Former Presidents' Future Political Possibilities.

Jespah was right, and i was wrong; from Infoplease.com:

According to the Presidential Succession Act of 1792, the Senate president pro tempore was next in line after the vice president to succeed to the presidency, followed by the Speaker of the House.

In 1886, however, Congress changed the order of presidential succession, replacing the president pro tempore and the Speaker with the cabinet officers. Proponents of this change argued that the congressional leaders lacked executive experience, and none had served as president, while six former secretaries of state had later been elected to that office.

The Presidential Succession Act of 1947, signed by President Harry Truman, changed the order again to what it is today. The cabinet members are ordered in the line of succession according to the date their offices were established.

Prior to the ratification of the 25th Amendment in 1967, there was no provision for filling a vacancy in the vice presidency. When a president died in office, the vice president succeeded him, and the vice presidency then remained vacant. The first vice president to take office under the new procedure was Gerald Ford, who was nominated by Nixon on Oct. 12, 1973, and confirmed by Congress the following Dec. 6.

The Vice President Richard Cheney
Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert
President pro tempore of the Senate Ted Stevens
Secretary of State Colin Powell
Secretary of the Treasury John Snow
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Secretary of the Interior Gale A. Norton
Secretary of Agriculture Ann M. Veneman
Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans
Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao
Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy G. Thompson
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Melquiades Rafael Martinez
Secretary of Transportation Norman Yoshiro Mineta
Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham
Secretary of Education Roderick Paige
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony J. Principi

NOTE: An official cannot succeed to the Presidency unless that person meets the Constitutional requirements.

1. The president pro tempore presides over the Senate when the vice president is absent. By tradition the position is held by the senior member of the majority party.

The note about an official succeeding to the presidency means that the individual involved must be 35 years of age, and a native citizen of the United States.

Letty, that all depends on the definition of "consecutive" ; but I must say I do enjoy Setanta's retort regarding conservatives filling their pants; something to look forward to :wink: ...

"First Gentleman" would be a bit of a stretch.

Well, that's a personal opinion.

I knew the line of succession, (well, not down through the cabinet)--and I knew that a President couldn't serve a third term. Also knew that Clinton was trying (had tried) to change that with an amendment.

But, did NOT know that Clinton can be picked for VP.... If the Dems are currently trying to draft Tom Brokaw for a run... they are desperate enough to revive Clinton.

Thanks very much for the information.

Actually, the 12th Amendment would prohibit him from being elected VP.

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

He is Constitutionally ineligible for the office of President (via the 22nd Amendment) and that automaticly makes him ineligible for the office of VP too.

Wow! Back to the drawing board.

Ah. A definitive answer! Thanks, fishin'. I had looked, but couldn't find it.

Hey, fishin' is there a flaw in this info?:

http://slate.msn.com/id/1005670/

Good grief. Like my 6th grade teacher once said, "It's not a sin to get lice, but it's a sin to keep 'em" I don't mind being ignorant, I just don't want to stay that way.

It's not a flaw. It's a convoluted twisting of words by people to try and get by the limitations. What they are trying to say is that the 22nd Amendment limits his ability to be "elected" President but it doesn't make him ineligible to "serve" as President so they claim that bypasses the limitation of the 12th Amendment.

The claim is that the 12th Amendment applies only to the limitations set in Article II of the Constitution. Obvioulsy, it did at the time it was passed (since there was no 22nd Amendment...) but no where in the 12th Amendment does it say that it only applies to Article II. The total requirements becomes a melding of Article II, the 12th Amendment AND the 22nd Amendment.

But the 12th Amendment doesn't have any limiting wording of "elected" or "serve". If someone is ineligible to be "elected" as President that 12th Amendment makes them equeally ineligible to be "elected" as VP and since both Amendments deal specifically with elections it would be hard to say that one of thenm doesn't apply to him running for office.

The argument presented in the Slate articles tries to make the case that the 12th and 22nd Amendments apply as an "either/or" situation. That has never been the case with any other part of the Constitution so I seriously doubt that the USSC would apply the either/or reasoning in this case either. (and you could bet on it running straight to the USSC if the siutation ever came about.. lol )

Sure. He could, in theory, "serve" as the VP. He can't get there by an election though. Someone else would have to be elected VP and then vacate the position and then he could be appointed to fill it for the remainder of the term.

All this good information leads me to request another clarification, please.

Is it possible that Clinton could be named to a cabinet position in 2004?

Clinton is disqualified for no other offices.

Thank you, I think I have it now: he is disqualified for no other offices; never mind unqualified (okay, okay, cheap shot, I know) :wink: !

sweetc. There ain't no CHEAP shots in politics...all cost big bucks in political palaver.

My word. Fishin' is as eloquent as Tony Blair.

Madame Secretary of Education:

thankyew :wink: :wink:

As a side question for those reading - If you had servered as President, would you want to run for or serve in another political office?

Most of our Presidents in the last few decades have been ummm.. "up there" in years and I guess most people see the Presidency as the peek of any political career.

I could see someone sitting on the Supreme Court - no running for office every few years, no daily political spotlights, etc.. but what would make someone want to run for a lower level position than they already had? It seems kinda anti-climatic to me.

Would you want to run again? Why (or why not)?

I wouldn't want the job in the first place. John Quincy Adams went into the House after his presidency, in the attempt to keep alive the Federalists, who had, of course, never been an organized political party.

fishin': I can't imagine wanting to run for the presidency in the first place, so it's hard to think of what to do upon leaving the office. I do think Jimmy Carter has done the best with his post-presidency years, but that's because I admire Habitat, which is something more to my leanings to begin with ...

Well, I suppose that's why we're all sitting here typing away on A2K instead of stumping for votes. I'd never run for any office but I guess some people enjoy it.

Carter has been one of the best ex-Presidents we've ever had IMO. He gets a little "out there" now and then but he's probably earned more respect for himself since he left office than he ever had while in. I disagree with a lot of his political views but I do respect the man.

Thanks, Set and fishin'.

I think there has been an implied preference for former Presidents to lead quiet, dignified lives post-term. Up until now, I hadn't given any thought to a former President running for any other elected office, or working in a high profile position.

Of course, Clinton changes all of that.

I don't think he's concerned about traditional dignity. And, another thing--he is a young former President. I can understand him wanting to do something.

He had talked about hosting a talk show--which I'm glad he didn't do. Now, I hear he's thinking about running for elected office in NY.

It may be a bit outdated, but I sort of lean to a former Pres. staying out of the limelight. I think it looks very bad for a former President of any party to publicly criticize a sitting President of any party. Carter was perfection, to me, until he broke that unspoken rule. I think former Presidents should criticise a current Pres in private.

And, there is sort of a pristine quality to a former Pres. They sort of tarnish themselves, when they offer themselves in a public arena for criticism. Sort of like a comedian leaving the stage after his best laugh. He shouldn't go back on and tell a stinker.