Hillary's VP

[BIGUN 1,053]

OK, so here's a question.
Let's say Hillary wins the nomination and chooses Bill Clinton as her VP.
Constitutionally acceptable?
Would there be a mad dash to SCOTUS to get a ruling since he'd be one heartbeat away from the Presidency?
How would they rule?

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Gawain 0]

To add some groundwork:

22nd Amendment
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.

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.

There is not a reference to the VP being elected or serving within term limits. So, it's tough, but I swear, I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS said, "yep, it's kosher."

edit to add: However, I suspect, he would then only be able to serve out the remainder of the term. He could not run for re-election...again.

Either way...Wow.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[lawrocket 3]

I agree with Max.

However, one who views the Constitution as "living, breathing" might say that the INTENT of the Amendment would prevent it (even though the words are not there) and rule against it.

Regardless, though, THomas will be reviled as a fascist lapdog of Scalia, so what's the point?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[happythoughts 0]

Wouldn't happen. When the secret service compiled a list of people who don't like Hillary, BC was listed as a "person of interest".

[kelpdiver 2]

there's not much ambiguiety there - the SC couldn't stop her from picking her husband. However. it's the sort of thing that would piss off some voters and she's not in a position to afford to give up any more. I'm fairly sure she gains few voters that she didn't already have, and loses many more in the middle.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

there's not much ambiguiety there - the SC couldn't stop her from picking her husband. However. it's the sort of thing that would piss off some voters and she's not in a position to afford to give up any more. I'm fairly sure she gains few voters that she didn't already have, and loses many more in the middle.

I agree. It's just that, if she had such a crazy idea...

President Bill Clinton has a strange ability to hurt the campaigns he supports. His stumping on behalf of Gov. Davis (CA) did nothing, and his efforts to support Sen. Clinton I think have had a net-effect of zero.

If Florida and Michigan hold primaries again to make the delegates available, then I think Sen. Clinton will get the edge again.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[nerdgirl 0]

There’s also the 12th Amendment (original method for choosing VP), which concludes
“But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United State.”

(The 20th partially superseded the 12th w/r/t method for choosing the VP.)

So one Constitutional question: does the intent of the last sentence of the 12th remain viable/applicable, which has nothing to do w/the original method for electing VP? If yes, does the 22nd (mentioned above) make former President Bill Clinton “constitutionally ineligible”? While not a legal scholar, I would argue yes.

Strategically, if I was advising Senator Clinton’s campaign I would advise against pursuit of that option for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to former President Clinton's greater effectiveness as a roving global ambassador … something of a 21st century James T. Kirk for goodwill toward America around this planet.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Andrewwhyte 1]

I agree it would be a bad Idea. Too many people would see it as thwarting the will of the constitution if not the letter. The image privileged doing what they want would cost as many votes as Bill would gain.

[BIGUN 1,053]

Barring the political strategies as to why it would be a bad move and from purely a constitutional perspective...

As you point out, “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United State.” as part of the 12th admendment ratified in 1804, whereas the 22nd wasn't ratified until 1951. So, can one argue/conclude the 12th admendment was referring to the qualifications for President as in Article II, Section 1 - "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." which supercedes the 22nd amendment?

It is an interesting thought.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[airdweller 0]

If Hillary gets the nod. Don't be surprised to see Obama as her VP, and vice versa.

------------------------------------------------------
"From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant,
who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" C. Montgomery Burns

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Barring the political strategies as to why it would be a bad move and from purely a constitutional perspective...

As you point out, “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United State.” as part of the 12th admendment ratified in 1804, whereas the 22nd wasn't ratified until 1951. So, can one argue/conclude the 12th admendment was referring to the qualifications for President as in Article II, Section 1 - "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." which supercedes the 22nd amendment?

It is an interesting thought.

Article II section 1 does not supercede the 22nd amendment. If original articles supeceded subsequent amendments, any amendment representing change would not have an effect. The restrictions of the 22nd amendment are in addition to the restrictions in Article II section 1.

[rehmwa 2]

"constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President "

I don't see what's unclear about this. Presidential Term limits are part of eligibility for the POTUS, therefore also for the VP.

I think this is just a made up argument for the sake of debate ()

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

"constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President "

I don't see what's unclear about this. Presidential Term limits are part of eligibility for the POTUS, therefore also for the VP.

I think this is just a made up argument for the sake of debate ()

Presidential term limits are expressly stated in terms of electability, not service. For example if you make the argument that Bill Clinton is ineligible for the post of VP, then you must also agree that he is ineligible for any post that is in the legal succession. This is most of the cabinet.

[KelliJ 0]

Quote

If Hillary gets the nod. Don't be surprised to see Obama as her VP, and vice versa.

IF she gets the nod, which looks very doubtful at this time, she would do well to pick Obama for VP. He would bring in a lot of votes, more than Bill, but I don't think as many as a traditional moderate male VP candidate (other than Bill) would.
If Obama gets the nomination he would be a fool to add Hillary to the ticket. Anyone willing to vote for Hillary will almost certainly vote for Obama should he get the nomination, but there are many...myself included...who will defect from the Obama camp and vote Republican if Hillary is anywhere on the ticket. Obama has everything to lose and nothing to gain by bringing her along.

[BIGUN 1,053]

I probably phrased that poorly...

Could SCOTUS argue/conclude the tenets of the 12th amendment were specific in addressing Article II only regarding, "...natural born citizen, citizen of the United States, age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States." And, the 22nd Amendment as addressing the terms of "elected" President only. Therefore, Bill could be eligible as VP and successor to the Presidency, but not "elected" as President. Here, they say it better...

Quote

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."

Source: Washington Post

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

There’s also the 12th Amendment (original method for choosing VP), which concludes
“But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United State.”

(The 20th partially superseded the 12th w/r/t method for choosing the VP.)

So one Constitutional question: does the intent of the last sentence of the 12th remain viable/applicable, which has nothing to do w/the original method for electing VP? If yes, does the 22nd (mentioned above) make former President Bill Clinton “constitutionally ineligible”? While not a legal scholar, I would argue yes.

The 22nd has no one can be elected to a third term. It doesn't say they are ineligible to serve as President. Ineligible is under 35, foreign born.

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

Ineligible is under 35, foreign born.

I may be under 35, but this is really what is saving you all from my wrath

[azdiver 0]

if she did that she could not nominate him as a candidate for the supreme court.

light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak

[BIGUN 1,053]

Is there a seat open?

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

if she did that she could not nominate him as a candidate for the supreme court.

He can practice law again now. He was stripped of his license to practice law for five years, back in 2001.

Since he is a Dem, they won't ask him about any sexual harassment issues. Besides, his wife would be out of office before they got through the witness list.

[Andy9o8 0]

Max's and Andrewwhyte's analyses are correct.

Lawrocket is correct to the extent that Thomas is properly reviled as a fascist lapdog of Scalia.

[azdiver 0]

more than likely the next pres. will have at least one appointment to make.
steven's 87 years old
scalia's in his 70s along with kennedy, breyer, ginsberg. so i would say chances a pretty good that their will be at least one appointment in the next 4 years, most were expecting more appointments to happen during bush adm.

light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak

[likearock 1]

Quote

I agree it would be a bad Idea. Too many people would see it as thwarting the will of the constitution if not the letter. The image privileged doing what they want would cost as many votes as Bill would gain.

On the other hand, it would be the most honest choice she could make. Let's face it, if she's president, he'll be de facto VP anyway. What's the sense of having another, more inconsequential one?