Strict reading of the 22nd makes Clinton/Clinton possible ticket.

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yet most of us understand the intent of the 22nd amendment is much different than it's literal meaning.

Based on what evidence? The only evidence presented in this thread so far is the words of the 22nd amendment. Should we presume without evidence the writers of this amendment intended something different than what they wrote?

And even if they did - what does it matter? The amendment was ratified based on the meaning of what it says - not based on its intent. Intent is only relevant when their is ambiguity in the literal meaning of the law. There is no ambiguity here - the 22nd is quite clear that the restriction is only elections - not total time served.

My comment was based on the historical nature of the Amendment, clearly focused on FDR's four elections, the majority in Congress and in 3/4 of the State Legislatures limited the office to twice being elected. You are correct, the literally meaning is "elected" not serving. My inference is the intent was for someone to hold the office for a period no longer than five years, 11 months and one day less then a full 12 months. Of course my inference is only that, not a clear or convincing argument in the law.

Well then they failed miserably because several Presidents since have served longer than "five years, 11 months and one day less then a full 12 months" ! The most recent to do so is President Bush, and Obama will exceed that provided he serves out at least half of his 2nd term.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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 22nd amendment only restricts the number of times someone may be elected President, it does not restrict the number of years they may serve as President or Vice President. You may be elected twice - unless you have already served more than 2 years of another's term, in which case you may only be elected once.

Thus Hillary Clinton could run for President with Bill Clinton as her Vice President. If he had to serve more than 2 years of Hillary's term there is no problem as that fact occurs after his two elections to the office of President.

Sorry but again you are wrong. They are allowed to serve only 2 terms.

But that's not what the 22nd amendment says. It says that someone may not be elected to more than 2 terms - or to more than 1 if they have already served out more than 2 years of the term of another President.

Note that in referring to the term of another President, "term" and "President" are singular. This isn't relevant to a Clinton/Clinton ticket, but I would point out this means that someone who served 1 1/2 year's of one term they were not elected to and 1 1/2 years of another term they were not elected to - could still be elected to their own Presidential terms twice. This serves to illustrate the broader point - the 22nd amendment does not limit the time one may serve as President - it merely limits the number of times one may be elected President.

Let's say Bill Clinton instead was Speaker of the House - an office of which there is no argument he is eligible to hold. He could obviously ascend to the Presidency if both the President and Vice President were killed at once

Now you would think why can't he be VP then. Because if Hillary kicks it, he becomes president, and legally he could not. By running for VP, he is in effect running to be the back up President. Which he could not be.

But nice try.

Where does the 22nd amendment say that someone twice elected President cannot become President? It doesn't. It only says someone twice elected cannot be elected President. Please stick with the actual words instead of meaning that you make up. Thanks.

 

[Scorpion]

The 22nd amendment only restricts the number of times someone may be elected President, it does not restrict the number of years they may serve as President or Vice President. You may be elected twice - unless you have already served more than 2 years of another's term, in which case you may only be elected once.

Thus Hillary Clinton could run for President with Bill Clinton as her Vice President. If he had to serve more than 2 years of Hillary's term there is no problem as that fact occurs after his two elections to the office of President.

Sorry but again you are wrong. They are allowed to serve only 2 terms.

But that's not what the 22nd amendment says.

Now you would think why can't he be VP then. Because if Hillary kicks it, he becomes president, and legally he could not. By running for VP, he is in effect running to be the back up President. Which he could not be.

But nice try.

Where does the 22nd amendment say that someone twice elected President cannot become President? It doesn't. It only says someone twice elected cannot be elected President. Please stick with the actual words instead of meaning that you make up. Thanks.

As part of a 'ticket', one is elected by the voters whether top or bottom of ticket.
It really doesn't matter.
Demographics are changing and the old folks who would vote for them are dying out.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Sorry but again you are wrong. They are allowed to serve only 2 terms.

But that's not what the 22nd amendment says.

Now you would think why can't he be VP then. Because if Hillary kicks it, he becomes president, and legally he could not. By running for VP, he is in effect running to be the back up President. Which he could not be.

But nice try.

Where does the 22nd amendment say that someone twice elected President cannot become President? It doesn't. It only says someone twice elected cannot be elected President. Please stick with the actual words instead of meaning that you make up. Thanks.

As part of a 'ticket', one is elected by the voters whether top or bottom of ticket.
It really doesn't matter.

It matters quite a bit, as the powers and duties of the offices of President and Vice President are quite different! By your interpretation Joe Biden could not run for PResident since he's been elected to two terms as Vice President!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why do leftists cream their collective shorts over the Clintons?
THEY'RE OLD!

Fucking bigot.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Not when the literal meaning is clear. If I write a law making the speed limit 75 mph and the legislature passes it - but I intended to make the limit 75 kilometers per hour - it doesn't matter - the law was passed saying 75 mph. The states ratified a 22nd amendment that only restricts the number of times one may be elected President - if the intent were more broad than that it doesn't matter, states don't ratify intent, they ratify words.

You are completely wrong on this. This isn't even a matter of opinion. You're unknowledgeable, period.

LOL! So the MEANING of a laws text is irrelevant?

That is not what I said. I said that you are unknowledgeable. So here, let me educate you.....

The original constitution set out qualifications for the Presidency, and a method for choosing the President. It made no differentiation between being elected to the office directly, or succeeding to the office via the Vice Presidency. As the framers established the constitution, the constitution understood that the normal process of becoming President was through the election process. There was no distinction in the eyes of the constitution between being qualified to hold the office via direct election into the post, versus being qualified to gain the post through the "back door" of the Vice Presidency. It is unthinkable that the intent of the framers was to allow constitutional qualifications for the office of President that could be so easily be ignored with some simple political sleight-of-hand.

The 12th amendment, ratified during the time of founding father governance later changed the method for choosing the President and Vice President. Because the selection of the Vice President now became, for constitutional purposes, a separate affair, it the authors of the amendment stipulated that no person who was not eligible to be President could be selected to be Vice President. Here, the constitution still understands that the normal process of becoming President is through election directly to that office. The potential ascension of a Vice President to the office is understood to be a reserve backup plan in case the Presidency should become vacant through some emergency. There can be no doubt that at the time of the 12 amendment's ratification, the constitutional requirement was that any qualification to be elected President would also be a requirement to be elected Vice President. That requirement for the Vice Presidency becomes present in the constitution by no later than this time. The 12th amendment in its structure serves are as a wholesale replacement of the previous relevant portion of the constitution. It is not an addition, it is a change. If the recorded constitution were maintained as we do statutory law, the previously applying portion of Art 2, sec 1 would be eliminated, and the 12th amendment inserted in its place. This much is evident when we consider that there are portions of the 12th amendment that are mere repetitions of what is said in Art. 2 sec. 1. Where the 12th amendment merely an addition, such repetitions would not be necessary. Furthermore, the goal to be accomplished by the 12th amendment would not be attainable merely by adding new material to the constitution. A positive change of earlier material was logically required.

This leads us to consider whether the 22nd amendment removes that qualification for the Vice Presidency. The answer is that it does not. The 22nd amendment does not represent a change in the process set out by the 12th amendment. Instead, it represents an addition. This is evident from the fact that the amendment does not contain such repetitious material as is found in the 12th amendment. Instead, the 22nd amendment adds new material that becomes part of the constitution in conjunction with the 12th amendment, and the constitution's understanding of qualifications for the Vice Presidency under the 12th amendment, i.e. that a person not eligible to be elected President is neither eligible to be elected Vice President. Absent anything in the 22nd amendment that specifically removes this requirement for the Vice Presidency, the same is still in effect.

While this seems sufficient to defeat the notion that the 22nd amendment would allow a term limited President to become Vice President later, even if we entertain the notion that the 22nd amendment may have 'accidentally' affected the constitution's preexisting qualifications for the Vice Presidency, no subsequent analysis is able to bring us that all the same. If such a notion is to be entertained, than it cannot be denied that at the very least, the matter becomes ambiguous on its face, and we must now endeavor to consider the purposes and intent behind the ratification of the 22nd amendment.

Prior to the administration of FDR no President had ever served more than two terms. President Washington may have likely succeeded in being elected, however he explicitly refused nomination to a third term. After that, Presidents (like Jefferson) voluntarily declined to seek a third term in office. The writings of Jefferson and others indicate to us that clearly the founders considered the possibility of a President serving many terms in office to be repugnant. While a handful of Presidents would eventually attempt election to third terms, none were successful until Roosevelt, who died in office in his fourth term. It was Roosevelt's death in office that prompted the penning of the 22nd amendment, so that no person would ever again hold the office of President for however indefinite a time as he might so choose, limited by nothing more than his own political prowess. There can be no doubt that the intent of the 22nd amendment was in not in any way to remove the 12th amendment's requirement that only those eligible to be elected President could themselves be Vice President.

Wherefore, premises considered, inasmuch as the 12th amendment is recognized to have set the qualification that in order to be Vice President one must be constitutionally eligible to be elected President, and where the 22nd amendment does not contain any actual portion that removes this qualification, and cannot possibly be viewed as ever having had such an intent anyway, it is so concluded that that constitution via the 12th and 22nd amendments prohibits Bill Clinton from becoming Vice President.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

... constitution's understanding of qualifications for the Vice Presidency under the 12th amendment, i.e. that a person not eligible to be elected President is neither eligible to be elected Vice President.

But the 12th amendment does NOT say that a person not eligible to be ELECTED President isn't eligible to be ELECTED Vice President - it says a person not eligible to BE President isn't eligible to BE Vice President. And the 22nd makes no mention of any requirements to BE President - it only limits the number of times one may be ELECTED President. You are quite simply reading words that are not there in both amendments. The 22nd imposes no new qualifications on the office itself, only on the method by which one may become the officeholder.


The 12th reads (in part):

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

But you CLAIM it says:

But no person constitutionally ineligible to be elected to the office of President shall be eligible be elected to to that of Vice-President of the United States.

The 22nd reads (in part) :

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice...

but you claim it reads:

No person shall be President more than two terms...

Stop reading what isn't there. The office itself and the election to the office are NOT the same thing. The 22nd does not say anything about what the qualifications of the office are - it only limits the number of times one may be elected to the office.

 

[Inthemiddle]

But the 12th amendment does NOT say that a person not eligible to be ELECTED President isn't eligible to be ELECTED Vice President - it says a person not eligible to BE President isn't eligible to BE Vice President.

And I already explained that the constitution's understanding under the 12th amendment was that they were one in the same. Now stop being a flaming idiot. What the Hell is going on here? Are you Monica Lewinsky? Why are you so intent sucking Bill Clinton's penis? You're really that desperate to see him elected Vice President that you have to go on this reductio ad absurdum? ELECTED president or BE president, they're different ya know! *drool all over myself*

 

[Inthemiddle]

The office itself and the election to the office are NOT the same thing.

Only to a complete idiot. Congratulations, you're a complete idiot. The very idea that a person can be legally qualified to an elected post, despite not being legally qualified to actually be elected to the post is positively a destruction of the very essence of democracy that the framers enshrined in our constitution.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Based on what evidence? The only evidence presented in this thread so far is the words of the 22nd amendment. Should we presume without evidence the writers of this amendment intended something different than what they wrote?

And even if they did - what does it matter? The amendment was ratified based on the meaning of what it says - not based on its intent. Intent is only relevant when their is ambiguity in the literal meaning of the law. There is no ambiguity here - the 22nd is quite clear that the restriction is only elections - not total time served.

My comment was based on the historical nature of the Amendment, clearly focused on FDR's four elections, the majority in Congress and in 3/4 of the State Legislatures limited the office to twice being elected. You are correct, the literally meaning is "elected" not serving. My inference is the intent was for someone to hold the office for a period no longer than five years, 11 months and one day less then a full 12 months. Of course my inference is only that, not a clear or convincing argument in the law.

Well then they failed miserably because several Presidents since have served longer than "five years, 11 months and one day less then a full 12 months" ! The most recent to do so is President Bush, and Obama will exceed that provided he serves out at least half of his 2nd term.

The 22nd reads, "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 President more than once". Sorry, If that was not clear in my earlier post.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Bill Clinton could just lie under oath again when asked if he was president.

 

[Politico]

So you're just making up fantasy scenarios to waste bandwidth?

 

[percysunshine]

Great thread. The takeaway here is the OP is correct. A literal reading of the 22nd Amendment means President Clinton is not legally restricted from running for and serving in the office of VPOTUS, and assuming the job of President do to the death or incapacity of the President. Yet most of us understand the intent of the 22nd amendment is much different than it's literal meaning. Correct?

Hence, let's discuss the Second Amendment now that we understand the difference between intent and literal interpretation when any number of Constitutional questions arise.

Sure. Lose a debate...declare victory...go on to lose another debate...

Ever heard of the definition of insanity?

How about offering a critique of the reasoning and not a critique of me. In all honesty comments like yours are either the product of someone unable to offer a reasonable response, too lazy or dishonest.

You would first need reasoning in order to critique it. You only offered a blanket dismissal...in the face of overwhelming evidence.

by the way,..." lazy or dishonest" is a critique of a person, and is not a reason....chuckle

 

[Too Tall]

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 22nd amendment only restricts the number of times someone may be elected President, it does not restrict the number of years they may serve as President or Vice President. You may be elected twice - unless you have already served more than 2 years of another's term, in which case you may only be elected once.

Thus Hillary Clinton could run for President with Bill Clinton as her Vice President. If he had to serve more than 2 years of Hillary's term there is no problem as that fact occurs after his two elections to the office of President.

Slick Willie could get a crack at Hillarys' interns. They should go for it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And I already explained that the constitution's understanding under the 12th amendment was that they were one in the same.

The Constitution can understand something? It has a conscious? This is news to me. Also I didn't know the President and the Vice President were the same.

Now you're making no sense whatsoever.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The office itself and the election to the office are NOT the same thing.

Only to a complete idiot. Congratulations, you're a complete idiot. The very idea that a person can be legally qualified to an elected post, despite not being legally qualified to actually be elected to the post is positively a destruction of the very essence of democracy that the framers enshrined in our constitution.

If the framers of the 22nd had intended to restrict the number of years a person could be in office as President they wouldn't have written the 22nd amendent the way it is actually written.

Clearly they did NOT mean it to be a per se restriction on time. If you are elected to the office, resign immediately upon the beginning of your term - and then repeat your performance 4 years later - you no longer can be elected President even though you've served zero years as President. On the other hand you may hold the office by ascent any number of years. Even by your interpretation someone could ascend from the Vice Presidency to be President multiple times for any number of years.

 

[bayoubill]

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 22nd amendment only restricts the number of times someone may be elected President, it does not restrict the number of years they may serve as President or Vice President. You may be elected twice - unless you have already served more than 2 years of another's term, in which case you may only be elected once.

Thus Hillary Clinton could run for President with Bill Clinton as her Vice President. If he had to serve more than 2 years of Hillary's term there is no problem as that fact occurs after his two elections to the office of President.

some people in here have way too much time on their hands...

 

[Borillar]

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 22nd amendment only restricts the number of times someone may be elected President, it does not restrict the number of years they may serve as President or Vice President. You may be elected twice - unless you have already served more than 2 years of another's term, in which case you may only be elected once.

Thus Hillary Clinton could run for President with Bill Clinton as her Vice President. If he had to serve more than 2 years of Hillary's term there is no problem as that fact occurs after his two elections to the office of President.

First of all, the candidates for each office must come from different states. So that's out anyway.

Second, a Vice President Bill Clinton would never be certified by the Senate. He would be deemed constitutionally ineligible. While the wording of the amendment may be ambiguous, the clear and obvious intent was to limit the number of terms a President can serve. The constitution does not allow itself to be side stepped so easily as to position an otherwise ineligible candidate into a position where he or she would become President upon a simple act of political maneuvering, i.e. a President resigning on his or her first day in office to allow the VP to succeed to the office for which he was unable to be elected in his own right.

Didn't stop Bush / Cheney. Both were from Texas. Cheney claimed Wyoming as his residential State to get around that problem. Bill could claim Arkansas and Hillary could claim NY. But I do agree that Bill Clinton would not be eligible to be VP.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

My comment was based on the historical nature of the Amendment, clearly focused on FDR's four elections, the majority in Congress and in 3/4 of the State Legislatures limited the office to twice being elected. You are correct, the literally meaning is "elected" not serving. My inference is the intent was for someone to hold the office for a period no longer than five years, 11 months and one day less then a full 12 months. Of course my inference is only that, not a clear or convincing argument in the law.

Well then they failed miserably because several Presidents since have served longer than "five years, 11 months and one day less then a full 12 months" ! The most recent to do so is President Bush, and Obama will exceed that provided he serves out at least half of his 2nd term.

The 22nd reads, "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 President more than once". Sorry, If that was not clear in my earlier post.

"has held" is past tense. "shall be" is future tense. It means that no one who has previously served more than 2 years of another's term may be elected more than once. Obviously you can't retroactively restrict something that's already happened.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The 22nd amendment only restricts the number of times someone may be elected President, it does not restrict the number of years they may serve as President or Vice President. You may be elected twice - unless you have already served more than 2 years of another's term, in which case you may only be elected once.

Thus Hillary Clinton could run for President with Bill Clinton as her Vice President. If he had to serve more than 2 years of Hillary's term there is no problem as that fact occurs after his two elections to the office of President.

First of all, the candidates for each office must come from different states. So that's out anyway.

Second, a Vice President Bill Clinton would never be certified by the Senate. He would be deemed constitutionally ineligible. While the wording of the amendment may be ambiguous, the clear and obvious intent was to limit the number of terms a President can serve. The constitution does not allow itself to be side stepped so easily as to position an otherwise ineligible candidate into a position where he or she would become President upon a simple act of political maneuvering, i.e. a President resigning on his or her first day in office to allow the VP to succeed to the office for which he was unable to be elected in his own right.

Didn't stop Bush / Cheney. Both were from Texas. Cheney claimed Wyoming as his residential State to get around that problem. Bill could claim Arkansas and Hillary could claim NY. But I do agree that Bill Clinton would not be eligible to be VP.

There's nothing in the words of the Constitution that says otherwise. THe 22nd doesn't alter eligibility for the office, it merely restricts elections.