Posted on 06/12/2006 3:28:21 PM PDT by HAL9000
How to bring back Bill
A Clinton-Clinton 2008 ticket is constitutionally possible.
WASHINGTON, D.C., AND MADISON, N.J. – Americans are nostalgic for the 1990s. They long for a time when terrorism was perceived as a problem confined to foreign lands and when the stock market's rise seemed unstoppable. And, it turns out, many of them miss former President Bill Clinton.
In a recent poll conducted for CNN, respondents favored Mr. Clinton over President Bush on a variety of issues, including policy areas traditionally viewed as GOP strongholds. By a wide margin, those surveyed indicated that Clinton did a better job managing the economy and handling foreign affairs and taxes.
Clinton's resurgent popularity, and Democrats' difficulties in taking over the White House in recent years, might counsel a bold strategy for 2008. Whoever is selected as the Democratic nominee for the next presidential race should consider William Jefferson Clinton as a candidate for vice president.
~ snip ~
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
Heh heh...I don't think he's of that bent either...
Constitutional or not, it would not surprise me to see a Clinton-Clinton ticket. In fact it would surprise me if we didn't. If the powers that be want the WhiteHouse to be trashed again, they couldn't pick a better team.
It's true, he is not eligible to be chosen by the Electoral College to serve as President, under the (incredibly badly drafted) XXII Amendment.
But if he were, for example, Speaker of the House and the President and Vice-President both died, there's no question that he could and would become President.
Now, I agree that Bill running for VP violates the spirit of XXII, but certainly not the letter. Inasmuch as these are the Clintons we are talking about, I assume that the spiritual violation is no problem.
And, to be realistic, if the People chose 271 electors for Vice-President who voted for him, no Court in this land would disallow it.
You wish the Constitution said that - but it doesn't.
It says Bill Clinton cannot be elected to the office of President.
A candidate for VP must be eligible to serve as President - and WJC certainly is.
Written by a shyster and a college politics teacher---"Constitution? Hell, we doan' need no constitution!"
In your dreams.
It's one of the worst drafted amendments, and it doesn't say what you think it does.
see #34
wrong
The authors argue that the clear rule that someone who has served two terms as President is Constitutionally ineligible to be elected President is NOT the same thing as being "constitutionally ineligible to the office of President."
In other words, the argument goes, a person who has served two terms as President is still eligible to become, and to serve as, President by some means other than election. For example, that person might be elected Speaker of the House and ascend to the Presidency through the resignation of both the President and Vice-President.
This is only possible, however, IF said Speaker of the House is "eligible to the office of President under the Constitution." (This according to the Presidential Succession Act of 1947).
So the argument probably ultimately hinges on what "eligible to the office of President under the Constitution" means. Does it mean eligible to be elected President under the Constitution? Or is the requirement for being able to be elected not counted here?
In other words, in order for the Speaker of the House to ascend to the Presidency, must he be eligible to be elected President?
Concerning eligibility to the Office of President, the Constitution states:
"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."
This is supplemented by the 22nd Amendment:
"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."
I'm not a Constitutional lawyer, but it looks to me like they have a leg to stand on here, certainly enough to take the question to the Supreme Court.
A lot depends as well upon the intent of the framers of the 22nd Amendment. Did they intend that no person should serve as President for more than two terms, or only that no person should be elected President for more than two terms? Would it have been okay with them for someone to become President again if not elected?
My opinion: Probably not!
But if that's the case, then why didn't they say "serve" instead of "be elected?"
You and I know the answer is: they intended to bar persons from serving as President for more than 8 years, maximum, and thought barring them from being re-elected would do the trick. That was the entire PURPOSE of the Amendment -- to keep people from serving as President for more than 8 years.
In other words, it simply didn't occur to them that this possibility would ever be an issue, and that they ought to use the word "serve" instead of "be elected."
To me, the intent here is PLAIN. But that's my perspective, and no guarantee someone else (i.e, the Supremes) would see it the same way. The question is, how would the USSC rule?
So there is the potential of a loophole here. If that loophole really does exist (and I think only the USSC could determine whether it does), then it looks to me like it might be just big enough to slip a weasel through.
Bill Clinton would NEVER have hILLARY AS V.P........he KNOWS about ARKANCIDE!!!
Correct.
Let's repeat the eligibility criteria in the Constitution, Article II:
1) 35 years old - check.
2) Native born - check.
3) Resident of the US for previous fourteen years - check.
4) (disputed) Is male - check.
The XXII Amendment does not create a condition of constitutional ineligibility to the office for a person who has twice been elected. No matter how many times you say it, it's not true.
All XXII says is that an otherwise eligible man who has been elected twice can't be elected to the same office again.
That's it.
And you're still wrong Jim.
They BOTH live in the same state.
Sorry, that's strike one.
If Cheney wasn't a Texas resident on election day 2000, I'm sure it's possible for Bill to arrange to live elsewhere on election day 2008.
LOL
and that will fly how?
Sorry, this won't happen.
He's ineligible and you know it.
Interesting point, and relevant.
The 22nd Amendment specifies:
"...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.
THIS IS EVIDENCE THAT THE PURPOSE UNDER WHICH THE 22ND AMENDMENT WAS DRAFTED, WAS TO ESTABLISH A MAXIMUM LENGTH OF TIME OF EIGHT YEARS -- ***MAXIMUM*** -- FOR A PERSON TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT.
Therefore, this is KEY EVIDENCE that the INTENT of the framers of the 22nd Amendment would be to bar persons from SERVING for more than eight years as President.
Or, to put it another way, we have evidence that the 22nd Amendment drafters INTENDED TO MAKE PERSONS WHO HAD SERVED ANYTHING MORE THAN ONE TERM AS PRESIDENT CONSTITUTIONALLY INELIGIBLE to serve any longer.
This argument would probably be a key one against WJC's being eligible to run for Vice-President.
My take: if you parse the words 100% literally, he's eligible to run for VP. However, if you rightly interpret and consider the INTENT of the statute, he's certainly INELIGIBLE. I think the USSC would probably rule according to the obvious intent of the law. But until and unless we get such a ruling, we don't know for sure.
No, I don't know it.
Bill Clinton (and W, for that matter) can absolutely, positively serve as President again (and therefore Vice-President), as long as he does not ascend to office by election.
LOL
ok....
whatever you say.
LOL
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.