Is This US President Scenario Possible?

jpgarland wrote:

Of course, according to Article II, section 1, Cheney shouldn't have become the Vice President in 2001: "The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. "

I remember that controversy as Cheney was living in Texas, but he had property in Wyoming (where he was born) and did everything legally required to make Wyoming his home (registered to vote, paid taxes, etc).

kcw wrote:

Contrary to what i said previously there actually is a provision in the constitution that would prevent Bill Clinton or George W. Bush, or any other subsequent two term president from running as a Vice presidential candidate. The last line of the twelfth amendment states "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States", however, this amendment was made in 1804, well before the two term limit was ratified in 1951, so it is clear that the intention of the amendment was not to prevent former presidents from serving as vice president. But constitutionally it is impossible for any president who has served for two terms to be named vice president, so no, Bill could not serve as VP unless a new amendment was added to the constitution.

What if, the VP dies or resigns with 20 months left in the term and is replaced by Bill Clinton. The President dies, could Clinton then become president? Interesting scenario and at least in a direct reading of the Constitution it might work.

Also, since electors were not involved it bypasses the need for the Pres and VP to be from different states. Of course Clinton (or any VP) would need to be confirmed by the House and Senate. I could see a filibuster there!

Clinton could be speaker of the house - something happens to the Pres and VP and now you have a constitutional crisis - XXII amendment refers to being "elected" not eligibility for office which is in Art II.

I remember when the Clinton impeachment was going on that people thought about these 2 scenarios:

1) If Clinton were convicted, then Al Gore would ascend to the presidency where he could run as an incumbent and be in a good position to win in 2000.

2) Clinton resigns so that Gore could then run as an incumbent.

Of course #2 was never going to happen, Clinton would never have resigned.

Some Republican thinkers actually hoped that Clinton would not be convicted just to avoid the increased risk of Gore being able to run as an incumbent and win.

onetwenty09 wrote:

Clinton could be speaker of the house - something happens to the Pres and VP and now you have a constitutional crisis - XXII amendment refers to being "elected" not eligibility for office which is in Art II.

Yes, but if the Prez and VP were killed/disqualified, Bill Clinton would be skipped over to the Senate Pres. Pro Tem.

At the time of the election, which is when it counts, both Bush and Cheney were "inhabitants" of Texas. Cheney had not lived in Wyoming for quite some time. But he rushed up to restore his Wyoming contacts purely to dance around this prohibition. There was litigation, but a court found that he was, in fact, an "inhabitant" of Wyoming. He wasn't, and Texas electors should not have been allowed to vote for both Bush and Cheney. But why let the Constitution get in the way.

onetwenty09 wrote:

Clinton could be speaker of the house - something happens to the Pres and VP and now you have a constitutional crisis - XXII amendment refers to being "elected" not eligibility for office which is in Art II.

In that case, 1) he would have to be elected to the House and 2) I believe there is a provision for skipping someone not eligible. In the first case, Bill would never run for the House as that is too small for him (he is not Adams). In the second case, I remember when Madeleine Albright was named SecState it was noted that if the line of succession ever got to her that it would merely skip her and go to the next cabinet position in line.

BC can not become VP under the current law, same for Schwarzenegger.

He can't even become secretary of state or some of the other high positions in the administrations when his wife is President, they changed the law in response to JFK appointing his brother.

A 3 judge panel of the 5th Circuit found Cheney a resident of Wyoming - not surprisingly one member was appointed by Reagan and the other two members were appointed by the first Bush.

This is an interesting scenario. Constitutionally I believe you are correct, because all that would be needed is congressional confirmation, but it's a very gray area in the constitution and it's something that no court will look at until the situation presents itself. The 22nd amendment limits the number of terms to which a president can be elected, and states that a person serving less than two years as president is eligible to be elected to two full terms, and does not make a provision for a former two term president who is appointed vice president, and subsequently pressident, with less than two years remaining in the presidential term. In my interpretation the 12th amendment would not apply here, because even though Bill has been elected to two terms the 22nd amendment would not prevent him from being president for a term of less than two years. This is where the politics of it all come into play, because i doubt that Bill Clinton would ever be confirmed in a congress that is essentially evenly divided between democrats and republicans, and with the supreme court having a republican bias it's even less likely he would win in the courts, though i suppose we would have to wait and see if the situation ever comes up.

kcw wrote:

Aside from the fact that it would be political suicide for anyone to choose Bill Clinton as there running mate it is possible for him to serve as vice president since the constitution makes no provisions for the term limitation on vice presidents or whether or not former presidents can hold the office, however, if something were to happen to the serving president and they were to become incapacitated in some way it would not be possible for Bill Clinton to become president for a third term. This is stated in the 22nd amendment to the constitution..

Actually I do not think this is true. The 22nd Amendment states limitations only on who may be elected to the office of president. In this case, Bill would not be elected, he would become president by virtue of the death of his wife. I could be wrong. You decide:

Here is the text of the 22nd Amendment:

The 22nd Amendment

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.

luv2run wrote:

onetwenty09 wrote:

Clinton could be speaker of the house - something happens to the Pres and VP and now you have a constitutional crisis - XXII amendment refers to being "elected" not eligibility for office which is in Art II.

In that case, 1) he would have to be elected to the House and 2) I believe there is a provision for skipping someone not eligible. In the first case, Bill would never run for the House as that is too small for him (he is not Adams). In the second case, I remember when Madeleine Albright was named SecState it was noted that if the line of succession ever got to her that it would merely skip her and go to the next cabinet position in line.

The order of succession may skip Clinton, I don't know, but Albright is disqualified from office because she's not a natural born citizen and so is ineligible for the office under Art II. Clinton meets the Art II requirements.

Coelacanth wrote:

Yes, but if the Prez and VP were killed/disqualified, Bill Clinton would be skipped over to the Senate Pres. Pro Tem.

Why do you say he'd be skipped over? The order of succession skips over people who don't meet the Constitutional requirements. Clinton meets the Constitutional requirements for Pres (found in Art II) and is not being elected president so a literal reading of the 22nd Amendment doesn't apply - that's why you could have a constitutional crisis and the Supreme Court would decide.

can (should) an impeached president be president again?

He was not impeached

bloodsport wrote:

can (should) an impeached president be president again?

Philosophically, no. However, constitutionally there is not prohibition.

Imagine this scenario (this is kinda fun): A first term president is not only impeached but found guilty in the Senate. After a few years "in the wilderness" he comes back to run again. There is nothing I know of in legal terms that prevents him from being elected again. Impeachment does not mean he was convicted of a crime.

jpgarland wrote:

At the time of the election, which is when it counts, both Bush and Cheney were "inhabitants" of Texas. Cheney had not lived in Wyoming for quite some time. But he rushed up to restore his Wyoming contacts purely to dance around this prohibition. There was litigation, but a court found that he was, in fact, an "inhabitant" of Wyoming. He wasn't, and Texas electors should not have been allowed to vote for both Bush and Cheney. But why let the Constitution get in the way.

So I guess your decision means more than a court's findings? Now I can take issue with the findings of a lot of courts, but when a court decides something (and there are pretty clear standards), then we have to go with it unless a higher court overturns it. Seeing as how that did not happen (and if the Dems had had a case I am sure they would have pursued it). Congressmen and Senators spend a great deal of time in DC (or the surrounding area) and yet are considered residents of their home states since that is where they are registered to vote.

Or students for that matter. To some extent just living in a place does not make you a citizen of that place. For instance, college students. They vote where they are registered to vote and do not receive in state tuition just because they go to school at a college either.

Remember that the 12th Amendment bars anyone from being elected as vice-president that could not be elected as president. So your interesting scenario could only work if he went the Gerry Ford route. Wikipedia has a good discussion on the issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#The_relationship_between_the_22nd_and_12th_amendments