Can Pres. Clinton be Kerry's VP?

[KDS]

The Constitution does not prohibit a President who served twice from then serving as Vice President, and possibly assuming the Presidency.

True?

Would that be a good move for Kerry

[Nation]

For the record, KDS (you have my initials!), a vice-president has to be eligible to serve as president, and since clinton served 2 terms, he is not eligible to be president.

[dunn]

For the record, KDS (you have my initials!), a vice-president has to be eligible to serve as president, and since clinton served 2 terms, he is not eligible to be president.

no

the XII amendment say:


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. 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

its about election by  the house, not by the people

[Gustaf]

I don't really know this, but the argument, which makes sense to me, seems to be that you can serve as president but not run for president or something like that, if you served 2 terms.

I have no idea if it would help or hurt Kerry, it would be an out-rage and couse a LOT of confusion. I think it would probably end up hurting him. I don't think he's the lind of guy to take a gamble like that anyway. AND, he would be very over-shadowed.

[Kevinstat]

Dunn,

I think the language is very clear.  "No person constitutionally inelligable to the office of President shall be eligable to that of Vice President of the United States."  It mentions the office, without any qualification of that requirement.  It doesn't say, "but no person constitutionally inelligable to the office of President may be selected Vice President of the United States."  The "But" at the beginning of the sentence and the fact that the sentence comes just after the description of how the Vice President is to be selected if no one recieves a majority of the votes in the electoral college does cause some confusion, but I don't believe that changes what it means.  Since the sentence dealt with limitations to the office, I feel it takes effect no matter how the Vice President is selected, and that the "But" at the beginning of the sentence merely existed because the sentence limited the choices for both the electors and the Senators.

I guess I may have said the same thing several times, but I wanted to give the most comprehensive argument possible.  You are definately entitled to your opinion, however.

Not that it really matters, although it might since today's courts will sometimes let the spirit of a law trump the letter, but I hope you agree that the people who wrote the 11th amendment intended for the office of Vice President to be limited to those who were eligable to the office of President.

Sincerely,

Kevin Lamoreau

[dunn]

Dunn,

I think the language is very clear.  "No person constitutionally inelligable to the office of President shall be eligable to that of Vice President of the United States."  It mentions the office, without any qualification of that requirement.  It doesn't say, "but no person constitutionally inelligable to the office of President may be selected Vice President of the United States."  The "But" at the beginning of the sentence and the fact that the sentence comes just after the description of how the Vice President is to be selected if no one recieves a majority of the votes in the electoral college does cause some confusion, but I don't believe that changes what it means.  Since the sentence dealt with limitations to the office, I feel it takes effect no matter how the Vice President is selected, and that the "But" at the beginning of the sentence merely existed because the sentence limited the choices for both the electors and the Senators.

I guess I may have said the same thing several times, but I wanted to give the most comprehensive argument possible.  You are definately entitled to your opinion, however.

Not that it really matters, although it might since today's courts will sometimes let the spirit of a law trump the letter, but I hope you agree that the people who wrote the 11th amendment intended for the office of Vice President to be limited to those who were eligable to the office of President.

Sincerely,

Kevin Lamoreau

Kevin
It's matter of interpetation, the intention might be clear but the phrasing is not. I know some legal people and an american studies proffesor who think an ex 2 term president can be vp but can not stands for elections if taking office as president.

[Gustaf]

Dunn,

I think the language is very clear.  "No person constitutionally inelligable to the office of President shall be eligable to that of Vice President of the United States."  It mentions the office, without any qualification of that requirement.  It doesn't say, "but no person constitutionally inelligable to the office of President may be selected Vice President of the United States."  The "But" at the beginning of the sentence and the fact that the sentence comes just after the description of how the Vice President is to be selected if no one recieves a majority of the votes in the electoral college does cause some confusion, but I don't believe that changes what it means.  Since the sentence dealt with limitations to the office, I feel it takes effect no matter how the Vice President is selected, and that the "But" at the beginning of the sentence merely existed because the sentence limited the choices for both the electors and the Senators.

I guess I may have said the same thing several times, but I wanted to give the most comprehensive argument possible.  You are definately entitled to your opinion, however.

Not that it really matters, although it might since today's courts will sometimes let the spirit of a law trump the letter, but I hope you agree that the people who wrote the 11th amendment intended for the office of Vice President to be limited to those who were eligable to the office of President.

Sincerely,

Kevin Lamoreau

Kevin
It's matter of interpetation, the intention might be clear but the phrasing is not. I know some legal people and an american studies proffesor who think an ex 2 term president can be vp but can not stands for elections if taking office as president.

He could run for VP, take office as president and then run again  as VP when his term as up, make the president resign and just keep going...

[zachman]

As I remember it he can't, because the 12th ammendment states that a vice-president must be qualified to become president, and B. Clinton is no longer qualified.

[Gustaf]

As I remember it he can't, because the 12th ammendment states that a vice-president must be qualified to become president, and B. Clinton is no longer qualified.

The question is whether it applies in this case.

[zachman]

It does.

[dunn]

It does.

says you. some people do think that it does not

[zachman]

The courts would not let it happen. Although Clinton could likely be nominated if the vice-president died in the last two years of the term.

[Nation]

Thank you everyone else for arguing my point.

Dunn, it really doesn't matter if your two professor friends think that Clinton could be a VP. The courts would never allow it.

[KDS]

According to a discussion at volokh.com, there is a legal article, Peabody & Gant, The Twice and Future President, 83 Minn. L. Rev. 565 (1999), which concludes that a two-term President MAY INDEED then become Vice-President.  

This question has been asked before, and apparently answered.
         

[minionofmidas]

There are three ways to become vice president
Way one: Election by the Electors
Way two: Election by the Senate (not House)
Way three: Selection to fill a vacancy during the term

Way two is obviously not accessible for Bill Clinton, everybody here has agreed to that.
That way one might be accessible is an absurd proposition: What if Bill and Ronald Reagan are the Dem and Rep candidates, the election goes to the Senate, and the Senators can only vote for the top two vote-getters but not for either of them?
That leaves way three though, I'd have to read the applicable amendments closely; I guess I'll do just that. It would be the intention of those 1960s amenders we'd have to look into here, not that of the 1800s amenders...

And just because somwbody writes a legal paper don't mean anything at all. You'd need to show me a court decision.

[minionofmidas]

There are three ways to become vice president
Way one: Election by the Electors
Way two: Election by the Senate (not House)
Way three: Selection to fill a vacancy during the term

Way two is obviously not accessible for Bill Clinton, everybody here has agreed to that.
That way one might be accessible is an absurd proposition: What if Bill and Ronald Reagan are the Dem and Rep candidates, the election goes to the Senate, and the Senators can only vote for the top two vote-getters but not for either of them?
That leaves way three though, I'd have to read the applicable amendments closely; I guess I'll do just that. It would be the intention of those 1960s amenders we'd have to look into here, not that of the 1800s amenders...

And just because somwbody writes a legal paper don't mean anything at all. You'd need to show me a court decision.

It gets even worse:
It could be argued that Clinton might be appointed to fill a vacancy in the Vice Presidency, but could not become president again anyways...

[dunn]

And just because somwbody writes a legal paper don't mean anything at all. You'd need to show me a court decision.

right!

[Gustaf]

There are three ways to become vice president
Way one: Election by the Electors
Way two: Election by the Senate (not House)
Way three: Selection to fill a vacancy during the term

Way two is obviously not accessible for Bill Clinton, everybody here has agreed to that.
That way one might be accessible is an absurd proposition: What if Bill and Ronald Reagan are the Dem and Rep candidates, the election goes to the Senate, and the Senators can only vote for the top two vote-getters but not for either of them?
That leaves way three though, I'd have to read the applicable amendments closely; I guess I'll do just that. It would be the intention of those 1960s amenders we'd have to look into here, not that of the 1800s amenders...

And just because somwbody writes a legal paper don't mean anything at all. You'd need to show me a court decision.

They can choose a 3rd place candidate can't they? How does that work, are they allowed to choose someone who didn't recieve EVs?

[Emsworth]

They can choose a 3rd place candidate can't they? How does that work, are they allowed to choose someone who didn't recieve EVs?

No, the Senate must choose between the two highest vote-getters. The Twelfth Amendment states:

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...

The Senate cannot choose a person who has received no electoral votes, either.

[Gustaf]

They can choose a 3rd place candidate can't they? How does that work, are they allowed to choose someone who didn't recieve EVs?

No, the Senate must choose between the two highest vote-getters. The Twelfth Amendment states:

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...

The Senate cannot choose a person who has received no electoral votes, either.

Hm, OK, what about president. I might be mixing them up. Is the House allowed to choose a 3rd place in EVs for president?

[Emsworth]

Hm, OK, what about president. I might be mixing them up. Is the House allowed to choose a 3rd place in EVs for president?

Yes. Again from the Twelfth Amendment:

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.

[Gustaf]

Hm, OK, what about president. I might be mixing them up. Is the House allowed to choose a 3rd place in EVs for president?

Yes. Again from the Twelfth Amendment:

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.

Ah, that's it then. So this basically means that in the, highly unlikely, event of 3 candidates of which one belongs to a party controlling both the House and the Senate but still ends up in 3rd place in the EC could get the presidential spot but not the VP one? What about Taft in 1912, for example...

[Emsworth]

Ah, that's it then. So this basically means that in the, highly unlikely, event of 3 candidates of which one belongs to a party controlling both the House and the Senate but still ends up in 3rd place in the EC could get the presidential spot but not the VP one?

Remember that the third place candidate may not necessarily win if his party controls the House of Representatives. When the House votes, each state has one vote, and it is entirely likely that the party controlling the House is not the one controlling a majority of states - especially given that three major candidates, and perhaps therefore parties, are apparent in such a hypothetical.

[Gustaf]

Ah, that's it then. So this basically means that in the, highly unlikely, event of 3 candidates of which one belongs to a party controlling both the House and the Senate but still ends up in 3rd place in the EC could get the presidential spot but not the VP one?

Remember that the third place candidate may not necessarily win if his party controls the House of Representatives. When the House votes, each state has one vote, and it is entirely likely that the party controlling the House is not the one controlling a majority of states - especially given that three major candidates, and perhaps therefore parties, are apparent in such a hypothetical.

Don't worry, one of the few things I did know was the state delegation factor. But it should really increase the chances, since the 3rd party could actually be the smallest party in the House as well as in the EC, but still win a majority of the state delagations!

[Nym90]

What if 2 candidates tied for 3rd place in the Electoral Vote? Since the House cannot choose from more than 3 different candidates, would neither be on the ballot for the House?

Or, likewise, what if 2 candidates tied for 2nd place, which one's VP candidate would be on the ballot for the Senate?