Posted on 06/04/2004 12:33:41 PM PDT by Republican Red
On CNN's website, Bill Clinton is listed as a VP Contender with the ending sentence in his credentials as follows:
CNN:
While federal law prohibits a person from seeking a third presidential term, the Constitution does not specify whether or not a former commander in chief can become vice president.
U.S. CONSTITUTION:
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
From the constitution:
"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
Is BillyJeff eligible to the office of President?
It actually does not explicitly say that. The exact text is: "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." U.S. Const., Amend. XII.
At the time the Twelfth Amendment was adopted the Constitution stated that
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.Id., Art. II, § 1, Cl. 5. It thus appears that the relevant provision of the Twelfth Amendment appears to be incorporating the eligibility requirements for the Presidency into those of the Vice-Presidency to ensure that the nation did not end up with a Vice-President who was ineligible to accede to the office of the President.
This does not mean that the Twelfth Amendment's elgibility requirement for the Vice-President is necessarily limited to the above-quoted strictures. The question at hand is whether the Twenty-Second Amendment's prohibition on election to the office of President by the same individual more than twice constitutes a constitutional ineligibility to the office of the President.
To play devil's advocate for a second, a former two-term President who is elected Vice-President and subsequently accedes to the office of President would not appear to violate the plain text of the Twenty-Second Amendment, i.e., in that he or she would not have been elected to the office. Following on that logic, a Vice-Presidential candidacy could not in and of itself render the former President Constitutionally ineligible, because there would be no possibility of violating the Twenty-Second Amendment. Nonetheless, it is my opinion that the issue is an open question.
See post #61.
I just looked at the other CNN thread. Yikes, they arent even trying to hid the bias!
"The exact text is: "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
No the exact text is: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
The "But" changes the landscape - it means all before the "but" is true up until the conditions after the "but" are in effect.
If BJC is ineligible for president, he is ineligible for vice-president, after the "but".
IF you agree that someone can be eligible for the office without being eligible to be elected to the office, then their arguement is understandable. I would argue that meeting the conditions of the 22nd makes you ineligible to be elected as Vice President, but would allow a former President to become, for example, Speaker of the House and be eligible for the Presidency if the President and Vice-President were killed in a short period.
But there is a little ambiguity.
"Is BillyJeff eligible to the office of President?"
As it was said by me there, I say here:
It is getting very scary.
It comes down to a determination as to what the term "eligible" or "eligibility" means. Does it mean "capacity to be elected" as posited by Eugene Volokh (entry of 3/8/2004 03:23:40 PM)? Or is there a distinction between the terms "election" and "service"? See Bruce G. Peabody, Scott E. Gant, Twice and Future President: Constitutional Interstices and the Twenty-second Amendment, 83 Minn. L. Rev. 565(1999).
As I stated before, I think it is an open question, and not one where it can be stated as a flat assertion that it would violate the Twenty-Second Amendment (as incorporated into the Twelfth Amendment) for a formerly twice-elected President to serve as Vice-President.
Eligibility for offices in the line of succession below VP does not make him automatically eligible to become president. He has to hold one of the line-of-succession offices (below VP) to be eligigble to be become or be elected VP.
He is a private citizen, when he becomes Speaker of the House or whatnot, then he'll be eligible.
What is scary about this whole thing is that CNNNBCCBSABCAlJaZeeraEtc will try to push this nonsense like they did with their similar misunderstanding of the function and operation of the electoral college in 2000. They almost pulled that wool completely over the national eye then, how close do you think they come this time?
No the exact text is: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
The "But" changes the landscape - it means all before the "but" is true up until the conditions after the "but" are in effect.
If BJC is ineligible for president, he is ineligible for vice-president, after the "but".
I'm sorry, but I'm not following your reasoning at all. Like I said before, I do not think it is clear if Clinton could run as vice-president or not. Feel free to have the last word reasserting your rock-solid belief that he is ineligible.
He has to hold office in the line-of-succession to be eligible. He does not hold such office, therefore he is ineligible.
It is simple, and it it is meant to be simple. But lawyerese always leaves an opportunity for "nuance" (feh) when the lawyers don't intend to.
Why, oh WHY, couldn't have said: "If you have been President twice, then you can't be President again or Vice President."
I encourage you to read Eugene Volokh's thoughts on the subject, to which I provided the link above.
As to your question regarding why the language isn't different, you'll have to ask the drafters of the Amendment (if any are still alive).
I am not trying to have the last word.
The "but" is an instrument of language that seperates one set of conditions from another set of conditions in the discussion of a topic.
The sentence with the "but" is meant to sya, essentially: "Yes, satisfy the above you can be president, BUT if these other conditions exist, you cannot be president."
"...reasserting your rock-solid belief that he is ineligible."
Rock-solid? You bet. Doesn't mean someone or some entity won't try to "nuance" it to death.
"I encourage you to read Eugene Volokh's thoughts on the subject, to which I provided the link above."
Did he write the amendment? Otherwise, his thoughts, while highly respected I'm sure, aren't the law.
"As to your question regarding why the language isn't different, you'll have to ask the drafters of the Amendment (if any are still alive)."
Nice.
OK, I think I'm following you now. I agree with your take on the operative effect of the word "but" on the Vice-Presidential eligibility clause. That is not, however, where I see the ambiguity. The ambiguity lies in what exactly the other conditions are that would prevent eligibility to hold the office of the President.
Did he write the amendment? Otherwise, his thoughts, while highly respected I'm sure, aren't the law.
Of course they are not the law, but he is a Constitutional scholar, and if you had read his comments, one you would find agrees with your take on the issue. He does, however, acknowledge that reasonable minds can disagree, and he includes commentary from other scholars who take the opposite viewpoint.
As far as who can make the determination as to what the law is? The Federal Courts, with the Supremes as last word.
"As to your question regarding why the language isn't different, you'll have to ask the drafters of the Amendment (if any are still alive)."
Nice.
Thanks.
If Kerry does pick him (which by the the Constitution he cannot) Kerry better watch his back. People around the Clinton's have a tenancy to commit suicide or have the mishap of other coincidental means of death!
"As far as who can make the determination as to what the law is? The Federal Courts, with the Supremes as last word."
And that is a shaky proposition, don't you think?
Have a nice weekend, gotta run along home!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.