Will Hilary stand a better chance if...
 

she announces (before the convention) that Bubba will be her running mate?

The 12th Amendment states that anybody who is eligible for the presidency under Article II of the Constitution is eligible for the vice presidency. The 22nd Amendment, which prevents a third term, doesn't really hold up in this case.

Yes it does.

I have a feeling that one will go to a higher court than this one if push comes to shove. There are a lot of ways to interpret it.

Everyone knows these elections are all staged. It's nice to believe we have any say, but c'mon, let's get with the times here and be realistic. Perhaps more people need to realize the truth of what's really going on and watch Zeitgeist about 2 or 600 times

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

even better Bill could find himself in an entire new position: the first "First Man" (?) of the White House.

Is he going to get all those cookies baked for Xmas time? Or what? :1orglaugh

Well, the 22cd amendment holds up, but it doesn't pertain.

A Clinton/Clinton ticket would be constitutional, I'm pretty sure... the amendment mentions "no person shall be elected to the office of the President," and places no limit on the amount of time they may serve.

The language is quite clear.

For reference: "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."

It would seem any President could run as a Vice President after he's served two terms... unless I'm missing some legal riff-raff. I remember this was brought up back when the idea of a Gore/Clinton ticket was considered in 2000.

No there isn't, and it won't happen in your lifetime.

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.

The real question, I think, is whether or not having Bill as second-fiddle is the way that both the Clintons and the Democratic party wanna go

I can't see that happening.

VP is not part of the executive branch, no matter how much bush wished it to be. The only question is if Hillary dies in office can Bill take over? I think the answer is no.

I think you have your facts skewed, man.

The VP is part of the executive branch.

Earlier this term, Bush and Cheney were trying to make the point that the Vice Presidency is _not_ part of the executive.

If the President dies, the VP takes over, as outlined in the 25th Amendment.

ya scratch it. Im drunk :thumbsup

:1orglaugh:thumbsup

Reminds me... time for a Bourbon.

No he can't. Which the whole purpose of the VP is to take over in case something happens to the Prez. So the Speaker of the house would be President.

They could pass an constitutional amendment saying that the VP can't not have served 2 full terms as President prior to being VP. Or stating that a former President can not become VP. That would clear this whole issue up.

Another interesting scenario is let's say Bill Clinton or Bush ran and won a seat in the House of Reps. They can legally do this. And then became Speaker of the House( once again I'm not sure there is rule saying they can't take this position ) and then something happened to both the President and Vice President. The Speaker becomes the President but under the 22nd Amendment he wouldn't be able to become President.

I'm going to assume you didn't both reading my posts in this thread.

There's a clear and legal difference between "serving" and "being elected."

Bill Clinton could definitely serve as our President again... but he could be elected as such.

correction

I believe you are wrong. Your broken english make this hard to tell.

"I'm going to assume you didn't both reading my posts in this thread."

WTF?

Where is my English broken?

Ahh... forgot the "er" on "bother"... sorry if that caused any confusion. Sometimes my fingers are playing catch-up.

Still... on the constitutional tip, I'm sure if this line of thought continues (Bill as a potential running-mate), it'll be something that's discussed in the media. Feel free to bookmark this thread for reference when the Constitutional experts start speaking up.

I'll go down on the record as saying there'd be nothing unconstitutional about a Clinton/Clinton ticket. :2 cents: