I heard some talk radio guys joking about this scenario. Could it happen?:
Al Gore is nominated for President and chooses Bill Clinton as his Vice-President nominee. Gore wins and resigns. Clinton is President again!
Now, I know someone can only be President for two terms, or no more than 10 years. But, can Bill Clinton still serve as V.P.? And if he has to assume the office of President, what would happen?
Did you check the Constitution?
I know radio guys are smart and all, but… maybe this Constitution thing can offer some insight on the situation.
The Twenty-Second Amendment, Sec. 1, provides in relevant part:
The Twelfth Amendment’s last sentence reads:
Accordingly, we may conclude that the radio guys’ zany, wacky scenario is not legal, and could not happen.
I know, I know - who would have believed that talk radio would be a source for anything other than rigorous truth? I’m disappointed too.
Thank you, Rick. I’ll be sure to keep my copy of the Constitution handy next time I’m listening to talk radio.
No offense, Rick, but the 22nd Amendment does not preclude Clinton from becoming President again. It precludes him from being elected again. Were he to inherit the office resulting from the resignation or death or impeachment of the President, he being Vice-President, he would not be being ‘elected’.
The Twelfth Amendment, therefor, does not bar him from becoming Vice-President.
Would the USSC interpret the language of the 22nd Amendment to preclude a person from the Presidency who couldn’t be elected president, but otherwise could be President? They might well, though it would be interesting to see the strict constructionists squirming at the language. 
Did anyone consider what a ridiculous situation that would be, even if it were legal? Are you trying to tell me that eight years Bill Clinton got Al Gore to agree to be his vice-president just so Gore could run for president in 2000, chose Clinton as his running mate, and then resign after he was elected? This is an even more fantastic plot than the thirty-some murders supposedly committed by Clinton. Clinton would not only have to be a master conspirator, but a hypnotist.
I don’t think Clinton couldn’t run for Vice President, since that would be tantamount to running for election to succeed to the Presidency if anything happened to Gore (or Bradley). However, consider the following scenario:
Gore and Bradley end up at the convention with similar numbers of votes: After favorite sons go through the first-ballot folderol, the second ballot ends up with about 15 votes separating them and 25 going to a third candidate. They agree to run together, Gore for president and Bradley for VP with some influence on policy. They are duly elected, and three months after the inauguration Bradley has a heart attack and dies. Gore nominates Clinton as VP. He’s not being “elected” to the office, but going through the appointment/consent process of the 25th Amendment. Gore is then shot by a crazed Albanian dwarf upset by his Kosovo policy, and Clinton becomes President again, totally legally.
Can Clinton be president again?
Only if there really is no god.
what?
The short answer is no.
For the long answer, please there is a mailbag answer on this http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/m3dterm.html .
For the even longer answer, which discusses all of the aspects of this under the Constitution and Laws of the United States, there is a thread in Comments on Mailbag Answers http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/000212.html .
Enjoy
No offense taken, DS, although I am going to stand by my position.
You’re quite right that the key point revolves around the word “elected” as it appears in the Twenty-Second Amendment.
I contend that, as the Twelfth and Twenty-Second Amendments must be read in pari materia with each other, the Twelfth does, in fact, bar Clinton from being elected Vice-President.
We should apply the well-known principles of statutory construction to this problem. If the wording were unambiguous, we could simply apply the plain meaning. Since the labguage is ambiguous, and open to more than one reasonable construction, we are permitted to ascertain the intent behind the words.
When read together, the Twenty-Second and Twelfth Amendments paint a clear picture. The Twelfth clearly seeks, inter alia, to prohibit a person ineligible for the office of President from becoming Vice-President. Notice, tellingly, it does not say anything about ‘elected’. It simply says, “[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The Twenty-Second, equally clearly, prohibits the election of a person to the office of President when such person has been elected twice previously. While it is true that the niggling ‘elected’ appears here, when read in pari materia with the Twelfth, there can be little doubt that the intended effect is to deny eligibility to the office of President to those persons having twice been elected thereto.
It’s a forgone conclusion, strict constructionsists notwithstanding. Even Bork would come down on the right side of this one.
OK, so what if Clinton just couldn’t stand to be out of politics, and ran for the House of Representatives. Then, once in, he is elected Speaker of the House.
President Gore and Vice President Bradley are killed in a terrorist attack. Clinton, as Speaker of the House, would assume the Presidency, right?
What say you, Bricker? Seems like neither the 12th nor the 22nd Amendment would come into play under that scenario.
First Note: I think the whole discussion quite silly with regard to William Jefferson Clinton. He will not ever be President of this country again, not under any legal scenario. If he has even half a brain, he wouldn’t WANT the job again.
But, let’s look at this as an interesting example of construction.
The word ‘elected’ has no ambiguous meaning. Numerous cases have addressed the disparity between elections and other methods of obtaining an office. To be ‘elected’ President, one would have to be chosen by vote of the Electoral Congress, or, failing that, by vote of the House of Representatives. A President who succedes to the Presidency from another office due to vacancy of the Presidency is not ‘elected’ President under any manner of interpreting the word.
The 12th Amendment precludes anyone from being Vice-President who is precluded from becoming President by the Constitution. Now, if the only restriction on becoming President were the restrictions on being ‘elected’ President, this would preclude a Vice-President who couldn’t be elected directly to President. BUT, there are a number of Constitutional restrictions on who can be President, which were in place in 1804 when the 12th Amendment was adopted, for example, the President cannot be foreign born, must be at least 35, etc. So in reality, the language in the 12th Amendment simply disqualifies from the office of Vice-President anyone who is incapable of meeting the minimum demands of being President. This construction is consistent with the fact that there was no term limit on the office when the 12th Amendment was passed.
So, basically, the plain meaning of the word ‘elected’ in Amenement 22 doesn’t by itself preclude Clinton or Reagan from being President, and the only way to preclude this by way of the Constitution is to ignore the plain meaning of ‘elected’ and make the assumption the framers of that amendment intended to preclude anyone who sat for all or most of two terms from the job however they might obtain it.
my understanding was always that he couldn’t run for a third consecutive term.
if there is some inturruption between and 2nd and 3rd terms, then he could run again.
upon reading the articles and comments, i’m not so sure anymore.
i think this is a decision for the supreme court. and they have more important things to worry about.
if there is a way for president Clinton to legally run for office again, we’ll find out in 2004…2008 at the latest.
here’s an image…
1992-2000 pres. Clinton
2000-2008 pres. Gore
2008-2016 pres. Clinton
2016-2024 pres. Gore
he’ll be 70 in 2016 (assuming his cholesterol doesn’t get him before then)
This wouldn’t be a decision for the Supreme Court. A speculative third term for Clinton would be a political question and SCOTUS would stay out of the fray most likely.
If any of the incredibly unlikely scenarios that people have cooked up here for Clinton to become president again were to occur, whether or not he assumes office would be up to the body politic.
If we all agreed that it was OK, then he’d be president. If enough people said, “Get out, you’ve had your turn.” Then the matter is settled: he is not the president.
I think that the Mailbag question and subsequent debate answered the question thoroughly.
This seems like as good a time as any to ask: What was the original intent behind limiting a president to two terms? It would seem to me that if a president is so popular that he or she is capable of being elected more than twice that they should be allowed to run. What’s the error in my thinking?
Please correct me if I am wrong, but would not the Congress have to approve Gore’s appointment of Clinton to the vice-presidency, or Clinton’s promotion from the Speaker of the House if both the prez and veep were to croak?
Wouldn’t this be considered an election in some sense of the word, thereby falling back under the preclusion of the Constitution?
And regarding the “why limit a president to two terms?” question, I believe that it has to do with our queasiness toward reverting to anything even remotely resembling a monarchy.
We came pretty close to having King FDR the First there for awhile. Who knows how many terms he would have been elected to if he had been, say, 45 when first elected.
“You should tell the truth, expose the lies and live in the moment.” - Bill Hicks
The appointment of a vice-president to fill a vacancy is subject to the approval of both houses of Congress. This isn’t an election. It’s more like confirming a presidential appointment.
If the Speaker of the House becomes president, there’s no confirmation involved. The Speaker just takes over. If the Speaker isn’t eligible (like Clinton would be), then you go to the next one in line, which would be the Senate President Pro Tem, i.e. Strom Thurmond.
If America really wants Clinton to serve another term as President, the 22nd Amendment will get repealed first.
This is becoming an incredibly ludicrous debate.
The Supreme Court and Congress DO NOT get involved in selecting running mates for presidential candidates.
There is nothing to preclude Clinton from running for VP and then, upon the resignation or death of the Prez, constitutionally assuming the office of President.
Why would anyone want Clinton to be PRes again?
Lets have his wife for Pres instead.
First of all, Congress would almost certainly refuse to count any VP electoral votes for Clinton. They can do that. The Congress does the counting. They could simply freeze out Clinton that way.
Even if they didn’t do that, the Congress could simply declare the office vacant and say that the next person in line becomes president.
Come on, people, do some research instead of just spouting off with offhand opinions. It is not true that the Speaker of the House, the President Pro Tem of the Senate, or any cabinet member would become President if they were lacking in any of the basic qualifications for being President. For instance, back when Kissinger was Secretary of State, it was frequently mentioned in the news that he could not succeed to the Presidency, even in the unlikely circumstance that the President, Vice-President, Speaker, and President Pro Tem all died, since he was not a natural-born citizen.
Also, Milossarian, you wonder what would have happened if Roosevelt “had been, say, 45 when first elected.” Did you bother to look his date of birth up? He was in fact 49 at the time of his first election as President. Are you claiming that that extra four years would have made a big difference?