I think all you republicans hate the idea because you KNOW Clinton would wipe the floor with Bush, or any other Evil Party candidate.
But th 12th Amendment has this little part that would seem to negate such a ticket: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States"
Technically that is incorrect, although a law suit would most likely ensue to stop the ticket if it happened... see this article The 12th Amendment would allow a Clinton vice-presidency. Its language only bars from the vice-presidency those persons who are "ineligible to the office" of President. Clinton is not ineligible to the office of president, however. He is only disqualified (by the 22nd Amendment) from being elected to that office. This is no mere semantic distinction. Article II of the Constitution carefully defines exactly who is "eligible to the Office of President": anyone who is a natural born citizen, at least 35 years old, and has been a U.S. resident for at least 14 years. For example, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is ineligible for the office of president because she is a naturalized, rather than a natural born, citizen. Accordingly, the 12th Amendment renders her ineligible to the office of vice-president as well. But Bill Clinton can serve as vice president, because the 22nd Amendment's prohibition on running for a third presidential term is not a condition of the office of president. The 22nd Amendment states: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person [who has served more than half a term] shall be elected to the office of the president more than once." The language is quite clear. It places no limits whatsoever on how many terms someone may serve as president, only how many times he can be elected. In other words, the 22nd Amendment does not set conditions on what the 12th Amendment calls eligibility to the office of president. Anyone who is born here and has lived here for 14 years becomes eligible to be president on his or her 35th birthday and is then so eligible forever. Thus, if. Clinton were to be elected vice president and ascend to the presidency based on, for example, Gore's resignation, then nothing unconstitutional would have occurred. Clinton would have been elected to the presidency only twice though he would serve as president thrice. Under the 22nd Amendment, that is perfectly permissible.
Clinton would have beaten Bush handily in 2000, and if the election were held today, he would still beat Bush handily. Especially if each and every American citizen who has lost their jobs since Bush's Inauguration were to vote! When people vote for President, it is, more often than not, about their wallets. The gameplan for the 2004 election will be for the Dem candidate to make the economy the #1 issue, while Bush makes 9/11 the #1 issue.
I was never a Clinton fan. I never voted for him, and I think he skewed too conservative way too often. BUT, GAWD DAMM. I'd much rather have a President who lies about getting a blowjob than one who lies about why he declared war on a sovereign nation against the will of the international community. I don't think the two-term rule should be changed, but it sure would be reassuring to see The Big Dog back in office.
Thus, if. Clinton were to be elected vice president and ascend to the presidency based on, for example, Gore's resignation, then nothing unconstitutional would have occurred. Clinton would have been elected to the presidency only twice though he would serve as president thrice. Under the 22nd Amendment, that is perfectly permissible. So, basically Clinton needs to run as VP on a ticket with a guy who's about to croak and then take over as Pres once he croaks ... then repeat the process over and over and over again.
here here The fact that STROM THURMAN was in congress for like a century should prove that Rocket River Be a public Servent. . . not a f*cking Leach pork rolling sack of sh*t . . . oops. . I mean a PROFESSIONAL Politician [This is DEMO, REPS and what ever else]
Mr. Paige, I think term limits are a good thing, but should be for all elected officials. Why? It seems that just penalizes good public servants who deserve to get re-elected. A bunch of lame-duck Congressmen and Senators would have no reason to try to represent the interests of his/her constitutents if he/she is going to be kicked out of office regardless.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88691,00.html Most Oppose Allowing President Third Term Thursday, June 05, 2003 By Dana Blanton George W. Bush would handily defeat Bill Clinton if they were the major party candidates in 2004. In a hypothetical matchup between the current president and his predecessor, 53 percent say they would vote for Bush while less than a third (32 percent) say they would vote for Clinton, with six percent saying “neither." Of course, these two candidates are only imaginary opponents as the U.S. Constitution restricts Clinton from running for a third term. But should the Constitution be changed? In a recent speech, former President Clinton commented that he thought the 22nd Amendment (search) to the Constitution “should probably be modified” to allow an individual to serve more than two terms as president. In the latest FOX News poll, conducted June 3-4 by Opinion Dynamics Corporation, most Americans oppose making such a change to the Constitution. Only 20 percent of the public supports changing the 22nd Amendment, while the more widely held opinion (75 percent) is that the Constitution should not be modified to allow for a third presidential term. Partisanship is not an issue here, as Democrats and Republicans equally oppose allowing a third term. Men are slightly more opposed to making the change than women (78 percent and 73 percent respectively). Some of Clinton’s fellow baby boomers (age 51-59) are the strongest opponents at 82 percent. In the hypothetical Bush-Clinton matchup, Republicans solidly support Bush (88 percent) compared to 62 percent of Democrats who say they would vote for Clinton. Almost a quarter (24 percent) of Democrats say they would vote for Bush while only seven percent of GOPers would vote for Clinton.
Fox News: There is no way Bush beats Clinton, if Bush doesn't find some WMD soon he might not beat Alan Keyes if he runs for the Republican nomination.
Hmm...let's see...FOX News reports that Bush would beat Clinton in 2004. That's kind of like the Weather Channel reporting that the sky is blue!
i wouldn't underestimate him...he's been underestimated time and time again...and he's won. clinton's warning to fellow dems after meeting bush was not to underestimate him. again...what indications are you getting that people are even following this WMD story?? i see it popping up in editorials...but what kind of shelf life does it really have???
that's what i was waiting for! i knew it was coming...surprised kingcheetah didn't hit on the source. i'm sure foxnews just made up the whole thing. right?
