Posted on 06/12/2006 3:28:21 PM PDT by HAL9000
See posts 52 through 58.
It's not a law, it's a Constitutional Amendment, and there would be no case to rule on unless a) the People elected 271 or more electors for Vice-President who voted for him and b) the candidate with the second-highest number of electors applied for an injunction barring his inauguration.
It's very unlikely that the Court would rule at all on such a request, reasoning that it's a double political question - first on Election Day, second when the new Congress counted the electoral votes and certified a winner.
If they did rule on it, they would seek shelter in the narrowest possible ruling, which would be that Bill Clinton was not "constitutionally ineligible to the office".
He's not eligible. If it were attempted, it would go to the Supreme Court again, and what do you think they will rule? The INTENT of the law is to keep anyone from serving more than two terms. Period.
Of course they did.
But that's not what they wrote, and that's not what was ratified by 2/3 of the House and Senate and 3/4 of the States.
What they intended is irrelevant.
You're right, Mike, but surely they would correct that if they decided to take a run at this thing.
I don't think they'll try this, but it's intriguing.
yeah it wouldn't work for various numbers of reasons....
first of all being that Hillary would have to get the nomination and that's looking more and more unlikely.
Secondly, it would have to require Bill to think that his wife can carry the ticket. Like or dislike Billy Bob, the guy is, if nothing else, shrewd about his own well-being. He won't attach himself to a sinking ship voluntarily.
I disagree. The intent of the Constitution is what judges determine.
As far as a narrow ruling, I don't see a precedent for Supreme Court justices adhering to the letter of the law irrespective of intent. In fact, they've found intents in the Constitution that didn't even exist, such as the infamous right to privacy guaranteeing a constitutional right to abortion.
Yes, I agree that the USSC makes up a lot of stuff about "intent".
However, if the People elect Bill Clinton (or W) Vice-President, especially if it's a big win, the USSC will "discover" that the Constitution supports what the People want to do - especially since the plain language of XXII seems to limit being elected only.
I see a 5-4 against Bill Clinton if this went to the SCOTUS.
I thought that a President can only serve 2 terms IN A ROW, then he is not eligible to run again for another 4 years. Am I wrong?
Yes, you're incorrect. See earlier analysis.
No. A person can serve up to ten years as President under the 22nd Amendment.
Some have questioned the interpretation of the Twenty-second Amendment as it relates to the Twelfth Amendment, ratified in 1804, which provides that anyone constitutionally ineligible to the office of President is ineligible to that of Vice President: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
While it is clear that under the Twelfth Amendment the original constitutional qualifications of age, citizenship, and residency apply to both the President and Vice President, it is unclear if a two-term President could later be elected—or appointed—Vice President. Some argue that the Twenty-second Amendment and Twelfth Amendment bar any two-term President from later serving as Vice President as well as from succeeding to the Presidency from any point in the United States Presidential line of succession. Others contend that the Twelfth Amendment concerns qualification for service, while the Twenty-second Amendment concerns qualifications for election. Considered opinion though, appears to favour the former view of ineligibility.
Since the ratification of the Twenty-Second Amendment, no two-term President has later sought to become Vice President, and thus, the courts have never had an opportunity to decide the question.
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Clear. Indisputable. End of story.
He's eligible to run - he's not eligible to be elected.
XXII is very poorly drafted, and one of the questions is who or what is inhibited by it.
Anybody can run for President - in fact, the concept of "running" for President was unknown to the founders and is not regulated anywhere in the Constitution.
And since the President-elect is not chosen on Election Day (electors are), then it would seem that voters can vote for whoever they please.
So the most consistent interpretation of XXII would seem to be that electors MAY NOT CHOOSE a person who has been elected to that specific office twice. Or, if they do, that Congress may not certify such a result.
You could be right.
OK, so it seems we're reaching a bit of a consensus here.
1) The framers of the 22nd Amendment intended to permanently bar anybody after FDR from ever serving more than two terms as US President.
2) Strictly and literally speaking, that's not what they said.
3) This therefore opens the possibility of a former President who served more than one term running for Vice-President under the theory that he is NOT "constitutionally ineligible to the Office of President."
4) I don't think we can yet agree that there will be no ruling on the matter until and unless such a former President is elected Vice-President. I think the mere act of running might be sufficient to generate a lawsuit, and a ruling.
5) In any event, it's conceivable that such a ruling could go either way, either allowing or disallowing such a former President to become Vice-President (and possibly, President again upon death or resignation of a sitting President).
But do you really think Bill would reverse roles and get on his knees for Hillary for another chance to occupy the west wing??
I'm sorry, I didn't read all the posts---but where is the mega barf alert???????
Thank you.
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.