MyDD :: What is your opinion of this VP choice? Bill Clinton.

What is your opinion of this VP choice? Bill Clinton.

by ScienceTeacher118, Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 07:50:47 PM EST

Completely ridiculous VP idea. Bill Clinton. I want to read the community's comments/opinions. Biggest convention surprise ever, best chance to win, best VP to take over if, heaven forbid, the VP had to take over.

First question is the Constitution. Is he eligible? The text reads:

Section 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.

So he's not allowed to be elected President, but he can he accede the office? Does this mean that Bill Clinton cannot be in the Cabinet or would his spot in the succession be skipped? I'm no expert, but I think the Constitution says he's allowed to be Vice President.

Second question. Would he do it? Consider the fact that this would be the only way for Bill to be president again. Could Bill get past the bad blood from the primary?

Third question is whether or not Obama/Bill is a winning ticket.

Demographics to consider:
Southern Whites
First time voters
Bill's baggage (Does Monica lead back to McCain and his first wife?)
Hillary supporters, especially women

Who do you think would be better in terms of electability?

The next question is whether Obama would/could choose Bill. Could he deal with being outshined, and how much would Bill be able to outshine Barack? Could Obama get past the bad blood from the primary?

Choosing Bill Clinton would certainly counter the "biggest celebrity" crap, not to mention the experience attacks, but it would hurt Obama's change meme. It would show that he was willing to think outside the box to solve problems.

C'mon people, tell me what you think...

crossposted...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/10/ 1789/71885/670/565817

Poll

Votes: 30
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Tags: Vice presidential speculation, bill clinton, barack obama (all tags)

Permalink :: 56 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: What is your opinion of this VP choice? Bill (none / 0)

Well, the Constitution isn't 100% clear, but Bill himself acknowledged that he's most likely not eligible.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 07:52:04 PM EST

Re: What is your opinion of this VP choice? Bill (none / 0)

It's 100% clear. To be vice-president, you have to be eligible to be president, and Bill Clinton is not.

I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!

by Jess81 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 08:07:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is your opinion of this VP choice? Bill (none / 0)

It's not worth going through it, but it is not, in fact, 100% clear. There's an argument that can be made.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 08:14:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is your opinion of this VP choice? Bill (none / 0)

I'd be curious. I'm pretty sure it's illegal, but I wouldn't mind being proven wrong.

I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!

by Jess81 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 08:39:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is your opinion of this VP choice? Bill (none / 0)

No Steve... The 12th amendment is pretty clear... No person constitutionally ineligible for President may be Vice President. That's pretty clear... as clear as our Constitution gets. That means NO ARNOLD, and definately NO BILL CLINTON. But I'd love to see you try and argue around this pretty blatant statement of law, since you seem fairly sure.

Amendment XII

(Ratified June 15, 1804)
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 President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:15:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is your opinion of this VP choice? Bill (none / 0)

But the constitution doesn't say a two term president is ineligible to hold the office of president. It says that he or she can't be elected to it a third time. It says nothing of acceding to the office.

by Mayor McCheese on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:01:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It is Constitutional (2.00 / 1)

He cannot be elected, but the 22nd Amendment does not say he can't serve. He could become Speaker of the House or Attorney General or Ambassador to the U.N. and accede the presidency if, heaven forbid, we got to that point in the succession.

"Action comes easy; it's the moments just before that are hard." ~Defiance, Ohio~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTD H4

by ScienceTeacher118 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 09:05:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It is Constitutional (none / 0)

When you have Senator Clinton as your VP you also get a former two term president. Popular around the world, so Bill will serve two more terms but not as VP. Two for the price of one. A team of rivals.

by Politicalslave on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 10:45:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It is Constitutional (2.00 / 1)

He cannot run for President or Vice President because he is specifically not eligible to serve in those positions. And if he were Attorney General and it came to him in the line of succession, he'd be skipped over, just as Madeleine Albright would have been skipped over during his own Presidency. He is not eligible to run or to serve.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:14:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It is Constitutional (2.00 / 1)

I agree that the premise is absurd, but I would say that the issue isn't clear-cut. Albright would have been prohibited by Article II itself, which requires that the President be a natural born citizen (and does not speak about "running" as opposed to "serving"). The term limitations are set forth in the 22nd Amendment, and as noted above there is some ambiguity as to whether a two-term ex-President could then serve as a VP and subsequently as President in an emergency. Obviously the argument would be that the intent of the 22nd Amendment was to preclude anyone from serving as President for more than two terms, regardless of the circumstances, but the text doesn't cover this particular circumstance.

by rfahey22 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:39:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It is Constitutional (none / 0)

I suppose it's not quite as clear-cut as I expected, but see my comment below. It'd come up as a Supreme Court challenge, you can bet your britches on that, and I have little doubt as to how SCOTUS would rule.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:45:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It is Constitutional (2.00 / 1)

I also have no doubt about that, and no sane politician would choose a VP whose candidacy was constitutionally suspect, but I'm just treating this diary as a thought exercise.

by rfahey22 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:51:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It is Constitutional (2.00 / 2)

Dude, call it a Gedankenexperiment. It sounds so much cooler. You don't get a chance to use obscure German academic phrases every day.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:17:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It is Constitutional (none / 0)

I thought Scotus' approach to this question is that ultimately it is a political question. However, it seems like generally we are good about self-policing (Secretary Albright never would have been allowed to accede and there never would have been a court challenge).

I thought I had heard rumblings that no challenge to McSame would even be entertained in a court of law.

Visiting the hopium dens proudly since 2007.

by AZphilosopher on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 03:40:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It is Constitutional (none / 0)

12th Amendment.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

That is pretty clear cut.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:17:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It is Constitutional (none / 0)

The eligibility criteria referred to in the 12th Amendment undoubtedly referred to the Article II qualifications, which were the only ones that existed at that time, and which Bill Clinton clearly meets. At that point, you would ask whether Bill Clinton would be ineligible under the 22nd Amendment (possibly as informed by the 12th Amendment) - but that's really no different than the original question of this diary, because under your analysis and the diarist's, the central issue is the interpretation of the 22nd Amendment. I don't see how the 12th Amendment does that much work here.

by rfahey22 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:47:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It is Constitutional (none / 0)

No it isn't.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:12:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is your opinion of this VP choice? Bill (none / 0)

It isn't 100% clear. In fact, the Constitution doesn't directly adddress the question. All the 22nd says is that no one shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice. It doesn't addresss the question of whether a person could be appointed.

by Mayor McCheese on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:56:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Tips/Flames... (2.00 / 0)

Yes, I am asking for trouble.

Would this change whether you would/would not vote for him?

"Action comes easy; it's the moments just before that are hard." ~Defiance, Ohio~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTD H4

by ScienceTeacher118 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 07:53:10 PM EST

Ugh (none / 0)

Just freaking ugh.

No please. Is it too much to ask we use the slot to elevate someone who could potentially actually run after this admin, and who also earned the spot themselves?

In other words, no de-facto royal families need apply. No Bayh, no Clintons, no Kennedys, no Ford, etc...

by ElitistJohn on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:40:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think (none / 0)

since you asked, that you have been forgetting to wear your respirator in the old laboratory there, doc.

by ReillyDiefenbach on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:44:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is your opinion of this VP choice? Bill (2.00 / 0)

Hey Hillary Clinton could easily fill in a lot of the spots up there .

Except of course she wears the pant suits .

However if he is eligible to run which I doubt , and he is somehow picked as VP and he somehow where to accept it , it would be an heartquake.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 08:04:35 PM EST

Re: What is your opinion of this VP choice? Bill (2.00 / 0)

And I really mean heartquake because I know so many folks who would have a heart attack.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 08:06:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

huh. (none / 0)

I don't have a copy of article II handy, but I'm fairly certain it's illegal.

I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!

by Jess81 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 08:10:35 PM EST

Wrong Clinton IMHO (2.00 / 1)

I think it WOULD be challenged on constitional grounds, but, my feeling is, it's Hillary that is at the top of her game.

The Big Dog, god love him, seems a bit sluggish.

I wouldn't mind a Clinton on the ticket, but, as Chelsea recommended, let's go with the distaff side this time.

On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....

by WashStateBlue on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 08:25:44 PM EST

I agree (2.00 / 1)

Anyone who saw Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton together on the same stage during the primary campaign I think would agree... she totally out-shone him in every way. It was incredible... the audience response to him was polite, respectful but for her it was over.the.top at the events I was at. It was clear who had the energy and charisma and evoked the audience's passion and energy... her, not him.

She's in her political prime... he is past his.

I'm totally of the camp that keeping Bill Clinton involved in politics does only good for the Democratic Party and for America. I live in NY and whenever I hear the argument "what about Bill?!?!" as a reason to not pick Hillary Clinton as VP I hear that as so sexist and childish. He has played NO ROLE in her Senate career... nada, zilch, zero.

I know that husband of VP being a former President is totally without precedent... but hey, this is a year without precedent in MANY ways.

More and more I do hope he picks her... and cannot wrap my mind around any of the other picks having her appeal or draw.

Waiting with baited breath.

"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008

by twinmom on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 08:48:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is your opinion of this VP choice? (2.00 / 1)

It appears that you have stumbled upon a textual ambiguity. Anyway, it would be a terrible idea, because it would reinforce the idea that Obama is inexperienced and likely would be perceived by those on the right as a shadow candidacy/presidency by Bill Clinton. Besides, if he's going to choose a Clinton, shouldn't it be Hillary? I see very few positives from a pairing with Bill Clinton.

by rfahey22 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 08:27:12 PM EST

Re: What is your opinion of this VP choice? (none / 0)

I think the "political" choice would be Hillary. That would bring about a huge story and momentum.

However, as an intelectual excercise, I would love to see Bill get VP, just for the fact that as the REP's argue over the 22nd ammendment, Bill could claim that the VP office is not part of the Office of the President and therefore the 22nd doesn't apply to him. The repugs would have to be repudiating Cheney/Bush and they will do the work of stripping power that the evil twins have worked so hard over the last 7 years trying to "protect" and expand.

And then tell Boehner and Justice Roberts to go f*ck themselves, live...on TV! Justice and a back hand bi*ch slap all in one smooth motion.

Yeah, that would be a good week.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:56:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is your opinion of this VP (none / 0)

It's pretty clear that Bill still has very strong feelings about Obama. That quote a few days ago about how Obama was only technically eligible to be president and how you could make the argument that no one's truly ready, etc. was pretty damn brutal.

Plus, there's no way this would be legal. If Obama's picking a Clinton, it has to be Hillary.

by semiquaver on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 08:31:44 PM EST

Is anyone wondering why Obama (none / 0)

hasn't asked HRC to provide him with a Shermanesque statement a la Webb, Strickland, Warner, and Reed if she's not under VP consideration? There are multiple theories, here are some that I have thought of:

1) Obama asked HRC and she refused to give him one because she wants him to take the heat from not picking her.

2) Obama hasn't asked her because he hasn't thought about it and is not worried about the potential "day of disunity" that our friend Armando over at Talkleft has argued will result from a non-HRC pick.

3) Obama hasn't asked her because he wants to maintain the appearance that HRC is under consideration to get money from her donors.

4) Obama still hasn't made up his mind for VP and HRC is actually under consideration.

by Blazers Edge on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 09:21:49 PM EST

Unconstitutional. (none / 0)

Next question?

I am not a crook!

by username on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 09:27:35 PM EST

Re: Unconstitutional. (none / 0)

That's not entirely clear, I'm surprised to say.

by rfahey22 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 09:33:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unconstitutional. (none / 0)

I'm surprised as well -- the 22nd amendment is surprisingly poorly worded!

I am not a crook!

by username on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 10:06:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unconstitutional. (none / 0)

They might have chosen a better word than "elected"--but the Supreme Court would certainly hold that the Amendment was intended to make the person totally ineligible, not just ineligible to be elected.

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.

The second part (beginning: "But this Article shall not apply...") would be entirely unnecessary if it were referring only to eligibility to run for office. They added in a very specific clause saying that the current President would remain President until the next election and would not be disqualified from serving. I presume they did this in case the Amendment took some time to ratify, and Truman ended up being elected to two consecutive terms in '48 and '52.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:27:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unconstitutional. (none / 0)

Didn't the second part only apply to Truman, who could have theoretically run a couple of more times?

I think "elected" is the key word. The whole idea is kind of silly, but he could become VP and serve if unfortunately necessary, but couldn't then run for re-election. I remember this coming up in 2000 when people suggested he be Gore's running mate.

by alamedadem on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:37:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unconstitutional. (none / 0)

No he can't. You can try to find BS meaning in words all day long. He is constitutionally ineligible for President under the 22nd amendment. Given that fact, he is barred from being elected VP under the 12th Amendment. ITS PRETTY BLACK AND WHITE. YOU CAN'T BE ELECTED PRESIDENT, THEN YOU CAN'T BE ELECTED VICE PRESIDENT!

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:21:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Big Daddy's 2004 convention speech (none / 0)

was the best speech of that convention, with a distant second-place to Barack Obama. I'm in agreement with those that believe Big Daddy is a little rusty and may not be able to deliver Obama the "send me" speech he gave Kerry in 2004.

Who is the sucker that is going to be sandwiched between Big Daddy and Obama? Sebelius or Bayh better be working on something good if it's going to be one of them.

by Blazers Edge on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 09:54:33 PM EST

Re: Big Daddy's 2004 convention speech (none / 0)

Big Daddy? give us a break.

by ReillyDiefenbach on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:45:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Big Daddy's 2004 convention speech (none / 0)

You are out of your mind if you think Clintons speech was in the same hemisphere as Obama's 2004 speech.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:23:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Unconstitutional (none / 0)

first of all. Second, who in their right mind would accept a V.P. spot after already serving as President...even if it were allowed?

You have to be qualified to serve as President in order to be V.P. There is no wiggle room. Bill Clinton is no longer qualified to be President due to the two term rule.

by southernman on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 10:16:05 PM EST

Re: Unconstitutional (2.00 / 1)

actually, it's debatable whether it's constitutional. It's something the Supreme Court would have to decide. Technically, there is nothing literal in the Constitution prohibiting it. Article II does not state any requirements for being VP; Amendment 12 does. But all it says is that someone who is constitutionally ineligible to be president cannot be VP. Clinton meets the constitutional requirements for the presidency (see Article II). Amendment 26 only prevents him from being elected as President. It doesn't preclude him from acceding.

by slynch on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:30:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unconstitutional (2.00 / 1)

Constitutional scholars are split on the possibility, but most agree the spirit of law mitigates against it.

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:21:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unconstitutional (none / 0)

ONly the stupid constitutional scholars are divided on this one. Its pretty clear cut except for a few people who have no business in academia.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:25:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unconstitutional (none / 0)

So Akil Reed Amar is "Stupid?" Good to know.http://www.slate.com/id/1006013/

by Mayor McCheese on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:19:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unconstitutional (none / 0)

I'm not sure I understand this. A major point of academia is to not simply assume things are clear-cut.

by slynch on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:54:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unconstitutional (none / 0)

and that's exactly what we need right before our convention.

To have the Supreme Court decide whether our V.P. nominee can legally be nominated. That's exactly what we need.

NEXT......

by southernman on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:33:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unconstitutional (none / 0)

hey, I didn't say it was a good idea. It just isn't an open and shut case.

by slynch on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:53:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It is more open and shut (none / 0)

than virtually anything else I've ever seen. Bill Clinton is not an option to be Vice President.

by southernman on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 01:33:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill (none / 0)

Send Bill Clinton to the UN as the US Ambassador.

by susie on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:02:21 PM EST

Re: What is your opinion of this VP choice? Bill (1.00 / 0)

Why in heaven's name would Obama pick Bill Clinton as VP? He hates Bill Clinton, and he's so scared of having him around that's the main reason he'd never pick Hillary as VP.

Or ... wait a minute ... did you mean McCain's VP?

by miker2008 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:10:31 AM EST

Re: What is your opinion of this VP choice? Bill (none / 0)

Yeah he hates him, that's why he chose him for one of the best speaking slots at the convention.

One thing, though, about your comment, it sure helps keep the spirit of unity alive and well.

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:18:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is your opinion of this VP choice? Bill (2.00 / 1)

" and he's so scared of having him around that's the main reason he'd never pick Hillary as VP.'

Miker, this adolescent hero-worship you have on the Clintons is, well, it's embarressing.

It's Ok when you're a teenage girl, and it's Molly Cyrus?

With an adult, not so much.

On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....

by WashStateBlue on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:26:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Might as well pick (none / 0)

John Edwards.

I don't care what the Big Dog is up to in his spare time now-a-days but I know the press would love to dig into it if he ever ran for public office again.

by Tatan on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:37:26 AM EST

Re: What is your opinion of this VP choice? (none / 0)

It's time to move on.

by Glaurung on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:29:57 AM EST

Arguably not illegal (none / 0)

but a terrible idea politically. I like Bill Clinton. I think he was a very good president, but this would create so much unnecessary debate over whether it is legal and raise so many issues from the primary that it would be a disaster. Also, why would Bill want to be #2, with no chance at running for number 1 ever again? And why would Obama want him?

by Mayor McCheese on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:58:52 AM EST

Is Bill Clinton Eligible to be Vice President (none / 0)

Sure, according to the textualist theory of interpreting the Constitution. Just ask Antonin Scalia, staunch advocate of textualism (a staunch advocate who often fails to actually be a textualist, mind you).

So, are you a textualist in general, or just on the odd occasion when it leads to a result you like?

I'm not a textualist. And, frankly, it's pretty clear to me that the purpose of Amendment XXII was to limit an individual to serving no more than 10 years as President, not to limiting an individual to election as President but creating some weird backdoors to the Presidency.

by Collideascope on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:09:34 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.