The thread about what would happen if somebody were to discover in a middle of a President’s term that the President wasn’t Constitutionally qualified reminded me of an on-again, off-again discussion I have been having with various people over the years.
Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush cannot be elected President again, under the 22nd Amendment. However, can they become President through other means - mainly, being Vice-President when the President dies during a term?
Most people I talk to about this use the following logic:
(a) “According to the 12th Amendment, you have to be Constitutionally eligible to be President in order to be Vice-President” - I agree with this;
(b) “According to the 22nd Amendment, no one who has served two full terms as President can be President again, so they are not Constitutionally eligible to be President, and therefore not eligible to be Vice-President” - here, I disagree, as the first part of the 22nd Amendment reads, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” It says nothing about becoming President in other ways.
Some people have an interesting interpretation of another part of the 22nd Amendment: “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.” Does this mean that if, say, Bill Clinton were to be VP and then President with more than two years left in the President’s term, then, after two years, he would be ineligible to be President as otherwise he would violate the clause where you can’t be elected more than once if you serve two years or more of another President’s term? It doesn’t say “subsequently” elected - just “elected”.
Ummm… George H W Bush was “Bush the Elder”, and elected to the Presidency only once (Jan 20 1989 - 1993). Therefore, he is eligible for a second crack at the job.
Why would either one want the job again? They make plenty of money on the lecture circuit, and can take a day, week, or month off anytime they want.
But more seriously, I think the simplest way for one of them to become president again would be the way that Gerald Ford did. I imagine there’d be a SCOTUS decision right quick on the Constitutionality of them even running for vice-president, if they ever were asked to be a nominee’s running mate, which would create too much of a liability for the GOP or Democrats, depending. You don’t want your campaign derailed by the possibility that the running mate isn’t legally able to take office. ROFL
I believe that one cannot be vice president unless one is qualified to be president. So that someone under the age of 35 or not a native-born citizen can serve as vice president. Similarly, neither Bill Clinton nor GWB could serve as vice president.
I do believe that one of the qualifications of the Vice Presidency is that the candidate must be currently qualified to be President. Neither of the to ex-Presidents mentioned in the OP qualify.
The OP is drawing the distinction between being elected President, and becoming President.
He’s saying that while Clinton cannot be elected President, no provision of law prevents him from becoming President via the 25th Amendment.
If the VP qualification business freaks you out, just substitute Clinton running for the House, being elected, and then having the House elect him Speaker, followed shortly by the simultaneous tragic deaths of the Prez and VP.
I recall a discussion a few years back that Madeline Albright (ostensibly fourth in the line of succession when she was Secretary of State) would be passed over by virtue of being a naturalized citizen. The idea of line-skips is not a new one.
So short of a repeal or modification of the 22nd… no. Bill Clinton and Bush43 will not be presidents again.
You all are ignoring what Bricker and the OP clearly pointed out. There is a difference between being barred from being ELECTED VP or POTUS, and simply becoming POTUS by succession law.
My take on the argument is that Bill Clinton would technically be able to become president again by succession, but that the supreme court would probably decide against it. The spirit of the amendment was to prevent it, not just prevent elections.
Not ignoring anything-see post #10. To be in the line of succession, the candidate must be fully qualified to become president-neither of them qualify any more.
Very interesting question. I bet someone like Scalia could write a very long, detailed opinion on the meaning of the word “eligble” in the 12th Amendment and “qualify” in the Succession Act. Seems to me that’s really what the issue boils down to - if to be “eligble/qualify” for President includes being electable or just the other requirements (natural-born citizen/35 years old). And I don’t think there’s a surefire argument for either side - seems to be the sort of thing I could see the SCOTUS ruling either way on.
On the contrary - the entire point of my starting this thread is that there is nothing in the Constitutition that says they aren’t qualified to become President again - they just can’t be elected President again. The law in Post #10 says nothing to contradict this - it just says that if you don’t meet the qualifications to be President, then you can’t be President.
The “qualifications” for President are, 35 years old or older, a natual-born citizen, and a resident of the USA for at least the past 14 years. Both Bill Clinton and GWB (almost said GHWB again…) meet these qualifications.
Well, if you get enough people on board willing to ignore the obvious constitutional intent, sure, Clinton and Bush43 could be president again. Schwarzenegger could be president. I could be president.
