# Presedential Loophole

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presedential-loophole/303385>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [May 11, 2005, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presedential-loophole/303385 "2005-05-11T14:19:42Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\
**Post date:** [May 12, 2005, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presedential-loophole/303385/21 "2005-05-12T01:50:46Z")

</div>

> [@E. Thorp](#):
>
> Do you mean Hillary vs Jeb, Bill vs Jeb, Bill vs W, or Hillary vs W?
> 
> (Is it just me, or is it time for some new presidential families?)

Nah. Chelsea vs. the Twins. (Ignore the fact that none are old enough to run.) And I say that Slick Willy would wipe the floor with Dubya.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\
**Post date:** [May 12, 2005, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presedential-loophole/303385/22 "2005-05-12T01:52:07Z")

</div>

> [@treis](#):
>
> Bill as far as I can tell is still eligible for the office but he is not eligble to be elected to that office.

This is what we call pulling a Ford, correct?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\
**Post date:** [May 12, 2005, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presedential-loophole/303385/23 "2005-05-12T01:57:19Z")

</div>

> [@treis](#):
>
> Bill as far as I can tell is still eligible for the office but he is not eligble to be elected to that office.

That’s exactly how I read it. At the time of the writing of the 12th Amendment, it seems clear to me that the eligibility of the Vice-President refers to the rules previously laid out in the Constitution, specifically Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

> [@](#):
>
> No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Obviously, at that time there were no term limits, and lawmakers not being prophets, they couldn’t have forseen the latter-imposed term restrictions. The key phrase is “constitutionally inelegible to the office of the President.” I still think, that even with the 22nd Amendment, this does not make Bill Clinton constitutionally ineligible for the office. I still think his elegibility to the office is governed by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. He simply cannot be elected to the office.

It depends how you read it, but obviously there’s a lot of room for interpretation here, as to me it seems clear that Bill Clinton or George Bush are elegible for VP slots based on the Constitution.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presedential-loophole/303385.md?page=1)