could former pres clinton be selected for a vice president??
I understand that there is a constitutional amendment that prohitbits a 2 term president from running for a 3 consecutive or non consecutive term. But could presicent Clinton (or any 2 term president) be selected as a vice presidentail canidate?
and a secondary question… if that president was unft for office (killed or impeached) could that former 2 term president become president? become president for more than 2 years?
A literal reading of the 22nd Amendment compels the conclusion that Clinton could, indeed, be elected vice president and succeed to office as president via the device that you describe.
The 12th amendment, to be sure, specifies that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” But the 22nd amendment doesn’t say who is eligible to be president; it only concerns who may be elected president.
Clinton’s return to office, to be sure, would violate the spirit although not the literal letter of the 22nd Amendment. But in the unlikely event that it happens, I doubt that the Supreme Court would attempt to prevent him from taking office.
As another option, diehard Clintonites may wish to consider the possibility that he assume a position further down in the succession, such as Speaker of the House or a cabinet position, and then have everybody above him in the succession resign.
12th amendment says that:
No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
And the 22nd says:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and 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.
Doesn’t really sort it out, does it? Is Clinton ineligible to be elected president again? Yes, definitely. Does this make him constitutionally ineligible to serve as president under the 12th amendment? Tougher call. My guess would be yes–he would be unable to be elected directly to the office or to assume the office of presidency if the president died less than two years into his term. The clear purpose of the 12th amendment is to prevent a person ineligible from being elected president from getting the job through succession. Since Clinton couldn’t get elected again, he’s ineligible to be vice president again.
But I wouldn’t bet the farm on my interpretation.
Check out [url=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=33709]This.
And [url=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=32574]this.
Personally, I think the issue is unsettled. I think he could serve as VP and if he really is ineligible to become President due to serving two terms already(which I don’t think is settled either) , he would be skipped over. His job is to become preside over the Senate and be a President-in-waiting. Members of Congress and Cabinet members, who are in line to be President just as the VP is, can serve their positions even though they are not eligible to be President either.
This is one of those “threads that will not die”!
There’s also this thread on the same topic.
Well yes, but the constitution specifies that the president and vice president shall not be residents of the same state, and Cheney and Bush were both residents of Texas, Cheney immediately registering to vote in his native Wyoming after deciding to run as VP.
The Constitution says no such thing.
All the Constitution says is that each elector must vote for at least one candidate (for either President or Vice President) from a state other than the state in which the elector resides. See U.S. Const. Art. II, Sec. 3, U.S. Const. Amend. XII. Had Cheney not changed his state of residence before the election, the electors of Texas would not have been able to cast all of their votes for Bush as President and also for Cheney as Vice President.
The 12th and 22nd amendments make it clear Clinton isn’t eligible. There really shouldn’t be all this debate on the subject.
The 22nd amendment makes Clinton ineligible for President. The 12th says that also makes him ineligible for VP. Not really that difficult to understand.
Beside what KellyM said, Cheney was born in Nebraska. He was raised in Wyoming, and served as ten years as its sole Congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives.
I disagree; the 22d makes him ineligible to be elected president; it says nothing about serving, and it is possible to serve without being elected, as Johnson, Truman, Johnson and others have shown; Ford wasn’t even elected as VP, but was appointed to that office. It’s an open question. Given the political question doctrine, (which says that structural issues internal to the political branches are best addressed in those branches), I think it unlikely that any courts would presume to answer it.
–Cliffy
Even if it were to happen and the Supreme Court refused to rule, it’s probably a safe bet we’d soon be looking at a new amendment clarifiying the 12th and 22nd. That’s the good thing about the system, after all, in the long run it’s self-correcting.
The Supreme Court would likely not decide if someone like Clinton (or theoretically Reagan) could be VP. That would likely be decided by Congress. The Supreme Court would say that this was a political issue, not a constitutional one.
If Congress said, “Not so fast” then the matter would be settled. And it’s likely that Congress would say something about this BEFORE any former two-term VP was sworn in.
For that matter, even if the S. C. and Congress both turned a blind eye, it’s unlikely that the voters would stand for this. Even most diehard Democrats (or Republicans, if we’re talking Reagan) would feel like the former Pres was pulling something shifty.
I generally agree with the last three posts (except I’m not sure what Congress could do about it, even if it wanted to), but yeah, that’s the reason the Supreme Court has a political question doctrine – it’s relatively easy for the electorate to answer (or if necessary, correct) these questions on its own, so the judicial branch doesn’t need to get involved.
–Cliffy
How is this NOT a SC issue? It seems obvious this would be litigated. BTW, by my reckoning he’s ineligible for reasons stated by Opus1, also, why can’t we have an ammendement 28 to clarify 12 and 22?. It’s my understanding that VP and President have identicall criteria.