I hesitate to mention this because there’s no way on earth that any presidential candidate would consider Bill Clinton as a running mate. It’s a fanciful idea that’s never going to happen.<\/p>\n
But that doesn’t mean we can’t have a little fun mulling it over. The subject came up yesterday in comments<\/a>, and coincidentally, was raised by law professor Brian E. Gray in an LA Times op-ed<\/a> today.<\/p>\n The 24th Amendment, adopted in reaction to Franklin Roosevelt’s 1944 election to a fourth term, declares that “no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” Although it was not the focus of the amendment, it is notable that the amendment does not preclude a former two-term president (such as Clinton) from serving<\/i> as vice president. Nor does it preclude a former two-term president’s succession to the presidency for all or part of a third term.<\/p>\n It might seem that the 12th Amendment’s dictum that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President” also ought to doom Clinton’s chances — but no again: He is ineligible for election<\/i> to a third term, but he is constitutionally eligible to succeed to the presidency after election to the vice presidency.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Gray concedes that Bill couldn’t be Hillary’s<\/i> running mate, because they’re residents of the same state, but he nevertheless concludes, “That leaves only one alternative. You heard it here first, Democrats: Obama-(Bill) Clinton 2008!”<\/p>\n If the argument sounds vaguely familiar, it’s because it came up during the last presidential campaign, too. In February 2004, the day John Edwards ended his bid, NYU law professor Stephen Gillers recommended<\/a> that John Kerry name Bill Clinton as his running mate.<\/p>\n Putting aside the improbability of all this, if this notion is going to be bandied about, it’s probably worth taking a moment to wade into the weeds a bit. But then there’s the 12th Amendment<\/a>, which says, “[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”<\/p>\n So, if Clinton is ineligible for the presidency under the 22nd, then he’s ineligible for the vice presidency under the 12th, right? Well, probably.<\/p>\n The 12th Amendment, in context, is directed at the criterion for a president’s eligibility laid out in Article II<\/a> — natural born citizen, 35-years-old, and a 14-year resident within the United States. When the amendment says no one who’s “ineligible” for the presidency can be the vice president, it was speaking specifically to these qualifications.<\/p>\n The 22nd Amendment, meanwhile, enshrined the notion of a “two-term tradition” into the Constitution, following FDR’s success in winning four times. It does not address, or at a minimum, was not intended<\/i> to address, presidential eligibility.<\/p>\n I would argue that it nevertheless added a fourth condition to a prospective president’s qualifications. Who’s eligible to be president? 35-year-old, natural-born citizens, who have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years, and haven’t already served two terms as president<\/i>. That may not have been the point of the amendment, but I’d argue that was the unintended result.<\/p>\n
\n
\nThe 22nd Amendment<\/a> says, “No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice.” Under Gray’s (and Gillers’) idea, Clinton could be a VP, however, because he wouldn’t be running for president.<\/p>\n