Posted on 11/27/2007 7:56:27 AM PST by LetsRok
I heard on the news this morning on WMAL in Washington that Hillary has NOT ruled out putting her impeached husband on the ballot as her VP.
Is this legal?? The Constitution says candidates for VP MUST be eligible to be President. Bubba is not eligible since he has served his two terms.
The eligibility requirements are existential: you have to BE 35, you have to BE a native born citizen. The restriction added by the 22nd is not a new existential requirement, although it could have easily been written as such. Just change the wording to “No person shall be eligible to serve as ...”The 22nd is a procedureal restriction only; it prevents a twice elected President from standing for election a third time, or more precisely, serving having been elected a third time.
I don’t understand your question “Why do you think that it wouldn’t be triggered were he not elected?” Because the provision simply does not apply in such a case. The language is entirely clear. The Supreme Court wouldn’t waste five minutes on this question, should it ever get to them, which I doubt will ever happen. It would be political dynamite.
Predated the 22nd.
You sir, need to read up on your Consitution.
I can hear the cries upon his nomination, "don't be nit-picky now", "the country needs him" and all the rest.
I know that there is a cadre of 200 Professors of History, constitutional scholars and Judges already lined up to sign the full page ad about how this would be perfectly legal and in keeping with the Constitution.
Legality - Smegality. What matters to them is would it further their ambition and can they get away with it.
I personally think that him not having a job is more terrifying. He will be ambassador without portfolio, expert in the trenches, arm-twister on capital hill, and secret-agent-man all rolled into one if she is elected.
Every time she digs herself a hole, he will be interviewed by the media playing Bubba says this is no big deal.
Ah, OK. A constitional scholar, I’m not - LOL. Perhaps just the teenyist thought of BC being back in the White House has addled my brain!
He was disbarred for 5 years, I think ??
That would really make for an interesting senate vote for SCOTUS !!
How was this question answered in 2004?
I’ll go ahead and be one of the many who says he can’t be on the ticket. I do expect the rules to be changed at the UN so he can be Secretary General at the UN. That would be dreadful. Hillary as POTUS and Bill as UN Secretary General, along with a dem controlled congress. Our sovereignty would be a thing of the past...
As is everything else she proposes to do as President.
There is no Constitutional prohibition from a President and Vice-President being from the same State. Period.
There is a ‘penalty’ in the electoral college in that the electors of the State which is the home of both a Presidential candidate and Vice-Presidential candidate may not use their electoral votes for both, ONLY ONE. With a close electoral election, that would usually mean that the electors of said State would probably vote for the Presidential candidate and have to vote for some other Vice-Presidential candidate not on the same ‘ticket’ with the Presidential candidate.
However, with the wording of the Constitution I am not sure if this electoral college ‘penalty’ would apply if two American citizens were Presidential candidate and Vice-Presidential candidate and both resided in a Territory of the United States (say Puerto Rico) or the District of Columbia.
dvwjr
Of course not: Bubba is not eligible for VP according to a plain reading of a combination of the Twelfth and Twenty-second Amendments, and one does not have to be a legal scholar to make that determination.
But the Clintonistas and others on the Left won't let the Constitution get in their way if it frustrates their "grand" purpose. That's what makes them so dangerous!
Well, of course.
I hope you would be correct, but some of the SCOTUS rulings in recent times really make you wonder. Those include allowing McCain-Feingold to pass constitutional muster and ruling that local government can use the power of eminent domain to transfer private property to another private party.
Remember that horrendous SCOTUS decisions usually lead to more horrendous SCOTUS decisions, via precedent.
But, that having been said, the issue of WJC running for VP would make for a case nothing like anything the SCOTUS had seen before.
<<
They’ll have to legally seperate as you can’t have a Presidential ticket, both from the same state.
>>
Nah. Obama will be the VP nominee. He’ll just get really depressed right before the general election and shoot himself in the head six times. Y’know: Arkancide.
I stand corrected. As VP, it’s constitutional. Only upon her not being president does the 22nd and 25th amendments apply.
Oh pshaw. He can’t serve. Nice try, Hellary.
I happened to see Q’atie Couric interview her, and she asked what passed for a tough question: “What happens if you’re not the nominee? Will you be sad?”
So Hill says, “Oh, I will be the candidate.” (Or something similar. A little cocky there, huh, Hill?)
You sir, need to read up on your Consitution.
Yup.
Ain't it amazin' how all the posters on this thread who shout "Constitutionally impossible" are also "reading into" the Constitution language that, well... just ain't there?
And I'll bet EVERY one of them, to the LAST poster, would also proclaim, "we need strict constructionist justices who won't 'interpret' the Constitution to their own ends!"
Guys, read what's _there_. That's what "strict constructionalism" is all about. What is _written_; nothing more, and nothing less.
The 22nd Amemdment specifies who cannot be ELECTED to the "Presidency". It was written to stop sitting presidents from running for third terms, and being elected as to the same.
It says NOTHING about an ex-president of two terms rising once more to the office of president through non-electoral circumstances.
It says NOTHING about the VICE Presidency. Nothing. Not one word.
There are a few previous posters, like Jim Noble, who have this exactly right.
And, like it or not (and I don't), I believe Hillary is actually right about this. Ol' Bill can indeed run as her vice president, and his doing so is not precluded by the Constitution. Who could have dreamed that such a scenario might actually occur?
Well, I guess we better'n all start thinkin' harder!
- John
Good grief, no.
Maybe then we’d get Monica for VP...
Do you suppose she would be willing to serve under him in any possible position?
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.