Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorB
The question is does the 22nd Admendment supercede the 12th and article II? They never really adressed it in the 22nd Admendment. When they got rid of prohibition it was prety clear the 21st admendment supeceded the 18th. Under Article II of the Constitution Clinton in in fact eligible for the Presidency And according to the 12th admendment can be vice president. The 22nd admendment makes no mention of VP eligibility.
|
The ineligibility spoken of in the 12th amendment (for reference: "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States") again, speaks of ineligibility of serving (35 years of age, born in the U.S., and resident for fourteen years)... not ineligibility of being elected (as outlined in the 22cd amendment).
I don't think the it's question of what supersedes what... I don't think that question applies at all since they agree with each other in the case of Presidents that have already served their two terms.
The 21st amendment explicitly repealed the eighteenth amendment. There was no explicit procession in the 22cd amendment, because none was called for. They both agree. Again, the language is clear, imho.
A Clinton/Clinton ticket would be wholly constitutional.