« in which i discuss girlie things | Main | more endorsements »

maybe hill, but not bill

Billy Beck puts to rest the idea that Bill Clinton could be chosen to run on Kerry's ticket as vice-president. It's the 12th amendment, not the 24th. Unfortunately, there is nothing that precludes his wife from being on the ticket.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference maybe hill, but not bill:

» PHEW. THANK GOODNESS. from The SmarterCop
Billy relaxes my greatest fear as a conservative. There is no need to worry about a Kerry/Clinton ticket. Constitutionally, it can never happen. Quoth the 12th Amendment: ...no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be elig... [Read More]

» THE JOHN KERRY-BILL CLINTON TICKET? from The Critical 'I'
By way of A Small Victory, I've discovered there's some speculation going on regarding Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry tapping former President Bill Clinton as his running mate for the November election, and whether the law would allow t... [Read More]

» Kerry/Clinton in '04? from The Encyclopeteia
So there's been a bit of debate lately about Bill Clinton's eligibility to be John Fucking Kerry's Vice-president. I've seen a lot of people swearing up and down that anyone who thinks it's even a OPTION is an idiot. Those people, of course, are mo... [Read More]

Comments

It's funny how the right is scared of Clinton.

I think this still requires an interpretation -- the constitution does not say that that someone cannot be president 3 times, only that one cannot be elected thrice.

If, in order to go from VP to President, there was an election involved, this would be open and shut. As it stands, however, I don't think the 12th amendment expressly rules out Clinton as a VP.

Of course, IANACLE [I am not a constitutional law expert].

Any reasonable person would see it precisely as ruling him out. Trouble is, whenever Clinton is involved, reasonableness itself is what gets ruled out. Depending on what "is" means, of course.

And I beat Billy on this by several hours.

I'm not a fan of Clinton but I can't see how the 12th could keep him out of the VP seat or stop him from taking the Presidency, from that position, if called to do so.

The language is very specific and I seriously doubt that the framers didn't consider promotion to VP. On the contrary I'm quite sure that they did and if there was an effort to exclude Vice Presidential promotion to the office it was most likely defeated when trying to decide just how far down the chain of promotion they would have to exclude ex-two termers.

Unfortunate? But you'd get a new Senator!

The only thing that precludes adding Hillary to the ticket is good judgement.

Cheney gets heart problems and in come Rudy.

Now are we ready to rumble?

Of course, Bubba's 8 years of Norks, Tanzania, Kenya, Cole and WTC #1 would be some baggage.

Jim, read the last sentence and bear in mind that the 22nd Amendment does in fact make Clinton constitutionally ineligible to be President. Therefore (under the 12th, stay with me now) he is also constitutionally ineligible to be Vice President.

<stands by with Louisville Slugger in case you still don't get it>

Eugene Volokh (www.volokh.com) discussed this to some extent today. He agrees with the assessment that Clinton would not be eligible but a fellow law prof whose opinion he respects takes the opposite view. Sounds like it's not really clear cut. Reason enough, I suspect, for the Dems not to want to make it an issue.

Volokh's post on the matter is here. The controversy revolves around what "eligible" means -- and its origin is as an adjective rooted in the verb "to elect."

Folks 200 years ago were much less sloppy about word meanings than we are today.

Heh. Just read the post Michele linked. The "law prof whose opinion he respects" I mentioned above is actually the Prof. Gillers that Billy Beck was mocking in his post. Volokh seems to think more highly of him than Beck does, although he ultimately didn't find him completely persuasive either.

I think Gillers is incompetent and shouldn't be teaching law. But that's just me.

I think a reasonable person would see that this is not an open and shut case, McGehee... seems to me that if the intent was to keep an individual from being president three times the word "elected" would not have been used.

This is especially true as the document itself enumerates more than one way to attain the presidency.

If we follow the logic that Someone can't be VP because they've been president twice, doesn't it stand to reason that there'd be constitutional protection from someone who is ineligible to be President from being Speaker of the House... or President pro tempore of the Senate... or Secretary of State... or... or... or?

There's a long line of succession to the presidency (see the 25th Amendment) and if the framers were truly concerned about keeping everyone out of office for a third time under any circumstances, it would've been a small matter to add those offices to the list as well, don't you think?

Hell, I don't care. Let him on the ticket--I don't think it would be the positive that some left-leaners seem to think it would be.

For one thing, it would mobilize the right to actually get out to the voting booths. For another, Gore's resoundingly weak showing wasn't just a voter repudiation of Gore, but of the Clinton White House. Then 9-11 came along and made almost all of us glad that Clinton was gone when the terrorists made it all real.

If Clinton ran right now, it would look like a sad, desperate attempt to regain the spotlight. And, in essence, it would be just that.

I have a really hard time imagining Kerry picking someone who would make him a side-note in his own campaign, anyway. Either of the Clintons would do precisely that.

...I agree. Bring on Kerry/Clinton '04.

I also think that if Kerry does take Clinton it's a case that's going to end up at the Supreme Court and I'd MUCH prefer to just beat Kerry/Clinton than to listen to X years of Liberal bitching about the Supreme Court Electing Bush again. rolls eyes

My reading of the 12th and 22nd amendments together brings me to the following opinion:

Bill Clinton is eligible to run and be elected as Vice President. And, Clinton could assume the presidency at some point (25th Amendment), but could not run for president in the next election.

This is not clear-cut, but there is an almost, sorta precedent for this: In 1980, Ronald Reagan was seriously considering making former President Gerald Ford his running mate, before eventually settling on George H. Bush. Later interviews with Reagan's campaign insiders confirmed this. I assume they took the 12th Amendment into consideration during all that.

In any case, I'm not sure there's any credence in Kerry seriously considering making Bill Clinton his running mate.

Upon reflection... Since Ford was only a one-termer, he'd still be eligible to run for the office of President, unlike Clinton. So I guess the comparison is not perfect. Still, the Ford-Reagan episode may be worth a look.

Cheney gets heart problems and in come Rudy.

Yeah, right. He's pro-choice, he's an obnoxious jerk, and he's got a private life that makes President Clinton look like a Boy Scout. Not happening.

Gore's resoundingly weak showing wasn't just a voter repudiation of Gore, but of the Clinton White House.

Uh-huh. That explains why Gore got more votes than Clinton did either time (the second-highest vote total ever). "Resoundingly weak" ... shakes head

Uh-huh. That explains why Gore got more votes than Clinton did either time (the second-highest vote total ever). "Resoundingly weak" ... shakes head

<cheap-shot>First Gore takes credit for the Internet. Then his supporters take credit for America's ever-increasing population.</cheap-shot>