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.
Yes, but if they legally separate, will they still both be brother and sister?
She would be in a VA park with 6 months dead.
Not legal forget it. rat bull shiite.
Heh, sounds like you(or someone) fell for “Make stuff up Tuesday”
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
It becomes a somewhat gray area between the two amendments. Clearly, the INTENT is that a two term president could not be vice president; however, it never actually states that they couldn't because of the wording of the 22nd Amendment. For certain, he would not be allowed to run again if he succeeded in someone else's term.
Whatever, the office is window dressing anyway - the VP can’t even sign for a pizza.
I believe that is so.
Bar9,
Heck "Joementum" Lieberman is looking good to me at this point compared to the batch of fakata carnival clowns they are running now! (not that I would, but you get the point)
Lieberman with former CIA director James Woolsey would be a ticket that would worry me.....
If true, you know Hillary will have 24/7 security to protect her life!
My thought exactly. It’s a win-win for Bill — get rid of the old battleaxe and get back the Presidency.
Actually it’s the other way around. If Hillary! wins(Bleecchh) I don’t think she will put up with his shenanigans. Billy’s got a bad ticker. Built in excuse to cover for the ultimate Arkancide.
No, they could vote for someone else entirely. Thus in a close election we could have:
Hillary/Bill: 239
Two Republicans: 268
Hillary/Hillary's non-New York sock puppet: 31
This would kick the VP election the the (likely Dem) Senate.
On the ticket, yes. In Cheney's house, no.
Two blockades:
1) VP must be eligible for President and he isn’t
2) VP nominee must reside in a different State than the Presidential nominee. Right now, both reside in New York. Do the Clintons really want to prove critics correct about their sham marriage?
It is a legal question. From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901572.html :
One side of the argument is
—
Scott E. Gant, a partner at Boies, Schiller & Flexner in Washington, and Bruce G. Peabody, an assistant professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey: “In preventing individuals from being elected to the presidency more than twice, the [22nd] amendment does not preclude a former president from again assuming the presidency by means other than election, including succession from the vice presidency,” they wrote. “If this view is correct, then Clinton is not ‘constitutionally ineligible to the office of president,’ and is not barred by the 12th Amendment from being elected vice president.”
—
The other point of view:
—
Judge Richard A. Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit said by e-mail that “read literally, the 22nd Amendment does not apply” and therefore Clinton could be vice president. “But one could argue that since the vice president is elected . . . should he take office he would be in effect elected president. Electing a vice president means electing a vice president and contingently electing him as president. That interpretation, though a little bold, would honor the intention behind the 22nd Amendment.”
—
I stand corrected.
Its a constitutional thing. And think back to 2000. As soon as Cheney agreed to be Bush’s VP he changed his residence from Texas to Wyoming. Now, I wonder why he did that?
But, Bill Clinton is NOT Constitutionally ineligible for the office of President. That phrase (probably) does not encompass the limitations of the 22nd, but even if it did, the ineligibility described is a procedural one that would not be triggered if he were not elected.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901572.html
VP Bill? Depends on Meaning of ‘Elected’
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 20, 2006; Page A19
EXCERPT
One constitutional lawyer not heard from on the issue is William Jefferson Clinton, Yale Law class of 1973. But he has offered thoughts on the 22nd Amendment. Before leaving office and again in 2003, he suggested amending the amendment to let a two-term president leave office and then run again: “Since people are living much longer . . . the 22nd Amendment should probably be modified to say two consecutive terms instead of two terms for a lifetime.”
That’s it!
Gee, I thought Bubba the rapist wanted to head of the UN.
Not practical.
That aside I like to see 'em try. The firestorm would dwarf the Eagleton and Quayle VP picks.
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.