How to bring back Bill, A Clinton-Clinton 2008 ticket is constitutionally

[Jon8503]

Possible -- By Scott E. Gant and Bruce G. Peabody

WASHINGTON, D.C., AND MADISON, N.J. – Americans are nostalgic for the 1990s. They long for a time when terrorism was perceived as a problem confined to foreign lands and when the stock market's rise seemed unstoppable. And, it turns out, many of them miss former President Bill Clinton.

In a recent poll conducted for CNN, respondents favored Mr. Clinton over President Bush on a variety of issues, including policy areas traditionally viewed as GOP strongholds. By a wide margin, those surveyed indicated that Clinton did a better job managing the economy and handling foreign affairs and taxes.

Clinton's resurgent popularity, and Democrats' difficulties in taking over the White House in recent years, might counsel a bold strategy for 2008. Whoever is selected as the Democratic nominee for the next presidential race should consider William Jefferson Clinton as a candidate for vice president.

While the political advisability of such a move is subject to legitimate debate, the legal issues are more straightforward. The only serious question about the constitutionality of Clinton assuming the vice presidency relates to the interplay of the Constitution's 12th and 22nd Amendments.

The 12th Amendment was ratified following the election of 1800, which produced sustained electoral uncertainty after Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, Jefferson's designated vice president, received the same number of electoral votes. The election was sent to the House of Representatives, which took 36 ballots to select Jefferson. The 12th Amendment thereafter required that electoral votes be cast separately for president and vice president, and specified that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president shall be eligible to that of vice president of the United States."

A century and a half later, the states ratified the 22nd Amendment, largely as a response to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's four electoral victories. The amendment bars individuals from being "elected to the office of the president more than twice."

More at link:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0613/p09s02-coop.html
---------------------------------------
EDIT: COPYRIGHT. PLEASE POST ONLY
4 OR 5 PARAGRAPHS FROM THE COPYRIGHTED
NEWS SOURCE PER DU RULES.

[Betty]

1. that would mean bush could run again too

I think I'd have to leave the country

[stillcool]

5. Cheney/Bush ?...

I wouldn't bother reading the news, just live each day as my last.:nuke:

[valerief]

2. Wow. What a great ticket. n/t

[rzemanfl]

3. He would be an awesome Secretary of State. n/t

[acmejack]

4. The thought makes me want to puke.

Please I have had enough Clinton for a night, a eight years and a life time.

[bperci108]

6. I have a better idea....

...how about someone new.

I'm sick of political "dynasties". :puke:

It's time for some new people and ideas.

[mcscajun]

7. Hear! Hear!

Enough is enough, already! Four years of Bush Sr, followed by Eight years of Clinton, followed by eight years of Bush Lite is twenty years...add four or more years of Hillary Clinton and whatever Bush comes after :shudder: do we really need an entire quarter century (or more) controlled by two families? It's too scary to contemplate the slide from a democratic republic into an hereditary oligarchy.

It's time for new faces and fresh blood, keep control of this country OUT of the same two families.

[yurbud]

12. Clark/Dean Edwards/Conyers but no cowards from 2002-2003

It's one thing to have avoided service in Vietnam, but something else to have failed to do the job you were elected to do.


Cowards, quislings, and Vichy Dems should keep their mouths shut about running for president or people might decide it's time for them to join Lieberman in his new K Street office.

[yurbud]

14. there was some talk like this at 80 GOP convention: Reagan-Ford

But it was probably because Reagan thought Chevy Chase really was Gerald Ford.

"You know, I'd like that young president who goes on Saturday Night Live all the time, that Jerry Ford...."

[charlyvi]

8. Okay. I'll don my flame suit.

Much as I admire Big Dawg's political skills, and much as I admire Hillary's grit, I'm a bit tired of bushes and Clintons. We need new blood in the White House. It's like we're in a War of the Roses, only with Clinton/Bush instead of Lancaster/York. Let Hillary be Senate Majority Leader--she'd be great at that. But another Clinton or Bush for president, no.

[Hand]

9. Fundie heads would explode by the thousands!

:popcorn:

[mcscajun]

10. This keeps coming up...

but Bill Clinton has put the kiebosh on the whole business, in an interview with Larry King.

KING: Could you accept, though? Can you be vice president?

CLINTON: I don't believe so. No...

KING: By law?

CLINTON: There's a conflict of opinion. The law says -- the 22nd amendment says that the president can only be elected twice or if you succeed as vice president you can only serve if you serve like a day more than 18 months or day more than 2 years, then you can only be elected once. So arguably, a former president could become vice president. However, I disagree with that for the following reason. It's an elemental principle of constitutional construction that you should treat every part of the constitution consistent with every other part. The part that gives you the qualifications for president and vice president early on in the constitution says that basically the vice president, the qualifications for vice president are the same as those for president. So I think a reasonable reading is that the 22nd amendment modified the original provision and that a former president can't run for vice president. So I don't think that will happen.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0406/24/lkl.00.html

So while it's debatable, and has yet to be completely tested, he's opposed in principle.

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. Besides election law says

that the President and the VP are not supposed to come from the same state. Of course, Bush/Cheney ignored that law and got away with it but then they ignore all the laws.

[mcscajun]

13. The 12th amendment certainly discourages it, but it's not illegal.

"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..."

Under the Twelfth Amendment, electors must cast distinct votes for President and Vice President, instead of two votes for President. No Elector may cast votes for Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates who both inhabit the same state as the Elector. It is, however, possible for an Elector to cast his votes for candidates from the same state, if that state is different from the Elector's.

The Twelfth Amendment does not directly, as is often alledged, preclude the election of a President and Vice President from the same state. Nevertheless, running mates conventionally come from different states to prevent situations wherein electors of the state in question are forced to vote for a candidate from a different party merely on the grounds of residency. The issue arose during the 2000 presidential election contested by George W. Bush (alongside running-mate Dick Cheney) and Al Gore (alongside Joe Lieberman). It was alleged that Cheney and Bush were both inhabitants of Texas, and that the Texas electors could therefore not cast their ballots for both. Bush's residency was unquestioned, as he was governor of Texas at the time. Cheney had lived and was registered to vote in Texas, but a few months before the election changed his official residency to Wyoming, the state where he had grown up, and for which he had, many years earlier, served as the U.S. Representative. A lawsuit alleging that Cheney remained an inhabitant of Texas was brought, but it was dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[tomp]

15. but both clintons are from the same state...

...and that's not allowed.

[SaveElmer]

16. I don't buy it ...as much as I would love it...

The 22nd Amendment was clearly intended to prevent a person from serving more than two terms...it in combination with the 12th I believe. prohibit this from happening. And I believe the supreme court would see it that way.

Plus, the constitutional ambiguity of this would be the defining issue of the campaign...it would not work