Posted on 09/04/2007 7:35:43 PM PDT by RDTF
Bill Clinton ruled out running as HRC's VP tonight during a taping of the CBS's LATE SHOW WITH DAVID LETTERMAN, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
MORE
Dave: “Now there was a discussion last week, and there is I guess a greater discussion, and there’s some confusion, and maybe I’m the only one confused about the eligibility of a man who has been elected twice as President to possibly be named later on the ticket as Vice President. Constitutionally speaking, can that happen?”
Clinton: “I don’t believe so. There are some people who believe it can, and they have contorted readings of the amendment, the 22nd Amendment. But I believe as a matter of general interpretation, you’re supposed to read all the Constitution including all the Amendments as if they were written almost on the same day at the same moment, so they’re consistent with one another. And the Constitution says the qualifications for Vice President are the same as those for President. Now you can read that to mean ‘to serve,’ not ‘to run for.’ But I just don’t believe it’s consistent with the spirit of the Constitution for someone who’s been President twice to be elected Vice President. I just don’t think it’s Constitutional. I don’t think it’s right and I wouldn’t want to do that. I’d want to do whatever I could do to be of highest and best use for her, but there are lots of wonderful people out there, including all the people that are running this time would be good Vice Presidents. And, that’s just not in the cards.”
Klintoon could not be VP anyway. He’s Constitutionally ineligible. The Constitution clearly says that anyone who is not eligible for the office of President (as Klintoon is not, having served the maximum two terms) is not eligible for the office of Vice President.
Why don’t people understand this?
.....oh geez........
Clinton was a failure. Her husband won’t help her new administration.
Get over it libs...
The Constitution does not say that the President and Vice President cannot be from teh same state. It says that the electors from that state cannot vote for both of them. ("...one of whom, at least, shall not be from the same state as themselves.")
I guess I never read it that way. Oh well, you learn something new every day. I guess I AM an idiot!
Most people read it the way you did and that is its practical effect. But it’s not quite what it actually says.
I detest lawyers. Even framer ones. Why can’t people just say what they mean—or at least say it in a way that is understandable. I’ve probably read that 100 times, and never caught it.
Wish I had a dollar everytime he used the word “I”.
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.