Posted on 03/02/2004 9:55:52 PM PST by 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.
The problem is, that Article II, Section I, Claus 5 presents a list of "qualifications" for the office of President. Amendment 22 was written with Article II, Amendment 12, and Amendment 20 in mind.
The proviso in Amendment 12, in the last sentence, was designed as a clarification. The Vice President had to meet the same qualifications as the President, rather than those outlined for a Senator. Prior to Amendment 12, the Vice President was the second-place finisher in the Electoral College. The Framers of the Constitution had not anticipated the rise of political parties. Now that the office of Vice President was to be voted on itself (in the Electoral College), the qualifications had to be clearly defined. And so they were ... the same as the President.
Exactly!
"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
Within five minutes I had a lengthy response, indicating that many others had already responded to him.
I again responded, with the following:
In my view, the 22nd Am. simply added another cause for ineligibility. The 22nd Am. is, after all, part of the Constitution.
To claim otherwise is to impose too literal a reading on Art. II and the 22nd Am., which the courts have been loathe to do e.g. does a flag really speak (see the 1st Am. and flag burning)?
I've had no further response. I assume that Gillers has gotten the message.
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.