Would a Clinton Clinton ticket be legal?

[APPLE314]

The Constitution says the president can only serve two terms but I am asking what would prevent Bill from running as Vice President? The way I see it "If Hillary was unable to finish her term for whatever reason then Bill wouldn't really be counted as serving another full term."

[CBGLuthier]

1. no

You must be able to meet the current requirements for pres to be veep.

Also, one of them would have to move to meet the other requirement of not being from the same state.

[APPLE314]

3. that makes sense

[unblock]

7. the "same state" requirement can be circumvented

as cheney proved by "moving" from texas to wyoming shortly before the 2000 election. of course, the supreme court would probably find that that kind of gaming only works for republicans.

however, nothing forbids the prez and veep from being from the same state. it's merely an electoral handicap, because the electors from that particular state cannot vote for both prez and veep from their own state. the other 49 states are free to do as they choose.

[NativeTexan]

12. Yep the very first CHEAT by Bush/Cheney.......

.....was since they both lived in Texas, and THAT wasn't legal, Cheney "moved" to Wyoming and cheated his way into power!!

[Yupster]

21. There is nothing illegal

about the president and vice-president being from the same state.

Unblock explains why just above you.

[NativeTexan]

30. Actually, it IS illegal.....

.....and Cheney moved back to Wyoming to circumvent the law. Both CANNOT be from the same state.

[Yupster]

34. Just read the Twelfth Amendment

It's one of the longer ones, but not really that long. The key point is the very first sentence.

"The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-president, one of whom, at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves, ..."

It does not say the P and VP cannot be from the same state.

It just says that the electors from that state cannot vote for both of them.

Therefore, if two Texans ran, the Texas electors could only vote for the presidential candidate and would have to vote for someone else for VP, or vice-versa.

That's a whole lot different than them not being allowed to run.

[NativeTexan]

39. But, that means that since electors vote for a ticket....

....and on the first ballot, it is a winner-takes-all ballot from the individual states electors. So the illegality is that even if they CAN run.....they CANNOT BE ELECTED. Agree?

[Yupster]

40. Sorry - I don't understand your post

First, I don't understand the first ballot part because electors just cast one vote each for president and vice-president. It's not like a convention where they keep voting until someone gets a majority. If no one has a majority on the first ballot, then the vote goes to the House of Representatives who then choose the President from among the top three electoral vote getters. If no one has a mjority of electoral votes for vice-president, then the senate chooses from among the two top vote getters.

Second, electors cannot be restricted as to who they can vote for other than the restrictions within the Constitution itself. For instance, in 1988, one Democratic elector voted for Lloyd Bentsen for president and Michael Dukakis for vice-president. In 1976, one Republican elector voted for Ronald Reagan for president instead of Gerald Ford. The way each side has handled this is to get a pledge of honor from the delegates to vote for their party's candidates. There is no legal restriction binding them though. I think in 2000, one Democratic DC elector cast a blank ballot instead of a vote for Gore.

I don't understand the can't win part either. If Reagan and Bush were both from California in 1980. then the California electors would have voted for Reagan who would have beaten Carter by the same 489-49 electoral vote total that history showed.

The California electors would not have been able to vote for Bush for vice-president, so maybe they'd vote for Reagan's friend Senator Paul Laxalt instead from Nevada. Then the electoral vote for vice-president would have been Bush 493, Mondale 49, Laxalt 45.

Anyway, I am having trouble seeing the point you're trying to make. I don't think you understand how the process works, but maybe I'm just misreading your posts. Anyway, hope I've helped.

On edit, I just read your headline, and no electors do not vote for a ticket. There are separate ballots taken for president and for vice-president and they are tallied and counted separately. If you look at the 1976 race, Gerald Ford has 240 electoral votes for president, and Bob Dole has 241 electoral votes for vice-president. That's because that one guy voted for Reagan-Dole instead of Ford-Dole.

[radio4progressives]

9. have to be from a different state? i didn't know that.. ..

is that specified in the Constitution?

[CBGLuthier]

14. I think it is the 12th amendment

Language is a bit confusing but I thibk this is it;

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;



The interpreation is that at least one of the two (pres and VP) must not be from the same state as the electors. So ifthe true state of affairs for Bush and Cheney were considered, no electorol votes from Texas would have counted.

But as said in another post, easy one to get around.

[Yupster]

23. What would have happened in 00

if Cheney and Bush were ruled both from Texas would be that the Texas Electors would have voted for someone besides Cheney for Veep.

Bush would still have won by the same electoral vote he won by.

The VP race would have had no majority winner, so the senate would have chosen a winner from among the top two votegetters which would have been Cheney and Lieberman.

Now things get interesting because I don't remember the timeline of when Jeffords switched parties. Was it a 50-50 senate after he switched parties? In that case, the sitting Vice-president, Al Gore would have cast the deciding vote to make Joe Lieberman Bush's VP.

I think more likely that a few Democratic senators would have crossed party lines to give the new president his pick for VP.

Would have sure been interesting anyway.

It's possible a few Republican senators would have voted for Lieberman as a "unity ticket" since the race was so close.

[NativeTexan]

41. OK....I think YOU have finally got closer than the rest of us...

...in this. Now, after reading yupster and others, the only thing that I AM sure about is that Cheney "moved" back to Wyoming after this same issue came up, and some court allowed it to stand. Of course, we know the history of the courts in THAT election.

[Yupster]

44. It's not correct that if Cheney was ruled a Texan

that no Texas electoral votes would have been counted.

The Texas electors would have been free to vote for Bush as they are allowed to vote for one guy from their home state, so Bush would have been president just like he was.

The problem would have been that the Texas electors would not have been able to vote for Cheney.

Maybe they vote for JEB Bush instead, so the count would have been for VP Lieberman 268, Cheney 244, JEB Bush 28, and the senate would choose the new VP between the top two vote-getters, Lieberman and Cheney. Hard to say how that would have gone down. Bush probably wouldn't have felt too destroyed if it ended up Bush-Lieberman. He would have been able to claim a unity government then and still done what he wanted to.

[Yupster]

22. You didn't know it because

it isn't true.

The president and vice-president can indeed be from the same state.

[itzamirakul]

33. There wouldn't be any Democratic Candidates...

Bill and Hillary are both DINOs so if they ran against Condi and McCain it would be four Republicans running against each other.

The very though of Hillary running for the Presidency makes me want to puke and I voted for her to be my Senator. Since that time, I have lost ALL respect for her as a Democrat.

[Minnesota Libra]

2. Former Presidents can't run again so NO it would NOT be legal nt

[Yupster]

24. Grover Cleveland was a former president

who ran and won.

Why do you think former presidents can't run again?

Clinton would be limited because he already served two terms, but he wouldn't be limited because he's a former president.

[happyslug]

4. First the VP must meant the same Requirements as the President

Since Bill can NOT run for President, he can not run for Vice President.

Furthermore the President and VP must be residence of two different states, The Clintons presently live together thus can NOT run together (And I know Cheney lived in Texas as did Bush in 2000, but Cheney claimed his legal Residence was in Wyoming where he had been a Congressmen thus they were NOT from the Same state).

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section1

12th Amendment to the Constitution:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxii.html

[CBGLuthier]

5. but on the other hand

If she runs she should certainly trumpet loudly the fact that she would have access to the advice of a former (and in my opinion the last real) president.

[bowens43]

6. No. It would not be Constitutional.

[Southsideirish]

8. GAAAAACK! Thanks for ruining my morning. As if it wasn't bad enough

with the Duckworth victory.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. The people have spoken

She is now the Democratic nominee for Congress, as per the wishes of the voters od the 6th district in Il.

[democrat_06]

10. You can serve but not be elected twice

Actually, the Constitution says only that you may not be elected to office more than two times, or one time if you have served two years of a term. If JFK had died in his second year of office, LBJ would only have been able to run for the presidency one time, as it was he was able to run twice even though he didn't. It says very little about the VP. Originally the VP was the second highest vote getter, not someone selected to be on the ticket. That however didn't work very well.

It is correct that the pres and vp cannot come from the same state, I guess Bill could claim his legal residence in Arkansas if he went through the motions, just like Cheney did. Remember he was actually a resident of TX and had to hurry back to WY to register to vote.

If Hillary ran with Bill on the ticket and something happened to Hillary, Bill could be president only long enough to finish the current term in office, but he could not run again...

[CBGLuthier]

15. You are correct

Although I said otherwise above this is currently a slightly gray area of the constitution.

Otherwise the VP must meet the requirements.

My own feeling is that the 22nd amendment adds to the qualifications for president and thus prohibits a two term president from running for VP.

At least that would be how I would vote if I were on the SC. :-)

[newyawker99]

16. Hi democrat_06!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[APPLE314]

38. Hello

Thank You.

[Yupster]

25. No it is not correct

that a pres and VP cannot be from the same state.

[bigwillq]

36. Hello!

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[TreasonousBastard]

13. Aside from the same state thing...

the 22nd amendment doesn't say that a President can't serve more than two terms, just that one can't be elected to more than two terms. Splitting some fine hairs there, but at first glance it seems they could.

No doubt the right wing would be apopleptic if they tried, and it would be risky, but I don't know if there is any other interpretation to this that's come up amongst the legal types:

Amendment XXII
1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,
and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for
more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President
shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this
Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this
Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may
be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term
within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of
President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

[Hosnon]

20. Splitting fine hairs? No worries...that's what we are supposed to do in

these situations.

Edit:

And yes, Bill can be Vice-President. And he can be President by succession. Constitution does not forbid that.

[Yupster]

26. The last line of the Twelfth Amendment is

"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

Sorry. I don't see the gray area.

How could Bill be VP?

[TreasonousBastard]

31. That's the fine hair...

RUN FOR office or BE IN office?

The 12th was written long before the 22nd, so the requirements were just the citizenship, age 35, etc.

It would make for a fun time with constitutional scholars all over themselves on this one if it happened. I do tend to side with the ineligible crrew, though, just because of the intent of the 22nd, but who knows, really?

[Nye Bevan]

17. This question comes up here every few weeks

and the answer is that the issue would end up in court as it is indeed a gray area. It depends upon the interpretation of "ineligible to the office" of President.

For more info see http://www.presidentelect.org/art_preztoveep.html

[formernaderite]

18. Yup it sure does....and considering Bill never took a majority of the vote

I start to wonder why people are so keen on having him run again. What is Ross Perot stirring from the crypt?

[APPLE314]

19. Shades of grey - it could go either way - I'm leaning toward not.

Like you say----- It depends on what the definition of "ineligible" is.
It is not specifically excluded anywhere in the Constitution.

[Yupster]

28. Doesn't ineligible mean

not eligible, as in not an option?

[mtnsnake]

27. Absolutely, and Chelsea will make a fine running mate.

Who let the cat out of the bag? It was supposed to be a secret.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

29. I don't think he can because of the order of succesion. In other words

if he became VP he could be inline for the Presidency. Though I don't have a link, I think there is something around that?

:popcorn: :popcorn:

[Apollo11]

32. It could not happen

The chances of Hillary choosing her husband for a running mate are below zero.

Don't forget he is AGAINST the Iraq War and FOR the Dubai Ports Deal !!

Plus as VP he would have access to unlimited interns.

It would be like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. ;)

[bigwillq]

35. Hi Apple!

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[APPLE314]

37. Hello

Thank you.

[Orangepeel]

42. The question would end up in the supreme court, which would say "no"

As others have pointed out, it is a grey area. It is clear from the Constitution that no one can be Vice President who is ineligible to be President. So, someone like Madeline Albright, who was born in another country, could be Secretary of State and just skipped in the line of succession, but could not have been VP and just skipped in the line of succession.

What is less clear is whether or not Bill Clinton is eligible to the office of President. One can only be elected to the office of President twice, but the Constitution does not explicitly say that someone who has been President can't succeed to the office by other means.

Certainly, if the Clintons tried this, republicans would bring the issue to court and it would be fast-tracked to the SCOTUS. Scalia and Thomas have never let their stated preference for original interpretations of the Constitution get in the way of ideological rulings, so I assume they would rule against the Clintons. I don't know it for a fact, but I guess that Roberts and Alito would also rule in a partisan manner. I'd also bet that at least one, if not more, of the remaining justices would interpret the 22nd Amendment as saying that Bill was ineligible.

However, it is only a theoretical question. I don't think that Bill Clinton has any intention of running as Hillary's VP, even if she wanted him, which I doubt. He's having a lot of fun as an ex-President.

[Yupster]

43. I think it is clear that Bill could not be Hillary's

VP because of the can't be vp if ineligible to be prez line.

I think it could be arguable that perhaps Bill could be Speaker of the House and then become president if the prez and VP both died in the same assasination attempt or plane crash.

I think that at least would be arguable, though I'd still say no.

[Orangepeel]

45. I think so, too, but not every Constitutional scholar does

the wiggle room is in the 22nd Amendment, which specifically states that no one can be elected to the office of President more than twice, but does allow for the possibility of 10 years in office (if one is completing the term of another).

I think this distinction is silly and hairsplitting and I'll bet that you do, too. But, it could be argued that a literal reading of the Constitution would allow someone who had been elected twice to complete the term of another (because the word "elected" is specifically used). You know that if it were, say, Jeb and George Bush we were talking about, Scalia and Thomas (at least) would choose to read the 22nd Amendment in that way.