Article II of the Constitution does not preclude him from the Presidency or Vice Presidency based on him having served two elected terms. Nobody disputes this, but people get confused with Amendments XII and XXII.
Amendment XII says "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States."
Amendment XXII says "no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice..."
People believe that he is ineligible for the Vice Presidency because he is ineligible for the Presidency. This is false. He is only ineligible to be elected to the Presidency. Nothing precludes him from succeeding to the nation's highest office. Considering all of this, he is eligible to be elected Vice President and eligible to succeed, but not be elected to, the Presidency.
What are your thoughts on this?
2007-10-23 11:25:50 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
That is true, but Bill is ineligible to be ELECTED to the office of President, he is not precluded from succeeding to that office, thus he is eligible for election to the Vice Presidency.
For the record, I think a Clinton-Clinton ticket would be terrible. I'm just pointing out the legality.
2007-10-23 18:50:14 · update #1
You state this as an absolute, but it is an issue that has not yet been determined. Since Bill Clinton cannot be elected President again, some interpret that as meaning that he is ineligible to the office of President. If this is correct, then he cannot be Vice President, either. Some say that this only refers to the requirement that the President be at least 35 years old and a natural born US citizen. Since it hasn't yet been an issue, it hasn't been presented to the courts for a determination. Until it does, it is unknown if he would be eligible.
2007-10-23 11:43:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Wrong.
12th Amendment (last sentence)
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Case scenario: Something mysterious happens to Hillary, (Lord knows things do happen under the Clinton admin) Bill would be President. Since a President can not have 3 terms, it is constitutionally illegal for Bill to be VP.
2007-10-23 11:42:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The problem would lie in the last line of the 12th amendment.
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of 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.
No person ineligible for President can be VP. Bill is inelibile for the Presidency so he can't be VP.
2007-10-23 11:37:31 · answer #3 · answered by booman17 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Where in this phrase do you see the word 'elected' ?
Amendment XII says "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States."
Clinton IS constitutionally ineligible for the presidency . So where's your point proved at ?
I'm listenin.
2007-10-23 11:41:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. First, the vice chairman is an elected, no longer an appointed position (until eventually a emptiness takes position using demise, resignation, or impeachment and conviction). also, bill Clinton isn't eligible to be vice chairman. in accordance to the 12th change, "no man or woman constitutionally ineligible to the place of work of President will be eligible to that of Vice-President of u.s.." And, in accordance to the twenty second change, he's not eligible.
2016-10-22 21:52:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I hear you, but I think the intent of the writers was pretty clear on that one. President Clinton isn't eligible for another term of the Presidency, and therefore isn't eligible for the Vice Presidency either. I just don't see the Supreme Court interpreting it any other way.
2007-10-23 11:33:26 · answer #6 · answered by Beardog 7 · 7⤊ 0⤋
Yeah but WHY THE HELL WOULD WE WANT HIM TO BE???
Do you want his wife to be president while he is VP or somebody else to be President while he is VP and she stays a senator???
Two terms in the White House is enough for anybody!!
That's why we have the amendment. Vladimir Putin is trying the same type of ploy in Russia and Musharraf is doing it in Pakistan. Do we want to import these types of practices?
I wouldn't want Bush to come back as VP either!!
Some things that CAN be done SHOULD NOT be done!!
2007-10-23 11:54:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
And history is full of people as VPs who changed the world!
A better place for Bill in any Democratic admin would be Secretary of State, where he can do much more good and much more influencing of policy to repair what has been destroyed since he left.
There are no Constitutional issues there.
2007-10-23 11:48:54 · answer #8 · answered by Barry C 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What difference does it make?
If the country is stupid enough to elect Hillary, HE will really be the President.
No one really takes her seriously.
She's running on the "I'm Bill's wife" platform.
She has him campaign for her...
She knows she's an unelectable hack but is riding on his coattails.
Won't matter... she's not getting back in the White House unless she's on a tour.
2007-10-23 11:51:22 · answer #9 · answered by Bryan~ Unapologetic Conservative 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Also, no one can be President for more than 10 years. There could easily be a legal challenge to his candidacy.
One of the duties of the Vice President is to take over the Presidency if the need arises. It could be argued that circumstances could easily arise that would stop him from fully fulfilling his duty.
2007-10-23 11:32:01 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋