact that the limitation is that no man may be ELECTED president more than twice is what's going to make this questionable. After all, the Supreme Court loves to pick semantics. Clinton cannot be elected president again, but that doesn't necessarily make him ineligible (since the eligibility requirements are set out in Article II, and have to deal with residency and age).

Realistically, no. And it'd be a dangerous gamble, because the court could(and probably would) rule the VP ineligible. That doesn't mean its outside the realm of possibility.

Originally posted by thefncrow
This is going to be the real question, and it really would require a Supreme Court ruling on the question:

From the 12th Amendment:


But, why does this require a court decision? Isn't that clear? Well, no, not really, because...

22nd Amendment:


It'll come down to semantics, virtually. The intent seems fairly clear, but the fact that the limitation is that no man may be ELECTED president more than twice is what's going to make this questionable. After all, the Supreme Court loves to pick semantics. Clinton cannot be elected president again, but that doesn't necessarily make him ineligible (since the eligibility requirements are set out in Article II, and have to deal with residency and age).

Realistically, no. And it'd be a dangerous gamble, because the court could(and probably would) rule the VP ineligible. That doesn't mean its outside the realm of possibility.

It is not semantics. It is specificity. The drafters of the 22nd could haver chosen a word other than "elected" but they did not.

Besides - it seems that you've pointed out the controlling law in the 12th. Clinton is ineligible for the office of President by term limits - ergo - ineligible to run as VP.



http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...ndmentxii.html

[c double]

why would BC give up the millions and millions of $ he is making in hte private sector to be second-in-command to a numbskull?

[thefncrow]

Originally posted by xiannaix
It is not semantics. It is specificity. The drafters of the 22nd could haver chosen a word other than "elected" but they did not.

Besides - it seems that you've pointed out the controlling law in the 12th. Clinton is ineligible for the office of President by term limits - ergo - ineligible to run as VP.

Here's the issue I'm talking about.

The 22nd amendment does not specify that a president who has served his two terms is ineligible to be president, only that he may not be elected. The eligibility requirements are specified in Article II:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

Note that these eligibility requirements are not what was amended. Thus, any man who is a natural born citizen over the age of 35 is eligible to be president, and, via a strict reading of the eligibility requirements(again, a stretch. I'm not arguing that this is how it SHOULD be understood, but that the possibility of this happening could theoretically occur), that includes presidents who have served two terms. They are eligible, but may not be elected.

Thus, any man who meets the eligibility requirements of the president (natural born citizen <35 years old) can be vice president, and no president who has served two terms may be elected president again, but the amendment does not bar him from becoming president again through the chain of succession.

This would all be moot if the 22nd specified that someone who has served two terms as president is ineligible to serve as president, but the language used leaves a potential hole. I agree that the intent is pretty clear, and that it shouldn't be allowed, but a strict interpretation could allow it to occur.

The drafters of the 22nd were probably aware of the 12th - fair?

Bill can't run for President again by limitation of the 22nd - he is ineligible. (eligibility restrictions were imposed beyond nation of birth and age (12th) - - term limits)

The 12th says you can't run for VP if you can't run for President.

where's the problem?


What I'm saying is that the drafters of the 22nd were aware that the 12th placed limitations on whom may hold the office of President - and that the 22nd is merely creates an additional limitation to be read in conjunction with the 12th. A fair plain reading. Especially in light of the fact that Bill was "elected" twice. Had he merely served the last month of an assassinated President's term - then got re-elected we'd perhaps have more to debate.



Check out findlaw.com and look up the anotations, committee minutes etc on the 22nd - they may provide a more definite answer to the question.

[thefncrow]

Originally posted by xiannaix
The drafters of the 22nd were probably aware of the 12th - fair?

Bill can't run for President again by limitation of the 22nd - he is ineligible. (eligibility restrictions were imposed beyond nation of birth and age (12th) - - term limits)

The assumption here is what allows your arguement to stand up. Bill isn't allowed to be elected president again not because he's ineligible (because the eligibility rules themselves have never been extended, and still lie at 35 year old natural born citizen), but because of term limits (22nd amendment).

The 12th says you can't run for VP if you can't run for President.

where's the problem?

There's not. Clinton is not ineligible for office, he's held out because of term limits, because the writers of the 22nd chose not to make the term limits an issue of eligibility but electablility.

What I'm saying is that the drafters of the 22nd were aware that the 12th placed limitations on whom may hold the office of President - and that the 22nd is merely creates an additional limitation to be read in conjunction with the 12th. A fair plain reading. Especially in light of the fact that Bill was "elected" twice. Had he merely served the last month of an assassinated President's term - then got re-elected we'd perhaps have more to debate.

First, there would be no question on if he'd been elected once and served the last month of a previous president's term. He could run again. Term limits are 1 election for any president who serves more than two years of a previous president's term, 2 elections otherwise. Thus why LBJ became president when JFK was assassinated, served the last year and a half of JFKs term, and be re-elected himself, and be able to choose whether or not to run for a second.

I'm sure the writers of the 22nd were aware of the 12th. However, they chose to select language which did not clearly specify that a president who has reached his term limit is ineligible or simply un-electable. In fact, the fact that the writers of the 22nd undoubtedly knew that the 12th existed, and yet did not explicitly prohibit it may well be another argument in the chain. Its very easy to replace

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.

with

Any person elected to the office of the President twice shall be ineligible to hold the office of President thereafter. Any 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 limited to one full term, after which time they will be declared ineligible.

The second adds term limits explicitly as a part of eligibility. As it is, this tie has to be drawn implicitly, and that means there's room for a challenge.

I think you're making a semantic argument here.

I think the 22nd IS a limitation on eligibility.

[Cock Puncher]

what does it matter, not like kerry is gonna win anyways