CNN-Constitutional thaT Bill Clinton can run for VP!! :)

What?

that's the reason I posted it. I didn't think he could run again even as VP - but that guy said he could, and I assume he knows more about the constitution than I do.

"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

12th Amendment

Constitutionally ineligible to the office of President: under age 35, not a native citizen, one who has held the office of President for greater than TEN (not eight) years. You REALLY ought to read more closely.

reside in the same state, but that didn't stop Cheney from parking his fat ass on the R ticket last time.

as president if he was Veep and the president became incapacitated.

Why would he consider being VP though?

He keeps promoting the idea of Hillary or Bill as VP. The GOP would be salivating over either one of them. They'd love to have one of them to really fire up their base.

:evilgrin:

offer it to him - Kerry would be a dead man - politically.

Democrats don't want another Gore; and any Democrat that is going to win better hug Bill Clinton tight!!

Not a chance. Period.

Nor would it be offered.

Also, CNN and other news sources are focusing on one Constitutional law opinion. The vast majority say that Bill cannot be VP because he is ineligible for President.

The GOP took care of that after four terms of FDR.

VP would then be President.

I'm sure they will show it again on CNN and the neo-cons should be hysterical about it. I can't stand to listen to them, but I'm sure somebody else can and let us all know what they are saying/screaming!

He said Clinton COULD be VP because the constitution states that he could not be ELECTED as president again. Being VP he would NOT be elected president if something happened to Kerry. My goodness....would the RWers be rabid over that! Think of all those MILLIONS of $$$$$ they spent and the 8 years they wasted to destroy the man....OMG! They would be foaming at the mouth! I suspect THAT is what Bill Schneider is trying to do......get the RWers all riled up over the prospect of the man "they love to hate" being the VP. Excite the base.

... ever since he made an explicit point about the booing Michael Moore recieved when he made his Oscar acceptance speech, I just see him as another team player.

that's all this does. the RW knows that nothing riles the base like saying "Clinton". remember all the rumors of Hillary's shadowy plans to run in 04? all that was meant to do was fan the flames of the Right.

I just came back from Findlaw and this is my reading of this:

There is only FIVE original requirements to be President .. ie 35 and over ..

There is only 1 requirement to be Vice President, that is you meet the same requirements as to be President.

Now the hairy problem, is the 22nd Adm. a restriction on a President, or a new requirement. If it is a restriction then Bill Clinton means the requirements. If it is a requirement, then he doesn't

............ But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

just asking. See my post 9

If one who has served more than 2 years of a term to which some else was elected POTUS can't serve more than a single term in their own right, I can see no basis for believing that someone who has served two terms as POTUS in their own right could, in any way, serve any additional term or part of a term as POTUS.

It just doesn't make good sense to interpret the Amendment any other way. If you are disqualified from serving as POTUS, you are also disqualified from serving as V-POTUS.

Edit: clarity

. . . shall be elected to the office of the President more than once . . .

Note that it mentions election and not succession. It could be argued that it only prevents him from being elected to the Presidency, and that a lawful succession to the office would be permissible.

See my posting (#18) re: 'requirement', infra.

I say leave it be...

Hasert becomes the President....


sounds like a good idea to me...

:eyes:

than he would be skipped for the next successor in line...who is the Speaker of the House....

At the best Clinton could serve two more years to hit the ten year mark, than would be forced to resign in favor of the VP.....the same VP who would have to be approved by the Congress....which if controlled by the repugs, would hold up any selection....

First of all...do we really need this mess?

Second: why does everybody think that Bill Clinton IS the Democratic Party?

This might explain why we keep getting our asses handed to us....

Here's an idea...let's support our candidates not matter who they are and stop looking for saviors...this Party is supposed to be more than just an individual....

Seems that Dems are so traumatized by the 70s and 80s that they can't let go of Clinton....let it go.....move on....

Just curious.

Don

all of this is speculation....Congressional scholars as well...

This would be into the courts faster than you could say Murika....and which party would want a distraction from the actually issues of this election cycle?

This whole idea is nothing more than Democratic Clinton Masturbation...

Let's try and move forward as a Party...Clinton is done....

If you were really serious about bringing back an ex-Pres....what's wrong with Carter? He could serve out six years in the event of the death of Pres. Kerry, he's from the south, people like him....and he hasn't had sex outside his marriage....

As to where this comes from....read the Amendment yourself, than come back and post.....

My problem with your statements are not that your position is incorrect...but that you believe

1) that there are people who are more authoritative on this subject than others....how that can be since no one knows what would happen to this in the courts (even Constitutional scholars...) that anyone saying anything about this subject is doing nothing but speculating on the subject...

Also, my much larger point is that there are Democrats who seem to feel that we need Clinton as some kind of safety blanket...I mean, how did we all get out of bed before he came along....this to me represents a much larger problem that we have in the Party that was illustrated by this past nomination run, those who were willing to try new things and those who were afraid to...

As to what I know...I have a PhD in political science, I teach in a major Midwest university and my area's of specialization are legislatures and political parties....does that qualify as expert? If it does, and you would be willing to say that I have some knowledge on the subject, I would still say that anyone offering statements on this subject are giving you nothing but personal opinion...

This would be more of a mess than it would be worth....and what is much worse, it would send a signal to the electorate that Kerry is weak and needs Clinton to prop him up...

Clinton is done as a power in the Party as soon as Kerry gets the nomination...the only way he could reemerge is if Kerry loses....or Kerry has an awful four years....but Kerry is going to take over the DNC with his own people, which is what happens when we have a sitting President....(hopefully -- no jinx, no jinx...)...