Is Bill Clinton Eligible?

[LazerFlash]

My father brought up an interesting - albeit unlikely - scenario this weekend...

A group of us were chatting about the current 'triumvirate': Obama, Clinton and McCain. During that conversation, my father raised the possibility that Bill really wants to be President for another term and could do it if Hillary were to actually win the nomination, appoint him as her running mate, win the General Election and then resign... leaving Bill as President. Aside from the unlikelihood of any part of his fantasy actually happening, we all thought that the Constitution would prohibit it. I remember from High School Civics class that no person ineligible to hold the office of President can be a candidate for Vice President. My initial presumption was that the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution prohibited more than two Presidential terms - making Bill an ineligible person. However, after actually reading the text of the 22nd Amendment, I'm not so sure anymore. What appears to be prohibited is the ELECTION of a person to more than two terms as President or one election following completion of more than two years of a non-elected term. No where does it actually say that a former two-term President cannot be Vice President and then take over for a sitting President.

What have I missed? Is this fantasy - as unlikely as it is to happen - at least feasible?

[Kensey]

During that conversation, my father raised the possibility that Bill really wants to be President for another term and could do it if Hillary were to actually win the nomination, appoint him as her running mate, win the General Election and then resign... leaving Bill as President.... What have I missed? Is this fantasy - as unlikely as it is to happen - at least feasible?

It depends on how literal you want to be. In a strictly literal interpretation, which depends on the difference between holding the office and being elected to it, yes, he can become President in exactly that way. But many people, including Clinton himself (http://www.presidentelect.org/art_preztoveep.html), believe that would violate the spirit of the 22nd Amendment.

One way to reconcile the two views might be to say that the VP is being elected President, but a President in reserve. Since the VP occasionally acts as President without necessarily actually succeeding to the Presidency, you could argue that the two titles are really aspects of the same office.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

You know, since his term has lapsed, he probably could legally run for President again, can't he? Does it limit it to more than 2 terms period, or more than 2 consecutive terms?

[kconant]

You know, since his term has lapsed, he probably could legally run for President again, can't he? Does it limit it to more than 2 terms period, or more than 2 consecutive terms?

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.

[Maewings]

Can I throw in a stupid question in here? I should be ashamed of myself for not reading up on this....well, I did try, but there's wayyy too much information on the net to find what I'm looking for.

Are the rules to be a President include having military experience? If so, what military experience does Obama have?

This type of stuff I bathed in when I was in middle school....I don't know anything anymore. I knew the Constitution like the back of my hand. I knew all the cabinets and what they stood for...shoot....where did all that go? :o

[LazerFlash]

Can I throw in a stupid question in here?Contrary to some posts you might find on here, there really are no stupid questions - assuming they are genuine in nature. ;)
Are the rules to be a President include having military experience?Military experience is not a requirement to be President or Vice President of the United States.
If so, what military experience does Obama have?I believe that Mr. Obama's only military experience is as a member of the Senate's Veterans' Affairs Committee. :)

[Maewings]

. ;)Military experience is not a requirement to be President or Vice President of the United States.. :)

Yikes!!! Really??? Oh myyyyy....how in the world can a President be "commander in chief" if he's never been one? Oh, we're doomed.

[JiveTurkey]

how in the world can a President be "commander in chief" if he's never been one?
Exactly....

[LazerFlash]

Military experience is not a requirement to be President or Vice President of the United States.Yikes!!! Really??? Oh myyyyy....how in the world can a President be "commander in chief" if he's never been one? Oh, we're doomed.Although many of our early Presidents had some form of military experience, I actually believe that it was the intent of our Founding Fathers to prevent military dictatorships as they had seen in several European countries of their era. Remember... GENERAL Washington wanted no part of being the first 'king' of the United States of America.

[derricksonb]

The topic of this thread has come up in many discussions I've had over the past several years leading up to and well before Hillary formally entered the 2008 election. Could Hillary run for President with Bill as her VP running mate? I know that I have read the amendment and it is clear as mud that no former POTUS can hold a position that may lead to him being sworn in for a third term as POTUS. But these are the Clintons and if there ever was a couple of politicians who were more readily equipped to challenge and change the laws outlined in the constitution to suit their own interests this is the one. Although I think she'd be out of her mind not to go with Obama as a running mate and vice-a-versa, but there's a small part of me that selfishly wants another 4 years of Bill Clinton in the White House....

[Chutney Daftcraft]

But these are the Clintons and if there ever was a couple of politicians who were more readily equipped to challenge and change the laws outlined in the constitution to suit their own interests this is the one.

Y'all are so afraid of these Clintons. Not so much you as other people.

It kinda makes the whole Chicken Little thing come to mind.

[LazerFlash]

Y'all are so afraid of these Clintons. Not so much you as other people.On the one hand, I'm not terribly opposed to another 4-8 years of the Clintons - at least with them, you know what you're getting before they get (back) into the Oval Office. :cool:

On the other hand, it sort of would be nice to have something different (Obama). But, when you look at his relative (in)experience, how much different *would* his administration be than the almost 8 years of the inept adviser-led ignorance we're in now? ;)

On the other hand, McCain sort of blends the two (I know, I know, not perfectly, but close enough). On the other hand, the historic potential of a Clinton-Clinton ticket certainly blows the historic potential of Mr. Obama right out of the water, doesn't it? :eek:

Which brings me back to the start of this thread - is there anything that would concretely prevent Hillary Clinton from choosing Bill as her running mate, and should they win, her stepping aside to allow him a third term? :confused: As DsB said, it's about as clear as mud. I can certainly see the Repubs suing the Dems over that choice of tickets... which just might backfire on them.

[Starbuck]

I hate that "inexperienced" argument where Obama is concerned. What constitutes "experience" as far as being president is concerned. With many ohter jobs, "experience" is defined as the number of years you've held a similar position...well, there is no similar position. I don't think a governorship is quite the same thing, and since you have to be a US citizen, it's not like a head of state from another country could come over here and run (I can see it now...Fidel for President...:rotfl:)

As far as that goes, we can only hope that Obama will NOT follow in the current administration's footsteps of having advisors make recommendation and then doing whatever God tells you to do. :rolleyes: This has done us so much good these past eight years.

One would hope that Obama would hire qualified advisors with expertise in the necessary fields, and that he would listen to them. Which is really all you can hope for out of any president...because I don't know anyone who is an expert at all things necessary to lead a country.

And you bet Republicans would sue over a Clinton-Clinton ticket. They proved their willingness to go to court for their own best interests in 2000. :D

[LazerFlash]

I hate that "inexperienced" argument where Obama is concerned.I don't necessarily disagree with you, SB. No President does it all in a vacuum. The issue (in my mind) is less about experience AS President and more about national/international experience in general. There's no arguing that he is a bright man, with lots of good ideas. The 'experience' problem is that he just hasn't been exposed to enough of the kinds of situations that would give him a leg up over someone who has been around a bit longer. He is continually compared to JFK; but at the same age, JFK already had a ton of more life and political experiences than Obama.

FWIW, I think he would make a decent President even with his relative inexperience. One of the knocks against "W" from the beginning was that while he *may* be bright, he sure doesn't project intelligence and he never really has.

[JiveTurkey]

One of the knocks against "W" from the beginning was that while he *may* be bright, he sure doesn't project intelligence and he never really has.
"nuke-you-lar" weapons comes to mind.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

The Republicans are just pissed that they cannot dig up any dirt on Obama to smear all over the airwaves.

That's what it really is. So, they revert to "no experience". There simply isn't anything to distort about him.

[Starbuck]

The Republicans are just pissed that they cannot dig up any dirt on Obama to smear all over the airwaves.

That's what it really is. So, they revert to "no experience". There simply isn't anything to distort about him.

But didn't you see the photo (http://www.drudgereport.com/flashoa.htm)?!?!

The Republicans are just pissed that they didn't leak it first!

[Kensey]

The Republicans are just pissed that they cannot dig up any dirt on Obama to smear all over the airwaves.

That's what it really is. So, they revert to "no experience". There simply isn't anything to distort about him.

Don't you believe it. The smear campaign has actually begun (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Feb23.html), to paraphrase a patriot known for sounding his own alarms, and it's all about Obama's childhood in Indonesia, where he attended a Muslim school and may or may not have occasionally prayed at a mosque. Depending on the version you hear, this means he doesn't share traditional American values, has been indoctrinated into radical Muslim thought, and/or is part of an active conspiracy to infiltrate radical Islam into the US government and bring down America from inside.

[Maewings]

Although many of our early Presidents had some form of military experience, I actually believe that it was the intent of our Founding Fathers to prevent military dictatorships as they had seen in several European countries of their era. Remember... GENERAL Washington wanted no part of being the first 'king' of the United States of America.

I remember Robert E. Lee not liking his job too well, either.

[Maewings]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, SB. No President does it all in a vacuum. The issue (in my mind) is less about experience AS President and more about national/international experience in general. There's no arguing that he is a bright man, with lots of good ideas. The 'experience' problem is that he just hasn't been exposed to enough of the kinds of situations that would give him a leg up over someone who has been around a bit longer. He is continually compared to JFK; but at the same age, JFK already had a ton of more life and political experiences than Obama.

Let me apologize for bringing up the "experience" issue. But, if someone is going to say "bring the troops home", they better have a pretty good explanation as to what they're going to do when the Americans are another target for another terrorist attack on our soil. :cool:

[Maewings]

The Republicans are just pissed that they cannot dig up any dirt on Obama to smear all over the airwaves.

That's what it really is. So, they revert to "no experience". There simply isn't anything to distort about him.

Are they saying that? See, I don't know. I'm only watching the debates and seeing what this man has to say. I've not "heard" him say that he had any military experience and was wondering how he could possibly be a commander in chief when all heck breaks loose - some Americans might be a little fearful of him and his decisions, that's all.

[Nanuk]

The Republicans are just pissed that they cannot dig up any dirt on Obama to smear all over the airwaves.



Oh really? You KNOW Republicans that are "all pissed", or even seeking dirt on Obama? And how about Dems that doing it, like Hillary, who is doing it over and over again. Or is that ok since it's covered under your "All GOP bad, All Dems good" double standard? And City, I haven't heard you condemning your favorite on-line partisan source, the New York Times, for it's badly-botched attack on McCain with that rumor they tried to spread about him and that female lobbyist. Hell, even less-partisan Dems like Susan Estrich (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332150,00.html) are speaking out against the Times for that low blow. So unless you're going to just stick to the claim that only the GOP puts out dirt on people, I'm going to have to ask you to be a little more balanced and honest in your outrage.


That said, neither Obama nor Hillary has any relevant experience, and by "experience", I mean a demonstrated track record in similar positions by which we can all see how they've handled crises, dealt with controversy, and shown what their policies are. Both have served a little more than a single term in the Senate and that's pretty much it. Being Bill's spurned wife really doesn't give Hillary anything else to put on her resume even if she used that to ride into a senate seat in a state that she'd never lived in. People don't want an unknown and both of these are just that.

McCain has a long history that translates into considerable experience. Sadly it doesn't reflect well on him, at least from my point of view.

Nader '08.

[Maewings]

How about Senator Byrd? I just read that he's third in line for the Presidency.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23360150

[JiveTurkey]

How about Senator Byrd? I just read that he's third in line for the Presidency.


scary stuff right there.

[derricksonb]

How about Senator Byrd? I just read that he's third in line for the Presidency.

I've actually used that Scenario before where he's actually the fourth in line.

Let's say Hillary gets elected with Obama as running mate. Some whack job who can't stand the thought of a woman in office or another four years of any Clinton in office takes her out during the inauguration making Obama President. That dog won't hunt because too many americans (rednecks.. coughcough)are fearful of a black man in office. He gets taken out and Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House) is moved up the chain and assumes the role of President. The same idiots who don't want a woman in office, especially one who makes Hillary look sane, will make short work of her tenure leaving Robert C. Byrd as the next Predisent of the United States. He of course will be assassinated by Rainbow Coalition supporters or Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton themselves.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

OK, nanuk, so it's perfectly OK to have all your "relevant experience records" sealed up before you run for president and make them unavailable for any review, but to have a lack of a record is not OK.

WTF?

[Nanuk]

OK, nanuk, so it's perfectly OK to have all your "relevant experience records" sealed up before you run for president and make them unavailable for any review, but to have a lack of a record is not OK.

WTF?


I assume that you're speaking of Hillary "No, you cannot see my tax records", or John "I will not release my military records" Kerry, right?

I'm not aware of anyone else who has sealed any or all of their records, however I'm sure that you'll respond with some claim of a Republican somewhere who has, and that's the only one that you'll be upset about. Am I right?

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Not really. If one wants to apply to us for the job of running our country, we need to be able to review them. Think of it like the ultimate babysitter's job with a needed background check...

Hillary's tax records are apples and oranges, as one doesn't usually contact the IRS while conductiong a routine background check. However, her sealing them up lends some credit to those that say she has something to hide. She'll pay for that.

John Kerry - well, he made a bad decision there, too. Did he outright lie? I doubt it, but he probably made his record sound better than it was, and with the swift boat trashers on the scene, I can understand why he didn't put them up for their review. However, it cost him the election so that's your answer.

President Bush sealed his records as Governor in anticipation of his White House Run. He did. So, while he had the job reference, you couldn't call to see what kind of employee he was. But, he got away with it, and I'm sure you are happy about that.

But you're upset that someone lacks experience, meanwhile any experience from your President there could not be verified, or even queried at the time, really. So, to you, you'd rather have a republican who his his record than anyone else who doesn't have a record that requires hiding. And you call me partisan...

[Nanuk]

President Bush sealed his records as Governor in anticipation of his White House Run. He did. So, while he had the job reference, you couldn't call to see what kind of employee he was. But, he got away with it, and I'm sure you are happy about that.

But you're upset that someone lacks experience, meanwhile any experience from your President there could not be verified, or even queried at the time, really. So, to you, you'd rather have a republican who his his record than anyone else who doesn't have a record that requires hiding. And you call me partisan...


WTF are you talking about? How did Bush seal his public record as Governor? He served for two terms and everything he did--every single thing--is a matter of public record. When he passed executive orders, appointed people, signed or vetoed legislation...every bit of it took place in the public eye and was reported on by the media as well as recorded in the legislature. Please tell us all one thing that he sealed and kept from public view. How was his experience as Governor "unable to be verified"? Are you suggesting that perhaps he was never a Governor? Every position he ever took on any issue was available for anyone and everyone to consider while he ran for President.

Come on now...don't be silliy.

[Felix]

Does anyone really believe if Hillary wins the Presidency that she would step aside to let her philandering husband be President again? Hell, she barely kept herself from taking over last time. I'm mostly glas that her campaign is in the pooper. I don't think I can watch her on TV much more.

[LeoTheLion]

Felix...think again....RI...OH...oh, and can she seat the FL and MI delegates at the convention? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Girlfriend can do it herself!

IF she wants, can she have him be her VP? Now THAT would be a DREAM TICKET for me!

Either that, OR...he can play sax at her fundraising parties for when she kicks McCain's A - my FATHER who is WAY conservative, and HATES THE CLINTONS (used to call them socialists...now that's Obama's title in my Dad's eyes) said that if he had to choose between McCain and Clinton, he would vote CLINTON!!! (if it were McCain v. Obama - McCAIN or he would kill himself)

[Nanuk]

Felix...think again....RI...OH...oh, and can she seat the FL and MI delegates at the convention? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Girlfriend can do it herself!


Newsweek thinks not. (http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240)

[LeoTheLion]

Newsweek can bite me. :D

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Sweet. Even if the woman wins, she still loses. I love it!

Hopefully this ensures that men will make more money than women for YEARS to come. We certainly don't need the threat of apron strings controlling this country.