Posted on 05/07/2002 6:57:41 AM PDT by Lucky2
Tuesday May 7, 2002; 8:43 a.m. EDT Ghoulish Media Fantasy: Hillary's Death Could Give Bill Third Term
Just how badly do some journalists want to see Bill Clinton serve another term as president? Enough to openly speculate about a scenario where Hillary Clinton's death would nullify the 22nd Amendment baring a third term for her husband.
That's the fantasy offered up by gossip columnist and media F.O.B. Liz Smith, who said Tuesday that she'd like to hear from "some Constitutional experts" on whether the macabre scheme would be "legally possible."
Here's the plan: Have Hillary run for president with hubby Bill on the ticket as V.P. They win the election, then - oops - "should the hypothetical President Hillary die in office, would her husband be allowed to ascend to the Oval Office again?"
Smith argues the answer should be yes. The gossip columnist and "many others," she says, already believe the 22nd Amendment is unconstitutional. And if Vice President Bill were succeed his dead wife, the columnist contends, he would have "'inherited' the office. He would have still 'run for it,' in a manner of speaking."
Smith decided to air the ghoulish third term scheme - which she says was floated to her "the other day by someone" - after she decided "it bears thinking about, even if - as we always say when we're treading hypothetically - it is a complete unfeasible idea."
But, the friend of Bill adds, "several smarties I know tell me" that if President Hillary dies in office, Vice President Bill would indeed be able to return to the throne.
Unbeknownst, to Smith, Mr. Bill has already been contemplating ways around the 22nd amendment. (See: Clinton Eyeing Third Presidential Run?)
In off the cuff remarks to the The Las Vegas Weekly last September, the ex-prez said it was conceivable he "could be reelected."
"Clinton had obviously researched the subject," the paper observed, since he spoke "for five minutes about constitutional law and academic studies about the prospect" of revising the 22nd Amendment limiting a president to two terms.
"Some constitutional experts think it is possible," Hillary's husband told reporters.
LOL - Good grief...
Here's what the pertinent part of the 12th Amendment says: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
Here's what you appear to think it says: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to RUN FOR the office of President shall be eligible to RUN FOR that of Vice-President of the United States."
Because Clinton was elected President twice, the 22nd Amendment bars him from running again, and thus if the preceding text said "RUN FOR", his ineligibility to run for the presidency would keep him from running for the vice-presidency.
But the 12th Amendment doesn't say "RUN FOR". It says anyone who's "ineligible to the office" of the President can't be the Vice President. Clinton's still "eligible to the office" of the President, because he still meets the requirements of Art. II, Sec. 1, because he's still a natural born citizen over the age of 35. Because he's still "eligible to the office" of President, he can run for Vice President without running afoul of the 12th Amendment.
All the wishful thinking in the world doesn't change that.
As a practical matter, do we think anyone with a wish to keep living would want Bill as VP?
You're getting caught-up in bizarre semantic thickets.
Ineligible means can't run, can't assume, can't hold.
He cannot hold the office again (nor that of VP), because the Constitution says one cannot hold more than two terms in the office.
What are you missing?
And if he runs for the Senate, anyone between him and the office of President Pro Tempore (4th in line of succession) best be keepin' an eye over his or her shoulder.
Think of it this way: Back in the late 1940s and early 1950s, when this Amendment was being debated, people weren't worried about some popular politico Grover Clevelanding his way in and out and in and out of the presidency (a la Winston Churchill and the Prime Ministership). In other words, they weren't morally outraged at or mortally offended by the prospect of someone simply serving as president for more than eight years. Instead, they were worried about an FDR-like creature using the power of the presidency to see himself reelected indefinitely, becoming a de facto dictator. Thus, they put a limit on the number of times someone could be ELECTED president, not how many times someone could SERVE as president. If the president makes it in for a third term via the vice presidency or the Speakership, for example, he wouldn't have done so via the FDR route, which is what they were trying to avoid.
I think yours is the better reading, and expressed with considerably less self-satisfied arrogance than some others here. At a minimum, the issue is not free from doubt.
Clinton is clearly barred from being "elected" President again -- I would argue that nothing in the Constitution would actually prevent him from "running" for President if he were so inclined; but any Elector's vote cast for him would not be cognizable under the 22nd Amendment -- but it is not so clear that he is constitutionally "ineligible" to serve as President. Obviously, at the time the 12th Amendment was adopted, a person who had twice been elected President was not constitutionally "ineligible" within the meaning of the amendment. This, along with the fact that the plain language of the 22nd Amendment bars a person from being "elected" President more than twice -- not from serving more than two terms -- lends support to your position.
Ummmm.... yes, I'm afraid it does.
You make some interesting points, unfortunately they'll be quickly dismissed by the USSC if Bill Clinton runs for VP.
Nice semantic hairsplitting, but it just ain't happening.
Sorry, but that's not the case. Without much doubt, a person could serve 10 years - 1 day, right?
From the 22nd Amendment:
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.
So, he cannot be ELECTED again.
Does that mean he is not "eligible to the office" ?
As much as you or I don't like it, It's a debatable question.
The first part could rightfully be called fantasy; the second part would most aptly be labeled a nightmare.
Really? Which two?
Sure it's debatable on FR, or elsewhere.
But if Bill Clinton ever attempts to run for VP, he will quickly be shot down on the intent of the 22nd.
The USSC does not rely on semantic games, it looks at intent, which in this case is very clear.
Former presidents cannot run again under the aegis of Vice President. Simple.
Why?
Oh, I don't doubt that the scenario is stupid - surely no one would be idiotic enough to vote our "beloved" ex-President into any office, ever again. But legally, why would this be banned?
Here's the actual text of the 22nd amendment:
Section 1. 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. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.
According to this, Clinton may not be elected to the position of President again. It says nothing about him being elected to the position of vice-President, nor does it make any reference to him then being appointed President if the current President dies. If the amendment says nothing about it, I would presume the rules set down in the Constitution continue to hold.
Drew Garrett
If Hillary is elected with Bill as her VP...whomever does the deed (God forbid) should make sure he gets them both.
However the USSC would trash your argument.
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.