[Republican Wildcat]

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

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

We've been over this before, please read the thread.

The question is whether the 22nd Amendment, which prohibits certain persons from being elected as President, makes those same persons "constitutionally ineligible to the office of President" (which would likely be read as "constitutionally ineligible to serve in the office of President.

Whether you agree with the argument or not, and whether you like the argument or not, there's definitely a reasonable argument to be made that from the wording of the 22nd Amendment, from what it DOES and (more importantly) DOES NOT say, said Amendment may be construed to be SOLELY a bar on ELECTION to the office; that it does NOT speak to arrival in the office, and service thereof, gained through the line of Presidential Succession.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

Frankly, those who favor a strict interpretation of the Constitution are likely to have trouble on this one.

[Egon]

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

Thanks for this passage. Somehow, in my perusal (again) of the Constitution yesterday, I missed it. This takes away almost all of the wiggle room I was fearing.

I tend to agree with Luke SkyFreeper, that there still remains a small amount of legalistic opportunity, but I'm pretty confident that the USSC would likely strike it down based on this one passage. Without it, I wouldn't have placed a bet either way.