Vice President Bill Clinton, Could it happen?

#1
OrangeEmpire

OrangeEmpire

The White Debonair
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
74,988
Likes
59
#1
VP Bill? Depends on Meaning of 'Elected'

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 20, 2006; Page A19

The prospective presidential candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton has given rise to plenty of speculation about the notion of Bill Clinton as the nation's first gentleman. But what about another role? How about, say, vice president?

Politically, of course, the idea is a non-starter for all sorts of reasons. But that doesn't stop the parlor games, especially on the Internet. The issue came up last week during a chat on washingtonpost.com: What if Hillary picked Bill as her running mate? A Post reporter rashly dismissed the idea as unconstitutional. But that only proved the dangers of unedited journalism. The answer, it turns out, is not so simple.



Could Bill Clinton be Hillary Rodham Clinton's No. 2? He could not be elected president again, but some say he could succeed from the vice presidency. (By Kevin Rivoli -- Associated Press)

Politics Trivia
Who was the first president to campaign in two languages?

Harry Truman
Woodrow Wilson
James Garfield
Warren Harding





Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
Sandwich Repair Kit
Chinatown Solution
Heavy-Handed Politics


Full List of Blogs (15 links) »


Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web


Save & Share Article What's This?

DiggGoogle
del.icio.usYahoo!
Reddit
A subsequent sampling of opinion from professors of constitutional law, former White House lawyers and even a couple of federal judges reveals a simmering disagreement on whether a president who has already served two terms can be vice president. Some agree with the conclusion that the presidential term limit embedded in the Constitution bars someone such as Clinton from returning to the White House even in the No. 2 slot. Others, though, call that a misreading of the literal language of the law.

As the former president might say, it all depends on the meaning of the word "elected." Under Article II of the Constitution, a person is "eligible to the Office of President" as long as he or she is a natural-born U.S. citizen, at least 35 years old and a resident of the United States for 14 years. The 12th Amendment says "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President."

Okay, so that means if you're not eligible to be president, you're not eligible to be vice president. Makes sense. What would be the point of electing a vice president who can't succeed the president in case of death, incapacity or vacancy?

But then Congress and the states added the 22nd Amendment in 1951 to prevent anyone from following the example of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who won four terms. That's where things get dicey. "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice," the 22nd Amendment says.

On its face, that seems to suggest that Clinton could be vice president because he is only barred from being elected president a third time, not from serving as president. That's the argument of Scott E. Gant, a partner at Boies, Schiller & Flexner in Washington, and Bruce G. Peabody, an assistant professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey. The two wrote a law review article in 1999 called "The Twice and Future President" and reprised the argument this summer in the Christian Science Monitor.

"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," they wrote. "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."

Others share that opinion. Three former White House lawyers consulted by The Washington Post (two who served President Bush and one who served Clinton) agreed that the amendment would not bar Clinton from the vice presidency. A federal judge, who noted that he has "no views on the matter," said the plain language of the amendment would seem to allow Clinton to "become president through succession."

Kathleen M. Sullivan, director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center, said the 22nd Amendment, "as I read it, does not preclude a Clinton-Clinton ticket." She added: "Bill, if elected VP, could become president in the event that President Hillary became incapacitated; he just could not run for reelection from that successor post."

Still, that view is not universal. Judge Richard A. Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit said by e-mail that "read literally, the 22nd Amendment does not apply" and therefore Clinton could be vice president. "But one could argue that since the vice president is elected . . . should he take office he would be in effect elected president. Electing a vice president means electing a vice president and contingently electing him as president. That interpretation, though a little bold, would honor the intention behind the 22nd Amendment."

Bruce Ackerman, a constitutional scholar at Yale Law School, also pointed to original intent in addressing the issue in his book this year, "Before the Next Attack: Preserving Civil Liberties in the Age of Terrorism." The amendment, he wrote, "represents a considered judgment by the American People, after Franklin Roosevelt's lengthy stay in the White House, which deserves continuing respect" and "should not be eroded" by a narrow interpretation allowing someone to manipulate his way to a third term.

Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who was a clerk for Sandra Day O'Connor when she was on the Supreme Court, focused on the broader meaning of the language in the amendment in reaching the same conclusion. "My tentative answer is that 'eligible' roughly means 'elected,' " he wrote on his Web site, the Volokh Conspiracy, this summer, meaning that if Clinton cannot be elected president, he is no longer eligible at all.

One constitutional lawyer not heard from on the issue is William Jefferson Clinton, Yale Law class of 1973. But he has offered thoughts on the 22nd Amendment. Before leaving office and again in 2003, he suggested amending the amendment to let a two-term president leave office and then run again: "Since people are living much longer . . . the 22nd Amendment should probably be modified to say two consecutive terms instead of two terms for a lifetime."

Now, who might he have had in mind?

- source
Click to expand...

Democrats take deep breaths. Relax. It's just a hypothetical question.
wink.gif



Should former presidents be able to serve as Vice Presidents? Should they be able to serve additional terms as President after taking a break from office follwing two consecutive terms?
 
#2
#2
It brings up more interesting questions. Could a former two term President ever serve as Speaker of the House? Pro tempore of the Senate? Secretary of State? etc., etc.

Basically, is a politician's career in office over after their second term as President?
 
#3
#3
VP Willy would just be too sweet. I can hear the Republicans crying already.
 
#5
#5
What candidate in their right mind would ever have a big enough inferiority complex to name him as their running mate?
 
#6
#6
I think the Constitution has the final say in this matter, two terms only. I don't think that he would be able to serve as a VP because of this.
 
#7
#7
MG1968 said:
I think the Constitution has the final say in this matter, two terms only. I don't think that he would be able to serve as a VP because of this.
Click to expand...

If FDR can find loop holes, I see no reason why Clinton could not find a way...........

Da' Bubba'............

:eek:k:
As much as it pains me to say, I miss bubba.

Or do I just miss him spoofed on Saturday Night Live......?
 
#8
#8
I'm going to have to vote "no" on this one just because the prospect of a third and fourth coming of Bush at some point in the future scares me more than anything else. . .
 
#9
#9
jdsa said:
I'm going to have to vote "no" on this one just because the prospect of a third and fourth coming of Bush at some point in the future scares me more than anything else. . .
Click to expand...

How do you figure?

If you operate under strict democrat rhetoric, Cheney and Rove are the one's that you have to worry about.........

Bush is just a figurehead.
 
#10
#10
It wasn't a loophole that FDR exploited, the Constitution at the time didn't provide for Presidential term limits.

The 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1947.

and while BC could technically be nominated VP, since the 22nd Amendment only specifies "elected", the 12th Amendment would come in to play at that time since it states
"no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
Click to expand...
 
#11
#11
Clinton was a freaking moron and he didn't do anything to get the market going like most Liberals think. The Tech Boom is what got the market going and Clinton just happened to be the one in office when it happened. If ya'll want Clinton back "Hilary that is", then get ready for some Tax raising sessons on the hill and getting paid less at work.
 
#12
#12
g8terh8ter_eric said:
If ya'll want Clinton back "Hilary that is", then get ready for some Tax raising sessons on the hill and getting paid less at work.
Click to expand...

Why is this automatically assumed? Unless you're a big-shot CEO rolling in the money and the Dems decided to raise taxes, a huge majority of Americans would never know the difference.

The funny thing is that we've seen Big Government even with a "conservative" in office so at least the whole SPEND part of the tax and spend notion is out the door.
 
#13
#13
CSpindizzy said:
Why is this automatically assumed? Unless you're a big-shot CEO rolling in the money and the Dems decided to raise taxes, a huge majority of Americans would never know the difference.
Click to expand...

. . . until the economy slows down.
 
#17
#17
Cspin which issues do you actually lean to the right on? Not taking you to task, just wondering since you say you are a Republican, but seem to be antagonistic toward a lot of the platform.
 
#18
#18
Sorry...am I antagonistic against the platform or am I just pointing out results? I'm only responding to your comments to slowing down the economy. What does an assumption on your part have to do with the platform?
 
#22
#22
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Clinton was a freaking moron and he didn't do anything to get the market going like most Liberals think. The Tech Boom is what got the market going and Clinton just happened to be the one in office when it happened. If ya'll want Clinton back "Hilary that is", then get ready for some Tax raising sessons on the hill and getting paid less at work.
Click to expand...

Also, get ready for alot more people being killed by suicide bombers here in the U.S.. That pansy shrillary will withdraw all of our troops which I feel will embolden the enemy too come visit us here in the States.
 
#23
#23
herksrus said:
Also, get ready for alot more people being killed by suicide bombers here in the U.S.. That pansy shrillary will withdraw all of our troops which I feel will embolden the enemy too come visit us here in the States.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

That theory is so worn out. You really think that war in Iraq is stopping anyone from coming here right now?
 
#24
#24
Honestly, I think the radical Muslims sense that they have already won the battle within America, and need not resort to acts of violence within America to accomplish their goal. Their goal is to convert Americans to Fundamentalist Islam. Since Americans have proven to be so politically correct that they will not even denounce, outright, those who attack them, these Muslims know that they can advance any and all agendas from within the American borders without fear of encroachment or interruption. The Islamic overhaul that occurred in Europe over the past 30 years will look like a snails pace compared to how quickly they will be able to achieve massive results within America.

The fight in Iraq is not so much concerned with America as it is concerned with creating a greater Persian state...
 
#25
#25
OWB said:
:rolleyes:

That theory is so worn out. You really think that war in Iraq is stopping anyone from coming here right now?
Click to expand...

I really think that they will step up things over here. I really hope that I wrong though.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top