Constitution/Presidential question

[Greyhound Dude]

I was watching last night on C-Span a speak given by former president Bill Clinton in support of his wife. I noticed someone in the gallery someone holding up a sign saying "Bill Clinton for Vice President". This got me thinking: Would this be constitutionally possible? How would presidential succession fall in, with him being only a "heartbeat" away from the oval office?

I'm aware of the (2) terms or (10) years (I think that's what it is) for a sitting president.

[ne1410s]

I would think that a qualifier for VEEP is that you must be eligible to hold the office of POTUS. WJC would be ineligible. IMO

[ne1410s]

Plus, the VP and Pres. can't be from the same state. Remember D Cheney had to pull a fast one and establish a residence in Wyoming in order to run in 2000.

[Bob Juch]

The 22nd Amendment says you can't be elected to more than two terms.

It would be possible except for the "same state" provision in the constitution. Of course Bill could move at the last minute like Cheney did.

[starfish1113]

There is debate on this question and constitutional scholars disagree on the answer. This link provides some of the arguments:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01572.html

[bazodee]

There is no prohibition on the President and the Vice-President being from the same state. The only pertinent language in the Constitution says that Electors cast ballots for President and Vice-President, one of which must not be from their (the Elector's) state.

Cheney did switch to Wyoming, because otherwise the Texas Electors could not have voted for both GWB and Cheney; they were anticipating a close enough election where that may have made a difference.

[andrewjackson]

I don't think Bill is eligible to be voted Vice-President for anybody.

12th Amendment, in part "....But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

I think "eligible" would include "electable".

I think Bill Clinton could serve as Vice President if he got in there by some other means. If there was a vacancy, the President nominated him, Congress ratified him, similar to Ford, he could be Vice President. Or he could be President by succession if he were the Speaker of the House or similar but I don't think he can run for election.

I could be wrong.

[kayrharris]

If you google the question, you get all kinds of answers from "sure, why not" to " no way in hell". Makes for interesting reading, though.

[Ritterskoop]

I say let anyone run who wants to run. if we don't want them, we won't elect them. This includes Schwarzenegger, and Sharpton, and Nader and anyone. Except I do approve of the 2.5-term limit. We thrive on change, and though I admire FDR, we are better off without a repeat. The nation is bigger now, in lots of ways.

[andrewjackson]

The problem I have with most of the news articles/websites on this is that they mix being elected with serving.

I think they should be clearer which aspect of the issue that they are addressing.

I think it is pretty clear that there is no prohibition on a former President serving as Vice President. The crucial part is how he or she would get there. I still think that a two-term President would not be eligible to be elected as Vice-President.

[Bob Juch]

I don't think Bill is eligible to be voted Vice-President for anybody.

12th Amendment, in part "....But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

I think "eligible" would include "electable".

I think Bill Clinton could serve as Vice President if he got in there by some other means. If there was a vacancy, the President nominated him, Congress ratified him, similar to Ford, he could be Vice President. Or he could be President by succession if he were the Speaker of the House or similar but I don't think he can run for election.

I could be wrong.

But he is eligible to be President; he's just not eligible to be elected.

[Bob78164]

The problem I have with most of the news articles/websites on this is that they mix being elected with serving.

I think they should be clearer which aspect of the issue that they are addressing.

I think it is pretty clear that there is no prohibition on a former President serving as Vice President. The crucial part is how he or she would get there. I still think that a two-term President would not be eligible to be elected as Vice-President.

As a practical matter, I can't imagine any judge ruling that someone who can't be elected President (and therefore can't be elected Vice President) is nonetheless eligible to serve in that office. Unless there's a lot of evidence that the framers of the Twelfth Amendment actually considered the distinction material, if push ever came to shove, there is no question in my mind what the ruling would (and should) be. --Bob

[wintergreen48]

As a practical matter, I can't imagine any judge ruling that someone who can't be elected President (and therefore can't be elected Vice President) is nonetheless eligible to serve in that office. Unless there's a lot of evidence that the framers of the Twelfth Amendment actually considered the distinction material, if push ever came to shove, there is no question in my mind what the ruling would (and should) be. --Bob

The complication is that you have several different rules, created by several different groups of people, that intersect, without anyone thinking of all the consequences.

The original rule (per the Constitution) had virtually no limitations on who could be President-- to be eligible to be President, a person had to be > 35 years of age, had to be a natural born citizen (or a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted) and had to be a resident of the US for at least fourteen years. The eligibility rule has never changed.

Clause 6 of Article II of the Constitution provides that the VP succeeds to the office of President in case of the removal of the President from office, or his death, resignation, etc., but also provides that 'the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.' Note that there are no limitations no limitations on whom Congress may provide for, hence the 'inconsistency' that gives rise to all the debates. You can assume that the 'eligibility' rules (age 35, citizenship, residency) would still apply, since there is nothing here that modifies that basic requirement, but that is as far as it goes.

The only impact of the 12th Amendment on the question is that when the Electors choose the Vice President, 'no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.' So, again, it would seem that the 'eligibility' rules (age 35, citizenship, residency) would apply to the VP as they do to the P.

The 22nd Amendment modified the rule to say that someone cannot be elected (note the distinction between being 'eligible' as opposed to being 'elected') more than twice to the office, and no one who has served more than half of the term of another President (e.g., a VP who succeeded a resigned or deceased elected President) can be elected more than once to the office.

The 25th Amendment was designed to provide for the replacement of a VP who leaves that office (specifically, the drive for that Amendment was triggered when Johnson succeeded Kennedy, there then being no VP; it was thought appropriate to provide for a 'constitutional' successor for the President; it is ironic that the only times it has come into effect were when Spiggie resigned in 1973, to be replaced by Ford, and when Ford succeeded Nixon upon his resignation in 1974). Note that the Amendment does not provide for ANY eligibility requirements for the VP, although again, it may PROBABLY be assumed (but not absolutely certain) that the original eligibility rules (age 35, citizenship, residency) would still apply. But it is interesting that there is NOTHING in the Amendment that requires that.

So, bottom line, what you have is a situation whereinwhichat neither Bill Clinton nor George W. Bush could actually be elected President (well, there are those who would say that Bush was only elected once, in 2004, so maybe he could run again...), but there would not seem to be any limitations on their eligibility for the office, so that it would seem that either of them could succeed to the office if he happened to be in the statutory line of succession-- Speaker of the House, President Pro Tem of the Senate, Cabinet Member, etc.

Ahnuld could not, constitutionally, run for President (well, I suppose he could run, but he could not serve, since the Electoral College could not vote for him due to the 'eligibility' requirement of natural born citizenship which he clearly does not satisfy), nor could he be elected to the Vice Presidency, for the same reason. Ahnuld should not be able to succeed to the office under the provisions of Clause 6 (the section that authorizes Congress to set the line of succession that includes the Speaker of the House, etc.), since Clause 6 does not modify or address the fundamental eligibility rules, and those rules are so fundamental-- and are contained higher up in Article II anyway-- that any statutory interpretation would hold that the eligibility rules run throughout. Now, you COULD make an argument that Ahnuld could get to the Presidency by way of being appointed VP under the 25th Amendment, since that does specifically amend the original Constitution and does not include any limitations on eligibility, and that he could then slip into the Presidency when the President dies, resigns, etc., but that would be a stretch, since there is nothing in the 25th Amendment that addresses the eligibility issue, such that the original three eligibility rules (age 35, citizenship, residency) should still apply.[/i]

[andrewjackson]

So, wintergreen, back to the original question (at least in my mind) can Bill Clinton be elected Vice President?



On the other issue, I think "eligible" in the 12th Amendment can mean "able to be elected".

Random House Dictionary, among others, says,

el·i·gi·ble
–adjective
1. fit or proper to be chosen; worthy of choice; desirable: to marry an eligible bachelor.
2. meeting the stipulated requirements, as to participate, compete, or work; qualified.
3. legally qualified to be elected or appointed to office: eligible for the presidency.
–noun
4. a person or thing that is eligible: Among the eligibles, only a few are running for office.

[jarnon]

On the other issue, I think "eligible" in the 12th Amendment can mean "able to be elected".

I'm sure the authors of the 12th Amendment were aware that "eligible" comes from the same Latin root as "elect."

[wintergreen48]

On the other issue, I think "eligible" in the 12th Amendment can mean "able to be elected".

I'm sure the authors of the 12th Amendment were aware that "eligible" comes from the same Latin root as "elect."

But at the time that they drafted and ratified the 12th Amendment, the 'election' portion of 'eligibility' was not a factor-- that came about with the 22nd Amendment.

And per AJ's query, I think that, looking at the Constitution as written, a very strict constructionist interpretation (i.e., Scalia and that crowd) would hold that Bill Clinton could be elected as a VP, and then succeed to the office of President. Which would be ironic, of course, if that actually happened, with Scalia and that crowd putting Bill back in the White House.

In 1988, there were people who suggested that this should occur: they were Reaganauts, who were thinking in terms of Reagan running as Bush I's VP, with Bush I then resigning the Presidency on January 21, 1989, allowing Reagan to serve a third term. Never tested, though.

And to a completely different point, anent Hillary's ads asking Who (as between Hillary and Barack) is better prepared to answer the 3 am phone call? I was wondering, is Hillary's superior 'experience' based upon all the calls she would have taken from Bill, telling her that he was working late in the office?

[PlacentiaSoccerMom]

And to a completely different point, anent Hillary's ads asking Who (as between Hillary and Barack) is better prepared to answer the 3 am phone call? I was wondering, is Hillary's superior 'experience' based upon all the calls she would have taken from Bill, telling her that he was working late in the office?

Well, we know that she wasn't out trying to illegally score some Mary Jane or a Vicky.

[ne1410s]

Who (as between Hillary and Barack) is better prepared to answer the 3 am phone call?

I'm with Jon Stewart on this one: If the phone rings at 3 am, are you really going to let it ring SIX friggin' times????????????