Home
| Blogs
Clubs/Civic Organizations
Entertainment
Family
General
Health
Nightlife
Pets
Places of Worship
Politics
SCV Theater
Sports
Traffic
Write a Blog ...
| Events
Clubs/Civic Organizations
College/Pro Sports
Entertainment
Family
General
Health
Nightlife
Pets
Places of Worship
Politics
Prep Sports
SCV Theater
Singles
Youth Sports
Post an Event ...
| Gallery
Clubs/Civic Organizations
College/Pro Sports
Entertainment
Family
General
Health
Nightlife
Pets
Places of Worship
Politics
Prep Sports
SCV Theater
Youth Sports
Create an Album ...
| Search
Users
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Comments
| Suggestions
| Register
| Login
| Help
Far-fetched, you say?
Impossible, I hear?
Did someone say never in a million years?
Hold your horses - it's "possible" ... if you take a literal interpretation of the 22nd Amendment.
As with anything legal, very little is truly absolute. A law without a loophole is like having a child who never dirties his or her pampers.
Can Bill Clinton run for President? As any good lawyer would say, it depends.
On the one hand, we have the 12th Amendment. It says:
"[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
On the other hand, we have the 22nd Amendment, which states:
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice ...."
Clinton was elected twice, meaning he is ineligible to run for President under the 22nd Amendment.
Does that also make him ineligible under the 12th Amendment?
One argument says the answer is yes. If he cannot run for president, then he cannot run for Vice-President. The requirements for both offices are theoretically the same.
Yet another argument says the answer is no, playing on the word "elected."
A literal interpretation says that Clinton is ineligible to be a candidate for the Presidency, though that does not mean he cannot SERVE as President.
This would be the loophole around the 12th and 22nd Amendments.
The 22nd Amendment only prohibits being ELECTED twice to the White House. It does not limit being elected to the Vice-Presidency.
So, if Bill Clinton is elected Vice-President, and Hillary Clinton (presumably) is elected President yet somehow incapacitated (i.e. dead or otherwise unable to function), then Billy could elevate to No. 1. After all, he wasn't "elected" to the Presidency, which is all the 22nd Amendment appears to prohibit.
The real question, beyond literal translation, is whether "eligible" means "elected."
Or, in constitutional terms, does "constitutionally barred from being elected U.S. President" mean the same as "constitutionally barred from being eligible for the Presidency."
Again, there is no definitive answer, other than he absolutely cannot be elected to a third term without repealing the 22nd Amendment.
Yet, one thing I do know for sure:
While Bill Clinton is not eligible to run for election to the Presidency, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush (aka the first George), are still eligible to run for President.
Latest Activity: Jun 16, 2008 at 12:34 PM
I think there are several factors why this won't happen, even though it's a possibility, as there would be several lawsuits alleging that Bill cannot run because he was already president. Many people aren't aware of the legal interpretations.
I do not believe in term limits. Limit terms by democratic means. For example, Governor Brown was denied a third term and Mayor Yorty was denied a fourth term by the voters. Term limitation means that the voters are not qualified to determine when to re-elect an incumbent or to defeat one. If this is true, then why have any democracy or any election? If voters cannot be trusted on this issue, then they cannot be trusted on any issue.
You raise a valid point. A very valid point.
I'd like to say that the spirit of term limits is to prevent a monarchy-like rule. Yet, if the voters want someone to stay in office a long time, then so be it, right?
It would make sense, if the public speaks to maintain the status quo, and the public continues to vote that way, then that is true democracy. Philosophically, I see nothing wrong with that.
I think the other issue, though, is trusting the politician. Can we trust the politician to not take advantage of a system with no term-limits?
What are your thoughts on that?
I would say that it is not an easy thing for a politician to take advantage of a system with no term-limits. For example, former President Ulysses Simpson Grant ran for a third term in 1880 and was the front runner for the Republican presidential nomination. This was after two terms of the most corrupt administration in United States history up to that time. He led on the first ballot and secured every single Stalwart vote. However, he failed to secure the votes of the Half-Breeds and the Reformers. The convention deadlocked and Grant lost to a dark-horse compromise candidate.
Former President Theodore Roosevelt also ran for a third term. However, the Progressives were divided between him and Robert LaFollette. The conservatives were united behind a single candidate, William Howard Taft, who won the Republican presidential nomination. Teddy then ran as a third-party candidate on the Progressive Party ticket. This time, he divided the Republican vote between himself and Taft. The Democrats were united behind a single candidate, Woodrow Wilson, who won the election.
Log In to post comments.
