Replies

Having already served two full terms as president, disgraced former president Clinton would be prevented from taking the VP spot on the ticket.

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

To be a candidate for VP, one must be legally eligible for the office of POTUS. Clinton is no longer eligible.

But the worst of all their arguments in favor of a 3rd Clinton term is that the 22nd amendment is unconstitutional. NO amendment to the constitution can be unconstitutional. It is IMPOSSIBLE

These people are absolute morons.

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.

You and the other promoters of this idea have correctly identified an area of linguistic ambiguity in the United States Constitution. Congratulations.

But the USSC does not rule on the basis of "lingustic ambiguity." It (usually) attempts to discern the intent of the Founders.

Personally, I'd love to see Bill Clinton force this issue. It would be yet one more shining example of his sleazy lawyering, slipperiness, and duplicity.

And the nation would once again heave a mighty sigh of relief when he and his minions were slapped-down by the USSC and the nation better protected from his ilk ("It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.")

I do hope they press this issue.