Bill Clinton could be just the ticket for Kerry (BARF)

houston chronicle ^ | 3/2/04

[knak]

With John Kerry's success in Tuesday's primaries, the race for the Democratic nomination for president is all but over -- and speculation about his choice for vice president can now begin in earnest.

John Edwards, Kerry's closest rival [and who is expected to officially withdraw from the race today], is a proven campaigner and could attract Southern voters. Govs. Evan Bayh of Indiana and Bill Richardson of New Mexico have both regional appeal and executive experience. Dark-horse candidates include former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and former Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia.

Amid this conjecture, however, one name is conspicuously absent: Bill Clinton.

Clinton's strengths would compensate for Kerry's weaknesses almost perfectly. Not only is Clinton the most talented campaigner of his generation, but he is also a Southerner -- and since 1948, when Harry S. Truman chose Sen. Alben Barkley of Kentucky as his running mate, every successful Democratic ticket has included a citizen of a Southern state.

Besides, people might even pay to watch Bill Clinton debate Dick Cheney. So why not?

The first objection, the constitutional one, can be disposed of easily. The Constitution does not prevent Clinton from running for vice president. The 22nd Amendment, which became effective in 1951, begins: "No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice."

No problem. Bill Clinton would be running for vice president, not president. Scholars and judges can debate how loosely constitutional language should be interpreted, but one need not be a strict constructionist to find this language clear beyond dispute. Bill Clinton cannot be elected president, but nothing stops him from being elected vice president.

True, if Clinton were vice president he would be in line for the presidency. But Clinton would succeed Kerry not by election, which the amendment forbids, but through Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which provides that if a president dies, resigns or is removed from office, his powers "shall devolve on the vice president." The 22nd Amendment would not prevent this succession.

So much for the constitutional obstacles. The political ones may be more formidable. They can be summarized in two questions: Would Clinton want the job -- and would Kerry want him to take it?

We won't know until we ask, of course. But before asking, we might cite some compelling reasons for both men to consider a Kerry-Clinton ticket seriously.

For Clinton, the appeal of the vice presidency is both political and personal. First, he could help his party win. Yes, Clinton remains a divisive figure in American politics -- but not so much among Democrats. And surely many voters long for the strong economy and economic stewardship that was one of the hallmarks of his administration.

Second, he could burnish his legacy. In exchange for joining the ticket, Clinton could negotiate for plum assignments as vice president. Mideast peace? National health care? Racial equality? He could focus on any or all of them.

And from a purely personal standpoint, it might be especially gratifying for Clinton to be part of the team that defeats the man who four years ago promised to restore "character" to Clinton's own White House.

The only remaining question, then, is what Kerry thinks of all this. Judging from recent debates, there's little chemistry between Kerry and Edwards.

But Kerry and Clinton would seem to have much in common; they are nearly the same age, worked with each other in Washington for almost a decade and have a shared interest in foreign affairs.

For Kerry, the question may well come down to whether adding Clinton to the ticket would appreciably increase his chances of victory. A couple of polls should give him the answer fast enough. If the results are good, the course is clear: Bring him on.

Gillers is a professor of law at New York University.

[stylin19a]

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

[Walkingfeather]

BTW I love the idea. Think about this folks, Of all the candidates that The sink master campaigned for how many won the election? I think only 1. Now nothing brings out the Republican base like the name Clinton. Here is the beauty, Clinton raises millions and it all gets spent on advertizing and then the candidate loses. That is just that much more money they will not be able to raise the next time.

[Choose Ye This Day]

People are longing for Clinton's strong (bubble) economy? Don't make me post it AGAIN:


CLINTON ECONOMY VS. BUSH ECONOMY

During Clinton's "Great Economy" back in 1996:
Unemployment was at 5.6%
Average wage was $11.82/hr.
Inflation was 3.3%

During George W. Bush's "miserable failure" economy of 2004:
Unemployment is at 5.6%
Average wage is $15.40/hr.
Inflation is 1.9%

So 5.6% unemployment is lousy today, because a Republican is in the White House? Funny, back in 1996, CNN said that 5.6% unemployment was LOW! Amazing how the spin changes, depending on who is in power.

The Dems, paleo-protectionists and the lamestream media don't want us to see the true picture, and realize that the Bush economy is pretty good, all things (terrorist attacks, war, etc.) considered.

Find out the rest, in CNN's own words, at this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1087145/posts

[Charles Henrickson]

So much for the constitutional obstacles.

What an idiot. How did this thing ever get published? The Constitution DOES prevent Bill Clinton from being elected VP.

Of course, the clear language of the Constitution hasn't stopped a lot of things over the last 70 years.

[scott7278]

Man, would I be watching my back...

[okie01]

The Constitution also clearly states:

No person who is ineligible for the office of the President shall be eligible for the office of the Vice President.

In other words, it's totally bogus. And the moron who authored this for the Houston Chronicle didn't bother to read far enough.

Neither, apparently, did his editor.

The Mainstream Media:
IGNORANCE ON PARADE

[hattend]

writer of this article is a professor of law at NY University

Kinda scary that's he's teaching future lawyers isn't it?

[doug from upland]

Actually, Clinton could serve two more years. Too bad it's not two years in prison.

[goldstategop]

I can see Hillary angling for job but not Bill. In any case if she accepts, I don't expect Kerry to live long if he wins.

[Choose Ye This Day]

Dick Cheney would rip that silly pout right off Spot's splotchy face. I can't remember the last time I heard anybody come accross as solid, assured, and in command of the facts and truth as Dick Cheney.

That "I feel your pain" Oprah crap doesn't work anymore, now that real terror has been unleashed in the world.

[doug from upland]

Consider this. Lyndon Johnson served less than two years after JFK was killed. That made him eligible for two of his own elected terms.

What if Kerry had Clinton as VP. For two years, he wouldn't have to worry about having an "accident." Or, would he? Let's suppose he has an accident. The VP Clinton could serve for two years. What if he ascends to the highest office but names Hillary as president. She then names him as VP. She serves a certain amount of time, then she resigns and he can take over with less than two years remaining in the term. He then names her VP and she runs on her own as a sitting VP. Machiavellian? No, Clintonesque.

[okie01]

"If true, this entire article is specious. Can you supply more info or a link or something?"

See Constitution, U.S., Amendment 12, which closes as follows:

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

Period. End of story. Pointy-headed liberal law professor full of crap, up to his eyebrows.

[Walkingfeather]

okay I dont trust the clintons in anything .... but one thing. Power, your idea is clintonesk indeed however, do you see any of them resigning power to anyone? Nope. never, So it is all silliness.

[Terry Mross]

My stupid, ignorant dumb mother in law loves to say, "Bill Clinton was an economic genius." She doesn't know how to spell "economic". I can spell it but don't understand it. And that's my point. How can anyone stupid enough to be a democrat know what it takes to be an economic genius?

[Terry Mross]

Since when does the constitution mean anything to the democrats? If Clinton thought he could be president again, he'd do it. But I don't think he could win again.

But don't you love how these people think Bill should be angry that W said he'd restore dignity to the White House? It really doesn't bother them what went on inside the Oval Office.

[AB AB AB]

hmmmm....... I have been swearing it'll be Cleland (see my previous comments pasted below), but this Clinton idea is diabolical enough to look like a realistic threat. It is more plausible than Hillary as VP, because, hey, what else is Bill gonna do anyway? He's a preacher without a pulpit at the moment.

And I'm not so sure the constitutional issue is as clear as my fellow FReepers seem to think. The question is whether someone who is ineligible to be ELECTED president again is "constitutionally ineligible to the office of President." Bill Clinton is, after all, a 35+ yr. old native citizen, etc. If you can't be ELECTED president, does that mean you can't possibly BECOME president? At the very least, there's an ambiguity there... which an aggressive candidate could try to exploit through the federal courts. But hopefully the Supremes would put a stop to any such nonsense.

So for now I'm sticking with my Cleland prediction (see below). Especially because the Bill Clinton scenario would give me nightmares until November.

-----
It's gonna be Max Cleland. I predicted this earlier tonight at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1089521/posts (see posts 7 & 21):

Why all the Kerry-promoting quotes from "former Senator Max Cleland" lately? He will be Kerry's VP candidate. Just picture it. A pair of wounded "war heroes" to attack the "wartime president." Don't forget -- you heard it here first.

It would be a bigger headline-getter and buzz-generator than Lieberman in 2000... nearly as much buzz as "first black candidate" or "first woman presidential candidate." All other issues would be sidelined for weeks.

Feb. 12 Boston Globe: “National security credentials are the most important assets that the Democratic presidential front-runner would use to choose a running mate, these [Kerry] aides said.”

[Al Simmons]

"If this idiot had read the WHOLE constitution, he would have found this in the 12th Amendment:

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

Being that he is a Marxist, you do not think that 'Prof.' Gillers can be bothered with actually READING the entire Constitution, do you?

He's too busy lighting up candles at his shrine to the 'Maximum Leader' Fidel, while drawing deeply on a 'Cheech-n-Chong-sized' 'GANJA STICK'!

[Texasforever]

Clelend brings nothing to the ticket at all.

[okie01]

"If you can't be ELECTED president, does that mean you can't possibly BECOME president?"

The language is clear. The Constitution doesn't say "elected". It says you can't "be". If you are ineligible to be President, you are ineligible to even be appointed Vice President. You cannot be put in a position where you might accede to the larger office by any circumstance.

But would that stop the Clintons and the libs? Of course not. When did any law or constitutional provision have any meaning to them, whatsoever?