HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Vice President Bill Clint...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:29 AM

Vice President Bill Clinton? Take 3

Slate has contradicted itself. "History Lesson" says Bill Clinton can't run for vice president. "Explainer" says he can. What's the skinny?

The answer is: He can. The 12th Amendment states that anybody who is eligible for the presidency under Article II of the Constitution (a natural-born citizen age 35 or older) is eligible for the vice presidency. Clinton is a natural-born citizen over 35, so he qualifies. The putative roadblock to a Clinton vice presidency--the 22nd Amendment--doesn't apply. This hastily worded and passed amendment, designed to block another multi-multi-term presidency such as FDR's, only bars the election of a president to more than two terms in that office. It doesn't prevent a two-term president from running for the vice presidency.

The 25th Amendment affords Clinton another route to the vice presidency: In the event the vice presidency is vacated, the president appoints a new veep, subject to confirmation by Congress. (This is how Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller became vice president.)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2000/09/vice_president_bill_clinton_take_3.html

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901572.html

20 replies, 2879 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 20 replies Author Time Post
Reply Vice President Bill Clinton? Take 3 (Original post)
MindMover Dec 2012 OP
DURHAM D Dec 2012 #1
MindMover Dec 2012 #3
DURHAM D Dec 2012 #4
MindMover Dec 2012 #5
DURHAM D Dec 2012 #6
former9thward Dec 2012 #15
DURHAM D Dec 2012 #16
former9thward Dec 2012 #17
democrattotheend Dec 2012 #18
Drunken Irishman Dec 2012 #2
MindMover Dec 2012 #7
NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #8
Drunken Irishman Dec 2012 #10
NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #12
davidpdx Dec 2012 #11
NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #13
democrattotheend Dec 2012 #19
Drunken Irishman Dec 2012 #20
graham4anything Dec 2012 #9
Chan790 Dec 2012 #14

Response to MindMover (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:31 AM

1. He can run for VP but

he can not moved into the Presidency from that position. And why are you bringing this up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:34 AM

3. Hillary will need a VP ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:49 AM

4. Well, no thanks to that ticket but

the President and the V-President can not be from the same state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:54 AM

5. Hillary is from Illinois and Bill is from Arkansas ...

So your dream ticket is ... ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:57 AM

6. They are both residents of New York.

This is a very stupid conversation so I am done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:53 PM

15. Bush and Cheney were residents of Texas in 2000.

When it was decided for Cheney to be VP he quickly established residency in WY. Bill and Hillary can do the same. Bill could become President. The 22nd says you may not be "elected" to the presidency more than twice. A VP becoming President is not elected into that position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:26 PM

16. Bill and Hillary do not own a home in Arkansas

so they can not do what Cheney did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:39 PM

17. They own homes in Washington D.C. and New York.

But that is of no consequence. I am unaware of any state which requires more than 30 days to establish residency for voting purposes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:14 AM

18. I think he actually could

The 22nd amendment says "no person shall be elected" more than twice or shall be elected more than once if they serve more than 2 years of their predecessor's term. So Clinton could run for VP and ascend to the presidency if something happened to the president, but then could not run in the next election.

But I can't see why he would want to be VP after being president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:33 AM

2. The 12th Amendment also says this...

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


Bill Clinton is not constitutionally eligible to be President according to the 22nd amendment. He is constitutionally ineligible to be president and therefore, according to the 12th amendment, also constitutionally ineligible to be vice-president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:07 AM

7. What are you drinking tonight ... >

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:24 AM

8. That is not 100% settled.

There is an argument that "constitutionally ineligible" refers only to the requirements (35 years old, natural born citizen, resident for 14 years) in Article 2, which specifically uses the term eligibility:
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


The 22nd Amendment says:
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.


You'll note it says nothing about a person's eligibility to hold the office, but only refers to elections. And if you say it's a distinction without a difference, I'd note that the amendment specifically differentiates between being "elected" and "holding" the office, because it uses both terms separately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #8)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:02 AM

10. The ambiguity of it would send us into a constitutional crisis, tho...

Which is why no two-term ex-president would ever test it. It's just too unclear ... and uneasy to risk. The chances of it ending up in the hands of the Supreme Court would be pretty significant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:38 PM

12. On that point I totally agree.

There's no reason why it would need to happen. Someone at some point would have to actively make a choice to spark that potential crisis (a former president running for VP, a former president serving as Speaker or in the cabinet). It couldn't happen accidentally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #8)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:42 AM

11. Doesn't matter

Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:38 PM - Edit history (1)

Those who are obsessing about it will continue to obsess. Also the following things have or have not happened:

1) We just finished an election 6 1/2 weeks ago

2) Hillary Clinton hasn't announced whether she will run or not

3) Hillary Clinton hasn't won the nomination for 2016

4) Although Bill Clinton would certain being able (physically and mentally) to run, he's a pretty politically savvy guy and would see the downside or running on a ticket with his wife. As the first female president I'm sure he would want her to be her own person and choose someone else who is capable and younger for the bottom of the ticket.

Now again, to those foaming at the mouth none of these things make sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:39 PM

13. Agreed on all points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:15 AM

19. Technically, he is constitutionally eligible to BE president

Just not constitutionally eligible to be ELECTED president, according to the wording of the 22nd amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:22 AM

20. Too ambiguous and why no former prez would dare entertain the idea...

Because it would throw us into a constitutional crisis. Hell, even constitutional professors can't agree on what it exactly means - and that would leave it in the hands of the Supreme Court to ultimately decide on the language.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:41 AM

9. Bill Clinton42 will be back in the White House from Jan. 2017 to Jan. 2025

 

You will see Bill every single day

Hillary45 will be standing to the left of Bill Clinton42 and serving the same way

For the continuation of Barack Obama44
Now, Bill could officially move to Boston and with doing so, he could become the new senator and replace John Kerry and he would win a landslide (or perhaps Chelsea if Vicky won't???)

and idea worth thinking about, because they won't be in NY much anyhow once HIllary45 is President, so maybe they should consider a beautiful home in Hyanis Port or Cape Cod and Bill should run for Senate.

The thing about term limits for a president is it shows how each and every time the repubs attempt to fix things for their own benefit, they shoot themselves in the toes doing so.

BTW- Hillary45 history will show will be far, far more liberal than Bill42 was forced to be.\

and when Hillary45 leaves in 2025, the supreme court will be either 8 to 1 or 9 to 0 liberal.

The republicans will be a laughing stock if the Dems can have 16 presidential years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:30 PM

14. "Hillary45 history will show will be far, far more liberal than Bill42 was forced to be."

This is unlikely.

It's not a secret going back to their days at Yale that HRC is more ideologically-conservative than WJC. She worked for the Goldwater campaign. He was the lefty activist. He went into politics. She went into a moderately-conservative law firm. She's always been independent-minded from the thinking of her husband and willing to disagree with him publicly so there's no secret or surprise here. She frequently takes positions to the right of Bill. Bill's conservatism was/is practical...Hillary's is because it's what she really believes.

Not saying that's a good or bad thing...but it's something well beyond question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread