Republican Nightmare?

[DaddyBoyAU 119]

Don't usually visit the political forum, but I thought y'all might get a kick out of this... The Next Best Thing to Being President

The guy is serious.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

I could not read the article, as I am NOT going to register for the Left York Times... so I don't know if it mentions what I am about to say.

I could be wrong on this, but I am pretty sure that Bill Clinton could not be anyone's VP candidate, because the US Constitution prohibits any one person from serving more than two terms as President, consecutive or otherwise. If Bill was VP, there is always a chance that he could become President if something happened, and that would be unconstitutional.

So while this may be a libbie wet dream, I am pretty sure it will stay just that, a dream.

[DaddyBoyAU 119]

I could be wrong on this, but I am pretty sure that Bill Clinton could not be anyone's VP candidate, because the US Constitution prohibits any one person from serving more than two terms as President, consecutive or otherwise.

He explains that...

Here's the text of the article so you won't have to subscribe:

The Next Best Thing to Being President

By STEPHEN GILLERS

Published: March 3, 2004

With John Edwards's decision to quit the race, expected to be announced officially today, John Kerry's nomination as the Democratic candidate for president is secure. Speculation about his choice for vice president can now begin in earnest.

Mr. Edwards himself is an obvious choice: a skilled campaigner, he would also attract Southern voters. Other possibilities include Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana and Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who have both regional appeal and executive experience, and dark-horse candidates like former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia.

Amid this conjecture, however, one name is conspicuously absent: Bill Clinton.

Mr. Clinton's strengths would compensate for Mr. Kerry's weaknesses almost perfectly. Not only is Mr. Clinton the most talented campaigner of his generation, but he is also a Southerner — and since 1948, when Harry S. Truman chose Senator Alben Barkley of Kentucky as his running mate, every successful Democratic ticket has included a Southern politician.

Besides, people might even pay to watch Bill Clinton debate Dick Cheney. So why not?

The first objection, the constitutional one, can be disposed of easily. The Constitution does not prevent Mr. Clinton from running for vice president. The 22nd Amendment, which became effective in 1951, begins: "No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice."

No problem. Bill Clinton would be running for vice president, not president. Scholars and judges can debate how loosely constitutional language should be interpreted, but one need not be a strict constructionist to find this language clear beyond dispute. Bill Clinton cannot be elected president, but nothing stops him from being elected vice president.

True, if Mr. Clinton were vice president he would be in line for the presidency. But Mr. Clinton would succeed Mr. Kerry not by election, which the amendment forbids, but through Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which provides that if a president dies, resigns or is removed from office, his powers "shall devolve on the vice president." The 22nd Amendment would not prevent this succession.

So much for the constitutional obstacles. The political ones may be more formidable. They can be summarized in two questions: would Mr. Clinton want the job; and would Mr. Kerry want him to take it? We won't know until we ask, of course. But before asking, we might cite some reasons for both men to consider a Kerry-Clinton ticket seriously.

For Mr. Clinton, the appeal of the vice presidency is both political and personal. First, he could help his party win. Yes, Mr. Clinton remains a divisive figure in American politics — but not so much among Democrats. And surely many voters long for the strong economy and economic stewardship that was one of the hallmarks of his administration.

Second, he could burnish his legacy. In exchange for joining the ticket, Mr. Clinton could negotiate for plum assignments as vice president. Mideast peace? National health care? Racial equality? He could focus on any or all of them. And from a purely personal standpoint, it might be especially gratifying for Mr. Clinton to be part of the team that defeats the man who four years ago promised to restore "character" to Mr. Clinton's own White House.

The only remaining question, then, is what John Kerry thinks of all this. Judging from recent debates, there's little chemistry between Senators Kerry and Edwards, although Mr. Edwards's graceful withdrawal may help ease tensions between them. But Mr. Kerry and Mr. Clinton would seem to have much in common; they are nearly the same age, worked with each other in Washington for almost a decade and have a shared interest in foreign affairs.

For Senator Kerry, the question may well come down to whether adding Mr. Clinton to the ticket would appreciably increase his chances of victory. A couple of polls should give him the answer fast enough. If the results are good, the course is clear: bring him on.

Stephen Gillers is a professor of law at New York University.

[rexbo 104]

He has already been VP for 8 years, I guess he couldn't get enough of the job...

[Tiger in Spain 0]

He has already been VP for 8 years, I guess he couldn't get enough of the job...

Amen brother. Seriously though, Slick Willy is too power hungry to play second fiddle to any one man (except Hillary).

[Tigermike 3,425]

Bill Clinton wouldn't take the pay cut to be VP. Besides the Clinton's have higher ambitions than VP and that would be Hillary for POTUS in 2008.

Political strategist Dick Morris has stated the 527s have another purpose as well: they act as a party-in-exile for the Clintons. In a FrontPage Magazine column, Morris suggested the Clintons were funneling money into these start-ups, which could provide campaign support to favored candidates (e.g., Hillary in 2008), in the event they lose the formal party machinery. (Current DNC Chairman Terry MacAuliffe was handpicked by Bill Clinton and has demonstrated impeccable loyalty.) This may explain the large numbers of Clinton functionaries active in 527s. Minyon Moore is on the Executive Committee of ACT. Moore is Clinton’s former political director and assistant, as well an ex-DNC officer. ACT President Ellen Malcolm joined with Clinton aide Harold Ickes to form the Media Fund, another 527 organization that seeks to purchase “issue advocacy” ads attacking President Bush near election-time.

The organization most clearly tied to the Clintons, however, is the Center for American Progress, headed by former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta. CAP is a think tank meant to rival the Heritage Foundation. Like Heritage, CAP intends to lay the ideological basis for left-wing legislation, as well as provide a philosophical opposition to Bush administration proposals. George Soros has set aside $3 million for the Center.

LINK

[Jenny AU-92 0]

The first objection, the constitutional one, can be disposed of easily. The Constitution does not prevent Mr. Clinton from running for vice president. The 22nd Amendment, which became effective in 1951, begins: "No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice."

No problem. Bill Clinton would be running for vice president, not president. Scholars and judges can debate how loosely constitutional language should be interpreted, but one need not be a strict constructionist to find this language clear beyond dispute. Bill Clinton cannot be elected president, but nothing stops him from being elected vice president.

True, if Mr. Clinton were vice president he would be in line for the presidency. But Mr. Clinton would succeed Mr. Kerry not by election, which the amendment forbids, but through Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which provides that if a president dies, resigns or is removed from office, his powers "shall devolve on the vice president." The 22nd Amendment would not prevent this succession.

I TOTALLY disagree with this guy's interpretation - why wouldn't the 22nd Amendment conflict with Article II, Section 1? To say that Clinton was elected as VP not Pres is splitting semantical hairs. To create a situation, even in a roundabout manner, that clearly would conflict with the specific written intent of the Constitution is just wrong.

But isn't that the libbie way - re-interpret the Constitution until it is warped enough to suit their purposes? :roll:

[channonc 466]

Why are you all getting your pants in a bundle over something that is purely hypothetical and not likely to happen?

[WarTim 3,463]

I would LOVe to see slickus maximus run as vp.

GWB would REALLY win BIG ! ! ! ! ! !

[rexbo 104]

I TOTALLY disagree with this guy's interpretation - why wouldn't the 22nd Amendment conflict with Article II, Section 1?

On second thought, I think I agree with Jenny (as I always do in the end). This interpretation could easily be used by someone to get themselves a 3rd term. Just run as VP on the 3rd try, with the agreement that the 'Presidential' candidate would resign after the 1st day. (And was used similarly by George and Lurleen Wallace, so don't say it couldn't happen.)

On third thought, maybe we can have Cheney run in 2008, with Bush as VP, and then have Cheney resign for medical reasons!!! Let's go for it!!!

[Tiger Al 0]

Although this is purely hypothetical, think back in history for a moment. The 22nd amendment was ratified February 27, 1951. When Kennedy was assasinated in 1963, Johnson took over. He was elected in 1964 and took office in January of 1965. Remember what he said in early 1968? "...I shall not seek, and I will not accept the nomination of my party for another term as your president." While this doesn't prove the constitutionality of it, he seemed to think that running in 1968 was an option.

Something to consider.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Although this is purely hypothetical, think back in history for a moment. The 22nd amendment was ratified February 27, 1951. When Kennedy was assasinated in 1963, Johnson took over. He was elected in 1964 and took office in January of 1965. Remember what he said in early 1968? "...I shall not seek, and I will not accept the nomination of my party for another term as your president." While this doesn't prove the constitutionality of it, he seemed to think that running in 1968 was an option.

Something to consider.

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.

It was an option - he did not complete more than two years of Kennedy's term.