Could Clinton become VP?

I know that the big dog cant run for president, but can he run for VP--in other words a political comeback through the back door...

If you've been to "the Show" why would you take yourself back to the Minors?

he had his chance.

I don't have the applicable rules in front of me, but I saw a reference to a passage that says a person who is ineligible to be president may not be vice president.

told me that if there is anything that disqualifies you to be president then the same rule holds for VP.

I was just curious at to the rules, not to suggest it---

If your ineligible to be President, why cant you run for VP---
This must be some Republican rule---to get rid of the FDR.s.

Won't happen... no sense dwelling on it.

run for president as long as 4 years have passed since he was president.:toast:

That knee-jerk "it can't happen" reaction is so precious. Here's an exercise: Read the actual text of the 12th and 22nd Amendments. Read 'em closely, and be sure to pay attention to the specific words chosen in each passage. The word choice is key in this issue:

12th: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxii.html
22nd: http://www.termlimits.org/Current_Info/22nd-Amendment-text.html

After doing so, I'll give you a scenario in which it is not illegal for Clinton to assume the Presidency once more:
John Kerry wins the election in November. After being sworn-in, he names Bill Clinton his Secretary of State, with Congress approving this appointment. 2006 comes along, and it's time for the State of the Union address. For safety reasons, Bill Clinton is the one person in the line of succession chosen to stay away from the House of Representatives during the address. And, against all odds, the House is blown-up by terrorists during Kerry's report to Congress, killing everyone inside. Clinton is the next person in the line of succession.

Now, it is at this point that I remind you of the literal text of the 22nd Amendment in particular (boldness added for emphasis):
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 the President more than once.

Next, note that there are two routes to the Presidency:
1) election
2) succession

Note that the 22nd Amendment places limits ON ONE ROUTE ONLY, leaving the second route completely untouched.

It's as plain as day here.. Clinton, in such a scenario, would be eligible to hold the office once again. There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution preventing him from doing so in such a situation.

So, we have established that William Jefferson Clinton is indeed able to hold the office of the Presidency legally once again. The 12th Amendment requires that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." From the scenario I gave, Clinton is indeed eligible to the office of President.. which means that placing him on the ticket as VP would be consistent with the letter of these laws.

I know that many like to argue that it's a letter/spirit of the law debate. But we all know that the authors of the Constitution and its amendments were fine legal wordsmiths, perfectly capable communicating their legal ideas. Had the authors of the 22nd Amendment wanted to limit holding the office, they were more than capable of writing that specific limit into the law. But instead, they chose only to limit election to the office. It's a small linguistic difference, but it's a large legal difference.

we could have 8 more years of Jr, because he wasn't elected to begin with :)

eligible to hold the office at all, hehe..

Here's another interesting scenario..
Clinton openly and publicly runs a candidate (Person X) for the Democratic Party's Presidential nomination. Sounds like nothing special, sure, but for the entire campaign, Person X makes it perfectly clear to the voters that if he's elected, he'll pick Bill Clinton as his VP nominee and resign one minute into his term, effectively handing the office to Bill Clinton for another 4 years (minus one minute).

Technically, this is legal. It might go against the spirit of the law totally, but it complies with the actual wording of the law.

Your argument is totally against the spirit of the law! (There, I said it).

And they did communicate their legal ideas very well. It's spelled out clearly and backed up by the spirit of the law - 10 years is the max a person can be president - fine legal wordsmithing cannot undo this.

But instead, they chose only to limit election to the office. It's a small linguistic difference, but it's a large legal difference.

The limit on election to office doubles as the disqualifier for holding the office beyond said stated limits. The myriad of folks who present this argument ALWAYS try to present them as seperate issues when they are tied together. IF you are unabel to be ELECTED to the office due to the time limits stated, you are DISQUALIFIED from that office.

"IF you are unabel to be ELECTED to the office due to the time limits stated, you are DISQUALIFIED from that office."

Show me where the Constitution says that, keeping in mind that the authors of these amendments know the difference between holding an office, being elected to an office, and succeeding to an office. Article and section, please.

I'm being very picky and legalistic, but that's the reality in which these words are written and interpreted. There is a fundamental difference between the definition of "to hold an office" and "to be elected to an office." Nowhere in the law does it state, "if one route to an office is closed while others are not actively blocked, all routes are." Nowhere does it say so.

Had the authors of the 22nd Amendment wanted it to double as a disqualifier for holding office, they were more than capable of spelling their intentions out clearly in the text of the law. Instead, we here now find some attempting to read-into their words or add their own words, as opposed to just reading the words themselves. If the authors are unpleased with how we implement it, they have themselves to blame for not choosing their words more exactly.

And check again - nowhere in the Constitution is there an explicit ten-year limit on holding the office. However, there is a limit on being elected to the office in certain situations.

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

As a "to-a-large-extent" strict constructionist, how do explain this clearly plain-worded text?

They are talking about being constitutionally ineligible, if you say there is no such thing, why did they write that?

Also the Constitution has no limit at all, hence Roosevelt's 4 terms, that an Amendment was added shows intent to limit the time one holds the office - and the obfuscation of 'elected' versus 'holding' the office is addressed in the 12th Amendment. If you "hold" the office for more than 2 years of a term in which someone else was "elected", you can only be elected(hold the office) ONCE. However if a sitting VP takes the office when a sitting Pres passes away or whatever with less than 2 years remaining then the VP can be elected TWICE, giving that VP a maximum of 10 years as President. In this way the writers of this Amendment equate holding the office with being elected to the office in-so-far-as determining eligibilty of holding that office.

Once your "elected" to the office you "hold" the office, you can't seperate the two as far as eligibility is concerned. Afterall, the VP on any winning ticket was elected to his/her office and if they take the offcie of Pres, they may be "holding" that office and dependent upon the time involved, may or may not be eligible for 2 additional terms.

Once your "elected" to the office you "hold" the office, you can't seperate the two as far as eligibility is concerned.

First, where did you get this rule? Did you make it up, or is it actually somewhere in the Constitution?

Read my scenario again.. the one where Clinton starts as Secretary of State. There's not one single rule in the Constitution preventing him from taking that route to the Presidency. So we do indeed know for a fact that he is eligible to the office. (you don't dispute that, do you?) This would satisfy the 12th amendment's requirement that the VP be eligible to the office.

As for the VP in your example who takes the office of President.. (s)he can serve many other terms, no matter how many days are left in the original term when (s)he ascends into office. But by the Constitution, (s)he's forbidden from being elected directly to the office; the other route must be taken if that person wishes to be President again. Clinton could run a dummy candidate in 2008.. this person could campaign on the platform of "I'll name Bill Clinton as my running mate and resign one minute into my Presidency!" It's an awful idea, but it'd be perfectly legal as far as the letter of the law is concerned.

I suspect that the "letter of the law" issue is probably a big gap between our arguments.

But I doubt Kerry would be willing to be upstaged.

or county executive, for that matter. Why would be the question of the day. Though I believe John Quincy Adams served a term in Congress after he was president. Clinton would be a good U.N. ambassador or special MidEast envoy, imo.

Very legal. Very constitutional.