Posted on 04/15/2015 6:25:40 PM PDT by concernedcitizen76
Because Hillary Clinton is white and no longer young, a strain of political thought holds that she might lack Barack Obama’s inherent appeal to new and minority voters and thus that she won’t be able to ride the Democratic party’s demographic advantages to easy victory in 2016.
Writing for the Washington Examiner, Philip Klein ably sketches the nightmare scenario for liberals. “If Hillary's performance among black voters retreats to more typical Democratic levels,” he writes, “it will hinder her efforts in swing states such as Ohio and Florida, where Democrats need to rack up huge margins in urban areas to make up for their weaknesses in other parts of the states. ... It's questionable that young voters will flock to vote at historically high levels for a 69-year-old white woman who has been a national political figure since before many of them were born.”
The nightmare for conservatives is a complementary scenario in which Clinton holds the Obama coalition together without issue and simultaneously increases Democratic margins among women and whites. In that world, she defeats her opponent by greater margins than Obama defeated John McCain and Mitt Romney. But there’s no reason to assume that outcome is any more likely than the one Klein alluded to. And there’s also no reason Democrats should tinker with a winning formula. If Clinton can turn out Obama’s voters, she will win.
The challenge, then, is to make sure Clinton’s age and ethnicity don’t discourage Obama’s youthful, diverse supporters from turning out in November 2016. Fortunately, there’s an easy way to make sure that doesn’t happen. Clinton simply has to select Barack Obama as her running mate.
LOL, you might be thinking. Obama can’t be the vice president. That would place him at the top of the line of succession, and the Constitution limits him to two terms. Clinton would end up in court before she ended up in the White House if she pulled something like that.
I’ll grant that if Democrats nominate Barack Obama to be their vice presidential candidate next year, it would be somewhat controversial. But here Democrats can borrow tactically from the literal-minded conservatives who have seized on syntactic oddities to unravel Obama’s domestic agenda. As a purely textual matter, the Constitution merely prohibits Obama from being elected to a third term. It doesn’t necessarily prohibit him from actually being president again, should Hillary Clinton no longer be able to serve. And were he on the ticket, Clinton’s potential liabilities with Obama loyalists would disappear.
As hot takes go, this one is significantly more piping than, say, the idea that Al Gore should challenge Hillary for the nomination. My guru for this argument is Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf, though others have examined the issue, as well.
There are three sections of the Constitution that prescribe limits on who can be president and vice president: Article II, the Twelfth Amendment and the Twenty-Second Amendment. While the former two limit who is “eligible” to serve—natural born citizens, 35 or older—the Twenty-Second Amendment begins “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.”
Whether its adopters intended it or not, the plain language of the Twenty-Second amendment doesn’t prohibit a former two-term president from succeeding a sitting president and serving out the remainder of her term. It merely prohibits him from running for a third. By using the term “elected” instead of “eligible,” its authors created a loophole large enough for a Clinton-Obama ticket to coast to victory through.
Clinton and Obama couldn’t pull this off without some awkwardness. The last time this issue surfaced, in 2007, it generated enough buzz that Bill Clinton had to pop the speculative bubble on the “Late Show with David Letterman.”
He cannot stand for election more than twice, nor could he serve more than ten years total.
Here is the text;
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. 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.
Read the amendment.
He could not serve more than two years of another’s term.
I suppose Barky could be the VP but he could never again be POTUS as the 22ndA says he is limited to 2 terms..period. Then again what does the Constitution mean to these grifters.
The prohibition in the 22nd Amendment is on being elected twice. Zero has been elected twice, and therefore cannot be elected again.
However, if he were President Hildebeest's VP, and she were to become deceased, then he would be able to serve out the remainder of her term without being elected, thus skating past the Amendment.
Of course, if you were the Hildebeest, would you want Zero as your running mate? Seriously?
Careful - Obama is the king of "present".
We all know what you meant, but an opportunity for some levity is an opportunity one should not pass up....
Exactly. Obama has used up his eligibility (assuming he was eligible from the beginning) by serving two full terms. As such, under the 12th Amendment, he cannot serve as VP. He cannot be elected as VP, nor can he be appointed as VP.
“Read the amendment.”
I did. He could serve less than a full term.
He can only stand for election twice.
Dont you think someone would have done this if it were the case? Like Truman? Or Clinton?
It is a “nice” thought, but it just cannot happen.
The amendment was created to allow Truman to run for a third term, if we wanted to.
While the amendment clearly states that the person shall not be elected more than twice, it also states that if they had been serving as President, or Acting President for more than two years of another term, they may only stand for election once.
Obama has already stood for election twice. Therefore, he could not run because the VP qualifications are the same as the Presidential candidate.
This is linguistic gymnastics. I don’t care which law professor splits hairs. It is unconstitutional.
This ain’t Russia. That’s not how it works. It is not a prohibition against three consecutive terms, its against three elections.
There have been arguments on both sides since the 12th was ratified in 1804. It will eventually be tested in Court.
No, the 22 new puts it to rest. He has already stood for two elections. He is not qualified to be President, so VP is OUT. No court case needed.
The man suggesting this is trying to be “cute.” It just doesn’t fly.
“No court case needed.”
22nd amendment...”No person shall be ELECTED to the office of the President more than twice...
A two term President who is running as Vice President and wins that position is not ELECTED to the office of President, is he/she?
ELECTED and President are the operative words repeatedly used in the 22nd amendment.
NOt a good idea.They would kill each other. Wait, maybe it is a good idea.
Elsewhere, there is a provision saying that the VP must be eligible to be president.
That's the problem. Zero could not be elected a third time. However, if he were Hillary's VP, he would not need to stand for election in order to take over in the event of her incapacitation. Therefore, he would be eligible to serve out the remainder of her term.
Obviously, the 22nd should have included something like, "No person who has served as President more than four years shall be elected Vice President, nor shall any person who has served as President more than six years be elected President." But it didn't.
You’re leaving something out to make yourself right...and you’re wrong.
Wow, are YOU out of touch.
Rules are for Republicans.
Not for Democrats.
One plus one equals two.
Or three, or five, or whatever you need it to be.
You’re getting played. The author is the antagonist and we’re the suckers. He’s getting his 15 minutes on a worthless dissertation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.