Answer is unclear if Bill Clinton could be Vice President

[ringmastery]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/03/03/politics1835EST0852.DTL

Mark Tushnet, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University Law Center, says the Constitution does not specifically address the issue and no court has ever considered it.

"The answer is unclear," he said.

The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution imposes a two-term limit on presidential candidates, but imposes no limit on the vice presidency. As vice president, however, Clinton could succeed the president upon death, incapacity, impeachment or resignation and serve a third term.

That leads to the 12th Amendment, which states that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States."

Is the 22nd Amendment an "eligibility" requirement? Arguably not, says Tushnet. Article II of the Constitution defines who is eligible to be president as a natural born citizen, at least 35 years old, who has been a U.S. resident for at least 14 years. It says nothing about term limits.

[onehandle]

1. However it is clear that he would not want to be VP. nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. As much as he loved it...

I doubt he'd want all the trouble that comes with it.

[IrateCitizen]

3. And it should be clear that it would be a LT disaster for the Dems

We need to look forward, not backward. The obsession with the cult of personality surrounding Bill Clinton among many Democrats prevents us from actually developing a viable PARTY apparatus based on ideas tied together around an overall vision.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

4. Agree. We shouldn't even be caught discussing this

it's a bad idea. And it makes us look backward looking and foolish.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

5. If Clinton was VP, and the President dies or is removed from office,

wouldn't they just have to skip over Clinton in the succession? Meaning, instead of Clinton replacing the President, it would be the Speaker of the House..no, this isn't a good idea at all.

Besides, we need to move past the Clintons. They are not a political panacea for the DEmocratic Party. We need to look to the future, and replace the old order (that means you, Terry McAuliffe.)