freeflybella 0 #1 June 20, 2004 On cspan this morning discussing his book. What a great speaker. Refreshing. Anyway, this question came up last night over dinner and no one knew the answer. Could Kerry have Clinton as his running mate? If he did, how would that change your vote, if at all? Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #2 June 20, 2004 If he could, it would change my vote, not to Bush or Nader, I'd have to find someone else. I liked a lot of Clinton's policies and his domestic agenda. But if Kerry did choose Bill Clinton, I'd have to question his sanity. That's almost as bad as Admiral whoever that was Perot's running mate. If you didn't know Perot was a crack pot by that point, that choice sure as hell proved it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflybella 0 #3 June 20, 2004 But legally, can Clinton 'run' for VP? And to address your post, does that mean if Clinton were able to run for president against Bush right now, you wouldn't vote for him? Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #4 June 20, 2004 Good way to bring the white house semen soppers out of retirement.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflybella 0 #5 June 20, 2004 Not one, but two recent BJ/white references out of you lately! Maybe I think there should be MORE BJs going to world leaders - wouldn't it likely stop alot of you buggers from going to war? Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #6 June 20, 2004 QuoteBut legally, can Clinton 'run' for VP? Of course not. Don't be silly. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflybella 0 #7 June 20, 2004 Wasn't tryin' to be. Care to elaborate for purely educational purposes? (Geez, suddenly I feel like I'm showing how stupid I am.) Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #8 June 20, 2004 QuoteCare to elaborate for purely educational purposes? The 12th amendment of the US Constitution specifically says that “…But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #9 June 20, 2004 This is actually still an issue up for debate... While the 12th ammendment does hold that a vp must also be eligible for the presidency, the 22 ammendment is probably the source of Clinton's ineligibility which you are implying. However, you may be making an erroneous interpretation of the 22nd, which reads: QuoteAmendment 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. 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. Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress. It seems that rather than being ineligible to serve as President, he is only ineligible to be elected. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #10 June 20, 2004 But here's a hypothetical scenario. It's almost impossible, but what if..... Bill Clinton became Speaker of the House and a year later the Vice President and President both die at the same time. Would Bill Clinton be eligible to become the President since the SOTH is next in line for succession? The 22nd Amendment states that no one can be elected more than twice. Technically he would be placed in as the President. Not likely to ever happen but interesting none the less. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #11 June 20, 2004 Not to argue, but respectfully, it's not really a debatable subject. The 22nd Amendment and the 12th are totally seperate. The 12th Amendment says he is ineligible, so the 22nd would not even come into play. There are many requirements to become President. Just because you meet one of those requirements doesn't mean you become eligible for all the others when in fact you're not. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #12 June 20, 2004 Explain how under the auspices of the 12th amendment that Bill Clinton is ineligible for the office of President and therefore ineligible for the office of VP. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #13 June 20, 2004 QuoteIt seems that rather than being ineligible to serve as President, he is only ineligible to be elected. Correct. He can serve, just not be elected. However he cannot run as anyone's VP because of the 12th Amendment. Read the scenario I posted a post or two up. That would be a scenario where he could possibly be President again. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #14 June 20, 2004 QuoteExplain how under the auspices of the 12th amendment that Bill Clinton is ineligible for the office of President - He's ineligible to be elected as President per the 22nd Amendment. - He's ineligible to run for VP for anyone per the 12th Amendment. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #15 June 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt seems that rather than being ineligible to serve as President, he is only ineligible to be elected. Correct. He can serve, just not be elected. However he cannot run as anyone's VP because of the 12th Amendment. Read the scenario I posted a post or two up. That would be a scenario where he could possibly be President again. I read your scenario and agree that is a case where Bill could serve as President again. However, I disagree with your interpretation of the 12th amendment, particularly if you take it out of the context of a relationship with the twenty-second amendment. Bill is by no means ineligible to serve in the office of President. He meets all citizenship and age requirements (probably what they were concerned with when they wrote the 12th). The only possible cause of his ineligibility would be the 22nd amendment but it is fairly clear that it applies to his being elected, not serving as, President. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #16 June 20, 2004 That says he can't run as VP if he is constitutionally inelegible to be POTUS. But he's not ineligible to BE the POTUS. He's ineligible to run for that office. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #17 June 20, 2004 Correct. That's what I said. Not being sarcastic, but I'm not sure of the point of your post. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #18 June 20, 2004 You're over-analyzing this too hard. It's pretty simple. 1. Clinton is ineligible to run for VP per the 12th Amendment. 2. Clinton is ineligible to be elected to office per the 22nd Amendment. The only possible way I can think of at this time would be the scenario I posed earlier. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #19 June 20, 2004 QuoteYou're over-analyzing this too hard. It's pretty simple. 1. Clinton is ineligible to run for VP per the 12th Amendment. The only thing the 12th amendment says about ineligibility to be VP is: Quote But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. But we've already agreed that Clinton isn't ineligible for the office, only being elected to it. Therefore, there remains no other reason in the 12th amendment that would prevent Clinton from either running for or being appointed VP in the case of one's unfortunate demise. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #20 June 20, 2004 Sigh. This is more difficult than training my dog to roll over. One last time, then I'm done trying to make you understand black and white print. - Clinton is ineligible to run for VP per the 12th Amendment. - Clinton is ineligible to be elected to the Presidency. You keep getting hung up on the fact that he should be eligible per the 12th Amendment because of a loophole in the 22nd Amendment that says technically Clinto is eligible. But what you keep ignoring is it says he can only be President if he is placed in office...not elected. Forget it. He can't be a VP. I have never seen people argue and twist words so much in my life as I have seen on dz.com. Relax, people. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #21 June 20, 2004 I'm the one twisting words and arguing... all I'm asking for is a simple explanation of why Clinton is ineligible under the 12th amendment to run for VP. The one sentence you've quoted says he can't be VP if he can't be President (or at least that's how it reads to me). If you care to elaborate further, provdie some more quotes, or at least attempt to explain your logic for declaring his ineligibility, fine, if not, please quit implying that I'm the one that's thickheaded. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #22 June 20, 2004 QuoteI'm the one twisting words and arguing Yes, we know. That's why it's pointless to go on trying to get you to understand something that is simple and printed in black and white. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #23 June 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteI'm the one twisting words and arguing Yes, we know. That's why it's pointless to go on trying to get you to understand something that is simple and printed in black and white. I'll just go back to what I originally said, which is that the issue is debatable. Yes yes, Tuna, we know it's all black and white to you, but, in actuality, if such a question were to arrise (like if Kerry actually tried to have Clinton run with im) then there would be much debate. The courts, the Supreme Court would probably decide. So you see, even when it's right there in the Constitution in "black and white", it's still open to interpretation, and yes, debate. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #24 June 20, 2004 He can't run as VP. Period. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #25 June 20, 2004 QuoteHe can't run as VP. Period. A quick round of applause for Chief Justice Tuna! Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
