Eight more years! (political question)

Factual Questions
21

Okay, prior to the 12th amendment, this type of issue wouldn’t even have arisen, (I know, the term limit wasn’t put in until the 22nd Amendment - bear with me). That’s because originally, the runner-up in the presidential election became the Veep - see Article II, section 1, paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which reads:

“In every case, after the choice of the president, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the vice-president.”

So, when the Constitution was first adopted, exactly the same rules of eligibility applied to the Veep - implicitly, no person could be elected Veep who could not be elected President.

When the 12th Amendment was passed, changing the rules for the Veep to the current system, they made this rule express. The closing words of the 12th Amendment are: “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of the President shall be eligible to that of the Vice-President of the United States.”

I think that the plain meaning of the 12th is that only those who can become President can hold the office of Vice-President. That’s been consistent under both the original provisions, and the 12th Amendment.

The argument of those who say Bill could be Veep turn on the wording of the 22 Amendment, which says, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice…” They argue that succession from Veep to Prez is not election, and therefore Bill could be Veep.

This argument strikes me as implausible, because I would think the phrase “constitutionally ineligible” in the 12th Amendment would be given a broad interpretation, to reconcile the purpose of the two amendments. Put simply, the 12th says that you have to be able to be President to become Veep. The 22nd says if you’ve already served two terms, you can’t be elected president again.

If you can’t be elected to the presidency, aren’t you “constitutionally ineligible”? I think other interpretations are pretty strained. It would mean that the drafters of the 22nd Amendment wanted to change the principle that the drafters of the original Constitution, and the drafters of the 12th Amendment, both enshrined - that you could only be Vice-President if you could be President. It seems odd that an amendment designed to limit the President’s terms should inadvertently change this basic principle concerning the Veep.

But what do I know? I’m just a Canuck.

22

I agree with jti. The wording of the 22nd amendment could have been better to avoid this ambiguity, but the intent of the 12th amendment is quite clear.

All our arguments here are moot, of course. The question will only be settled if a former president is actually elected veep and the case is taken to the Supreme Court.

Since there is no definitive answer, perhaps this thread should be chucked over to GD.

If you can enter our constitutional debates, can we enter yours? Do you want our opinion on the Quebec thing? Then again, perhaps it’s best if we left that one alone. Do you have a more trivial constitutional question?

23

hey, it’s Liberty Hall, dtilque! If I’m sticking my 2¢ into your matters (that’s 1.2¢ US), feel free to reciprocate.

you want trivia? how about this: Prince William marries a Roman Catholic. Under British law, that bars him from the throne. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms prohibits religious discrimination. Would it breach Willy’s Charter rights if we didn’t let him become King of Canada?

(“Thanks, folks, I’ve got a million of 'em. You’ve been very kind.”)

“It’s a dog-eat-dog world, Sammy, and I’m wearing Milk-Bone™ underwear.”

24

Perfect level of trivia. Good parallel to our former prez as VP conundrum.

As far as I can tell, you would have two options:

  1. Declare William to be King of Canada, even if the British go with Henry.

  2. Throw off the yoke of British tyranny and stand before the world as a free and independent Canada, beholden to no monarch.

In the second case, I’m sure we’ll be glad to help. If you ask nicely, we might even lend you the Declaration of Independence, as long as you promise to return it and don’t get any ketchup stains on it. Also, don’t forget to take a few bags of British tea and toss them in Lake Ontario, provided that doesn’t violate any pollution laws.

But I really like the opportunities of the first option. It’s been years since we’ve had a decent Jacobite movement. William would have to set up a court-in-exile in say New Brunswick, and collect all manner of disaffected Britons and romantics from all over the world. Then stage an invasion of Cheshire which is doomed to failure, but makes good reading in the tabloids. You get the idea.