"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice."
Are you saying that a person can therefore hold the office of Vice-president in perpetuity (e.g., for 10 continuous terms), because it isn't specifically prohibited by the 22nd?
You believe that in the event this was brought to the USSC, that the justices would scratch their heads and say "Well gee, it doesn't actually say Vice-president in the 22nd, so it must be OK"? That they would not attempt to reason from precedent and from the implied Constitutional role of the Vice-presidency?
That they would entirely ignore the 12th? (Are you thinking that the Constitution is not to be taken as a whole?)
Really, your argument is quite disingenuous, hinging as I said on semantics and not reason.
Well...yea. God help us, but there is nothing in the Constitution which prevents Bill Clinton from running as Vice-President and being elected. There is nothing which prevents him from becoming President if the president died. There is language which would prevent him from running for reelection. Call it semantics, call it being disingenuous, call it what you will. The Constitution doesn't prevent it, let's hope that the good judgement of the American people will.
You have quoted the initial clause of the 22nd Amendment accurately.
Are you saying that a person can therefore hold the office of Vice-president in perpetuity (e.g., for 10 continuous terms), because it isn't specifically prohibited by the 22nd?
Well, I don't think I was saying that, because the topic hadn't come up, but yes, we could have a perpetual vice-president because there's no Constitutional bar against someone running for VP over and over again -- just like there's no Constitutional bar to someone serving as Speaker of the House or Secretary of the Treasury over and over again.
You believe that in the event this was brought to the USSC, that the justices would scratch their heads and say "Well gee, it doesn't actually say Vice-president in the 22nd, so it must be OK"? That they would not attempt to reason from precedent and from the implied Constitutional role of the Vice-presidency?
Aside from the head-scratching part, yes. I believe they would read the plain text of the 22nd Amendment, say, "Well, that's pretty clear: Bill Clinton can't be elected to the office of the President ever again. What's all the hubbub?"
When the Supremes start ignoring the plain text of the Constitution and, instead, reasoning from precedent and "implications", you get decisions like Roe v. Wade. I would think most people on this board would oppose that.
That they would entirely ignore the 12th? (Are you thinking that the Constitution is not to be taken as a whole?)
I think you and I agree on what the 12th Amendment means: It prevents anyone not eligible to be President from becoming VP. Where we disagree is the 22nd. You think it makes Clinton ineligible to BE President; I think it makes him ineligible to RUN FOR President. If you're right about the 22nd -- which you're not, but assuming that you are -- then the 12th would bar him from the Vice Presidency, too.
Really, your argument is quite disingenuous, hinging as I said on semantics and not reason.
I challenged you to quote the text and explain how it supports your position, In reply, you quoted one phrase, and then spent three paragraphs arguing that it means something other that what it says. And then you accuse ME of relying on semantics rather than reason? You're projecting.
All that aside, I'll point out one last thing to you (and to all the lurkers who might be seeing this for the first time). As you quoted above, the 22nd Amendment states that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice." You are arguing that what it REALLY means is that "No person can be President more than twice" or something along those lines.
But what you're not realizing is that, for that to be true, the people that drafted and voted for that Amendment would have to have forgotten that being elected President is not the only way that someone can become President.
Do you really think they were that stupid? Particularly considering that this Amendment was debated and ratified under a President (Truman) who had not been elected to that office (at least originally)?