COuld Bill Clinton Be Hilary's running mate.

[.Shane.]

The 22nd amendement shown above says no man shall be elected more than 2 terms. But it does'nt say that they can't get in any other way.

If we can put the partisanship aside, its an interesting question.

In that, Bill is ineligible to be President. If Hillary died, then when they pass him over and go to the next person on the succession list?

Or as read, its sounds like he would not be ineligible.

 

[LucyDuke]

SNL would be awesome again if that happened.

Way to look on the bright side.

 

[bhsup]

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 President more than once.

It does not say the two terms having been elected have to come after the non-elected period. As he has already been elected to two terms, he would be restricted to serving an additional two years.

Trust me, folks. I guarantee he would never be allowed to serve more than 10 years. Besides, you all surely know that my interpretations of the Constitution are always right.

 

[.Shane.]

It does not say the two terms having been elected have to come after the non-elected period. As he has already been elected to two terms, he would be restricted to serving an additional two years.

The problem is it only addresses being elected as a route to the office. It says nothing about presidential succession.

But, if it did happen, I'm sure we'd see an amendment pretty quickly to correct the loophole, maybe even before it came to that.

 

[Shadylookin]

I'm pretty sure no person can server no more than 10 years tops and only be elected twice. so presumably since you can only be elected for 8 years they have already taken account succession by capping it at 10. However nothing says he can't be vice president, but VP doesn't really have any power to speak of except breaking ties in the senate which is rare.

 

[bhsup]

The problem is it only addresses being elected as a route to the office. It says nothing about presidential succession.

"or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President "

 

[.Shane.]

"or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President "

You're not getting it. Or maybe the fault is mine? I'll try and clarify.

The key part of the language is where it says that these restrictions apply to someone who is seeking election.

So, in essence the 8/10 year restriction applies to people who are trying to be ELECTED to the presidential office. Does that make sense?

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person ...shall be elected to the office of President more than once"

That's the key to understanding this. Yes, I understand the intent. Its just clear when they wrote this that they didn't consider other means of coming to the office.

 

[bhsup]

You're misreading it. He's already been elected twice, so he cannot take over for another for more than two years, else he would violate the "being elected more than once" stipulation.

You are all assuming that the two terms elected only comes into play if it occurs after the two years of taking over for someone else. It's not worded like that, nor stated like that.

 

[.Shane.]

... he would violate the "being elected more than once" stipulation.

huh? This part says that if you've served >2 unelected years you can only be elected once. Thus, he cannot run for election to the office.

You are all assuming that the two terms elected only comes into play if it occurs after the two years of taking over for someone else. It's not worded like that, nor stated like that.

It says nothing about taking over. It simply puts a limit on how many times you can be "elected" to the office. So, coming via the route of presidential succession is not covered.

I do like your broad constructionist route. Its quite useful when it serves your purpose, dontcha think?

That said, I bet you if Bill was elected to the VP office there'd be an amendment passed before he took office that would close this loophole.

I'll tell you what. Let's bet. I realize you hate intellectuals, but we cannot use Charlie Daniels as the decider to this question. So, you might have to suck down your redneck pride and we can email some legal scholars and see if we get an answer. If my interpretation is right, then you have to join the NAACP and ACLU for one year. If you're right, I have to join the NRA and the Sons of the Confederacy for 1 year.

 

[.Shane.]

Actually, VRCW, I may have found your out.

Source

The 12th amendment of the US Constitution specifically says that “…But
no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall
be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

So, the 22nd doesn't prevent him, but the 12th might.

Interesting. It would definitely be an interesting case.

I still don't think this closes the loophole, but it tightens the noose.

Here is the counter (in the same article):

“The 12th Amendment would allow a Clinton vice-presidency. Its
language only bars from the vice-presidency those persons who are
"ineligible to the office" of President. Clinton is not ineligible to
the office of president, however. He is only disqualified (by the 22nd
Amendment) from being elected to that office.”

“This is no mere semantic distinction. Article II of the Constitution
carefully defines exactly who is "eligible to the Office of
President": anyone who is a natural born citizen, at least 35 years
old, and has been a U.S. resident for at least 14 years.”

 

[.Shane.]

Oh snap!
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/08/columns/fl.dorf.goreclinton.08.01/

The language is quite clear. It places no limits whatsoever on how many terms someone may serve as president, only how many times he can be elected.

Game. Set. Match.

Let me know how those NAACP meetings go.

WHERE IS YOUR CHARLIE DANIELS NOW?

Regarding the author of the article I just used:

Michael C. Dorf is vice dean and professor of law at Columbia University, where he teaches civil procedure and constitutional law. He is the co-author, with Laurence H. Tribe, of the book "On Reading the Constitution."

DAMNED INTELLECTUALS!

 

[Godwynn]

If Bill were running with Hillary, I would seriously consider voting Democrat.

 

[bhsup]

I do like your broad constructionist route. Its quite useful when it serves your purpose, dontcha think?

That's unfair, Shane. I'd be saying the exact same thing if Reagan (suspend reality big time) were to run as the Veep for whoever the next Republican candidate. In addition, I don't see this in any way as a broad interpretation. It is following the literal letter of the amendment. You all are just misreading it.

That said, I bet you if Bill was elected to the VP office there'd be an amendment passed before he took office that would close this loophole.

But there is no loophole! Y'all are misreading it. Trust me, replace the Supreme Court with me and I promise I'll fix all the goofy stuff in this country, Constitutionally speaking.

I'll tell you what. Let's bet. I realize you hate intellectuals,

Horrible misunderstanding of what I've stated before. I detest the ivory tower look down the nose attitude of some of them.

but we cannot use Charlie Daniels as the decider to this question. So, you might have to suck down your redneck pride and we can email some legal scholars and see if we get an answer. If my interpretation is right, then you have to join the NAACP and ACLU for one year. If you're right, I have to join the NRA and the Sons of the Confederacy for 1 year.

*gulp* *Ponders...*
Deal! *spits in palm and sticks hand out* Shake on it!

 

[bhsup]

Oh snap!




Game. Set. Match.

Let me know how those NAACP meetings go.

WHERE IS YOUR CHARLIE DANIELS NOW?

Regarding the author of the article I just used:


DAMNED INTELLECTUALS!

Obviously, that man is wrong. GIve me time to find a reputable professor with a set of brains to counter with. If I cannot find one, I will do the honorable thing and join the NAACP and AARP.

 

[JollyRoger]

Obviously, that man is wrong. GIve me time to find a reputable professor with a set of brains to counter with. If I cannot find one, I will do the honorable thing and join the NAACP and AARP.

Can we call you Fred Sanford?

 

[.Shane.]

That's unfair, Shane. I'd be saying the exact same thing if Reagan (suspend reality big time) were to run as the Veep for whoever the next Republican candidate. In addition, I don't see this in any way as a broad interpretation. It is following the literal letter of the amendment. You all are just misreading it.

I didn't mean it in a partisan sense.

But there is no loophole! Y'all are misreading it. Trust me, replace the Supreme Court with me and I promise I'll fix all the goofy stuff in this country, Constitutionally speaking.

lol, ok, deal, but only if I get to be on the SC as well.

Horrible misunderstanding of what I've stated before. I detest the ivory tower look down the nose attitude of some of them.

I know, I'm just giving you guff. I'll probably continue to make fun of it, so if it rubs you the wrong way, just say so. Feel free to feed me any of my past bs.

*gulp* *Ponders...*
Deal! *spits in palm and sticks hand out* Shake on it!

MUAHAHAHAHA

Obviously, that man is wrong. GIve me time to find a reputable professor with a set of brains to counter with. If I cannot find one, I will do the honorable thing and join the NAACP and AARP.

You mean to say "Obviously that law dean and author of recognized works on legal history is wrong".

Oh, and its not the AARP, but the ACLU. Nice try.

And, no, Larry the Cable Guy is also not considered a valid source. BTW, did you know that LtCC is really Fred the Yankee accountant?

Can we call you Fred Sanford?

How about VRWCSharpton?

 

[bhsup]

Oh, my good Lord, did I just say AARP? Yeah, I meant ACLU.

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

SNL will be great during the elections anyway. They always are better at that time.

This is a good question.

This is just an observation that has occurred to me but it seems every person named Clinton that has been in the White House has been marred buy numerous scandals. I'm even thinking of the early 1800s with the butchering of Indians with that Clinton, as well as White Water, etc with the too many to name scandales Slick Willy had there in the 90s. No doubt if Hillary got in with Billy boy there again (especially with the 2 of them) America would see quite a few more scandals.

 

[Irish Caesar]

It's impossible to have a scandal-free White House, isn't it?

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

I guess that's somewhat true.

This topic would make for a great supreme court case! I can see the lawyers debating now... just like us!

Willy could get in on a wording technicallity.