John Adams Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 FOR GODS SAKE, READ THE CONSTITUTION! two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. 102799[/snapback] Easy killas. We had this debate in 2000 on this board, and in the end, I think both sides had to agree this was a stalemate. A court would have to work this out, but here's the gist for how Clinton (and now Bush II) could run for VP in 2008. The 12th Amendment 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. The Constitution actually paints a different and clearly distincy meaning for ineligible and electible. Article II of the Constitution 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. So Cliniton (and Bush II) are eligible to the office of the President, and the 12th Amendment does not apply. Arnold, so far, is ineligible. The 22nd Amendment prohibits being elected to a third presidential term only. The 22nd Amendment states: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person [who has served more than half a term] shall be elected to the office of the president more than once." The language is quite clear. It places no limits on how many terms someone may serve as president, only how many times he can be elected. In other words, the 22nd Amendment does not set conditions on what the 12th Amendment calls eligibility to the office of president. Anyone who is born here and has lived here for 14 years becomes eligible to be president on his or her 35th birthday and is then so eligible forever. Thus, if Clinton were to be elected vice president, he could serve as president if the need arose. Good stuff that Constitution, although I'm sure the soon-to-be Right Wing Court would somehow abandon their strict constructionist interpretations and figure out a way to boot Clinton if this happened. If Bush did it, look for the opposite. This is the MO of the strict constructionist: strict when it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whynot Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 I stand, well not corrected per se, but certainly befuddled. Wow, that is some imprecise language isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 I stand, well not corrected per se, but certainly befuddled. Wow, that is some imprecise language isn't it? 102839[/snapback] I feel your pain. This is at least part of what being a lawyer is about. The anti-VP people will argue, persuasively, that "electible" and "eligible" are identical. The pro-VP people argue that the two requirements are different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 I stand, well not corrected per se, but certainly befuddled. Wow, that is some imprecise language isn't it? 102839[/snapback] It was written vaguely intentionally. There were too many concessions that had to be made. Google "The Great Compromise" for an example of what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts