Skip to main content

View Diary: Sen. Tester nominates Schweitzer for Obama's veep (308 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "Ought to be interpreted" (0+ / 0-)

    basically means "doesn't say what I think it should."

    With the written text as your only reference, it can clearly be done legally. Whether it's right is another matter, but that's not how a constitutional republic is governed.


    •  Only the most tortured reading supports that (0+ / 0-)

      The 12th Amendment:

      "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

      The 22nd Amendment: "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."

      Clearly, Bill Clinton is "constitutionally ineligible" to be elected President. Does that mean he is "constitutionally ineligible to the office of President"? One could argue that the 12th Amendment language is limited only to the original qualifications of citizenship and age. Certainly, when it was written, that's all it meant.

      However, it seems pretty clear that the 22md Amendment added one more qualification -- that he wasn't precluded by having been elected President twice before or by having served more than two years after being VP and then being elected once. If someone could game the system to get around the 22nd Amendment through succession, the Amendment would be a joke. Since Bill Clinton was more popular than Al Gore -- What if Gore had run with Bill Clinton as VP, promising to step down after being sworn-in, when Clinton would then nominate Gore to serve as VP again? Absurd, but you seem to think that result is legal because the language isn't clear enough. If a Republican Congress sued to block this, they would surely win....

      Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you:

      by FischFry on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:12:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's why (0+ / 0-)

        they'd have to trade terms.

        X/Y, Y/X, X/Y, Y/Z. X would be precluded from serving as Y's VP in Y's 2nd term, having been elected to the Presidency twice.

        It's weird, and I doubt you could find two people who would agree to it, but it would be legal.


        •  Except... (0+ / 0-)

          Why would an incumbent President, popular enough to see his ticket win re-election, agree to instead serve as VP for four years, with the hope that he might get elected President again in another four years? Clinton-Gore was a ticket that might have been able to work in reverse, along the lines you suggest -- but there's no way that Clinton would have agreed to such an incredible arrangement.

          I believe, anyways, that Kos suggested O/S, O/S/ S/O, S/O, which would violate even your agreed understanding....

          Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you:

          by FischFry on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:31:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site