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

[percysunshine]

We have devolved into admitting that anyone would be better than Obama.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Read the 12th again...."But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." Bill Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to be elected to the office of President.

He's over 35 and a natural born citizen. So no, he's NOT ineligible to the office of President.

He is ineligible to the office through election. That is an ineligibility.

So, since under the 22nd he is constitutionally ineligible to be President through election

The 22nd amendment does not say anything about eligibility to the office, it only places restrictions on the number of times one may be ELECTED to the office. You're reading something that is not there.

If he is inelgible to be elected, that is an ineligibility.

No, its not. There is no language in the 22nd that says anything about eligibility to the office. You're just making stuff up.

So because Clinton has ONE ineligibility to become President...

There's no such thing as "eligibility to become President" - there is only "eligibility to the OFFICE" or not. The only restrictions on eligibility to the OFFICE are that one must be 35 or older and a natural born citizen. You are making up language that isn't there.

Therefore, under the 12th ammendment since has at least one way that he is ineligible to the Presidency, he is ineligible to the Vice-Presidency as well.

That's not what the 12th says. It says anyone ineligible to the OFFICE of President may not be Vice President, it says nothing about "ineligibility to be elected" President nor does it state that ineligibility to be elected is the same as ineligibility to the office. You're just making that up - it isn't there.

The 22nd amendment imposes no qualifications on who may hold the office of President, it only imposes restrictions on how one may become President. Clearly, Clinton (or W Bush) may still become President by ascending to the office .

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Thus Hillary Clinton could run for President with Bill Clinton as her Vice President.

But they won't so this doesn't matter.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Thus Hillary Clinton could run for President with Bill Clinton as her Vice President.

But they won't so this doesn't matter.

Clinton/Biden is more likely.

 

[percysunshine]

Thus Hillary Clinton could run for President with Bill Clinton as her Vice President.

But they won't so this doesn't matter.

Clinton/Biden is more likely.

Normally, I would laugh at that...but these are not normal times.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Thus Hillary Clinton could run for President with Bill Clinton as her Vice President.

But they won't so this doesn't matter.

Clinton/Biden is more likely.

I'm still not convinced she is going to run at all and why would Biden want to be VP again?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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 original 'intent' and literal interpretation when any number of Constitutional questions arise.

 

[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?

 

[Inthemiddle]

That's certainly not reasonable if we want to stick with the meaning of what the words are. The 22nd makes no mention of eligibility to the office, it only restricts the number of elections to the office one may have. That's what the words say and mean.

So you really mean to suggest that the intent of the 22nd amendment was to limit only a person running for the office, while leaving him eternally qualified to hold the office via succession from other offices?

No, I mean to suggest that the meaning of the 22nd amendment only limits the number of times someone may be elected to the office, as that is literally what it says.

The intent of the amendment is central to it's meaning.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

But they won't so this doesn't matter.

Clinton/Biden is more likely.

I'm still not convinced she is going to run at all and why would Biden want to be VP again?

Why wouldn't he?

 

[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.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So you really mean to suggest that the intent of the 22nd amendment was to limit only a person running for the office, while leaving him eternally qualified to hold the office via succession from other offices?

No, I mean to suggest that the meaning of the 22nd amendment only limits the number of times someone may be elected to the office, as that is literally what it says.

The intent of the amendment is central to it's meaning.

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.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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?

 

[Bigfoot]

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.

I wonder if Bill will tag Monica Lewinsky for Sexatary of State?

 

[Charles_Main]

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. 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.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Sure didn't slow down Bush/Cheney, did it?

 

[Scorpion]

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