So there’s been a bit of debate lately about Bill Clinton’s eligibility to be John Fucking Kerry’s Vice-president. I’ve seen a lot of people swearing up and down that anyone who thinks it’s even a OPTION is an idiot. Those people, of course, are morons. It’s definitely an interpretation issue. Let’s have a look at our old and wise document for some guidance.
Since this debate revolves around the fact that Clinton has already served two terms, and the alleged conflict is with his eligibility, it makes sense to start with the 22nd Amendment, which discusses succession to the Presidency.
Amendment XXII
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.
The fact that the word “elected” is used thee times in this paragraph, and not by mistake. The path to the Presidency that is regulated by this amendment is clearly enumerated. Some have argued, however, that the issue is not with the 22nd Amendment, which clearly does not preclude Clinton from being Vice-president, but with the 12th. Let’s have a look, shall we?
Amendment XII
…
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.
It’s stands to reason that someone ineligible to be President should not be Vice-president. One interesting thing to note here is that the word “elected” is not used, which seems to indicate something other than the above amendment. After all, if they MEANT “ineligible to be elected” then they would’ve written that, right? It certainly is more stringent. There is, however, another thing to look at… and that’s where eligibility for the office of President is “defined.” For that we go to Article II, Section 1 of the constitution.
Article II, Section 1.
…
Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
This is the other reference to “eligibility” as it relates to the Presidency, and it has nothing to do with term limits. The discussion here is one of age and nationality/residency. I would assert, after a bit of discussion with Matt, that THIS is the eligibility to which the 12th amendment is referring.
There are a few other contributory points I’d like to make as well. First of all, it would be folly to assume that the framers of any constitution, and ESPECIALLY the Constitution of the United States, play fast and loose with their definitions of words and terms. It seems to me that in order for the document to maintain legitimacy, there has to be consistency of definition and a belief that words are not chosen slothfully. The word “eligible” is used in Article II, but not in the 22nd Amendment. The word “elected” is used in the 22nd Amendment but not the 12th. This may be a coincidence, but to believe that it is in the absence of any corroborating evidence is a bit naive.
Finally, it’s really quite clear that the framers had no intention of explicitly barring individuals from serving more than two terms. After all, that would’ve been a much more simple amendment to write. I think it’s also worth mentioning that there are a number of ways to become president. Have a look at the order of Presidential Succession. There being so many ways to become President, I really believe that the framers would have been much more explicit if their desire had been to limit anything but election to office.
Essentially, I think there’s much more evidence and support to say that Clinton is, in fact, eligible to be John Kerry’s Vice-president than to say that he is not. If it comes up, however, I’m sure we’ll all end up with a nice Supreme Court case to reference the next time this comes up.
Interesting points. But I think it is all for naught. There is NO WAY Clinton (either one) will be anyone’s Veep. Just too much ego that would have to get checked at the door. Also keep in mind that it seems the real Clinton goal is Hillary in 08.
But as to your legal interpretation, the real question is not whether or not he can be VP, but what would happen if the presidency was vacated?
The framers definitely had no intentions of term limits. George Washington voluntarily stepped aside, setting the precedent of serving two terms, but the two term thing definitely didn’t come into play until the 22nd amendment came around in 1951.
Bobby — agreed about Clinton not playing second fiddle to anyone. And Bill will only play second to his wife.
If he were elected VP, however, there is absolutely no rule whatsoever that he could not become President. The same holds true if Kerry were elected with Edwards, Edwards resigned, and the Congress approved Clinton as Kerry’s appointed VP. There are a lot of ways to get into the White House.
PS: Matt, when I said “framers” I used that to include those who drafted amendments as well. Maybe a little fast and loose with the definition, but I’m allowed that — I’m not writing a Constitution here.
Very true…if you’re ever writing a US Constitution you should make sure not to make those types of errors. The reason I used framers in reference to the Founders who wrote the document is that they were the ones who wrote the eligiblity restrictions for the Presidency. The 12th amendment was written prior to the 22nd (obviously), so considering the intentions of the drafters of the 22nd amendment in regards to issues not raised in that particular amendment are irrelevent. Now, if there were contradictions, obviously the 22nd amendment would prevail given it’s more recent passage. I think we’re just agreeing on the same point though.
No no… let me agree with you again, but by saying something different…
…oh, and it’s going to be longer than yours.
just kidding
yay for politics!
Yes, there’s no way Clinton would be willing to do a job where he gets free interns and gets to fly around on the taxpayer’s dollar.