Could Bill Clinton serve under a Hilary Clinton Administration?

Apologies if this has already been posted on ATS. I did search for it.

Could Bill theoretically serve in his wife's potential administration if she became the POTUS? I know you have the 22nd Amendment but wasn't Bill Clinton against a President serving only two terms anyway?

I am not sure how US legislation works (I live in the UK). I was just thinking if it was legally possible for him to be the Secretary of State. Would this not cause problems ie if Hilary and her Vice President were down for some reason, he would become the POTUS again.

I remember reading something a while back which stated many US citizens would consider Hilary winning as a 3rd term for Bill. I also read that Hilary has a violent temper and has subjected Bill to domestic abuse and violence (not sure if this is just MSM gossip). If this were true I could not see her allowing her husband to diminish her presidency.

He could serve as an Ambassador.

Or appointed to the SCotUS.

Though in all honesty. He'll probably stick to the speech circuit.

He's made some $75million on it.

Actually, Hillary winning would be a third term for Hillary.

a reply to: deliberator

He'll have many opportunities to exercise his influence through the shadow global government.

ETA: Regardless of who is elected in 2016.

a reply to: deliberator

He could even be vice president, if he wanted, or run as a senator or congressman, or take any appointed job. The only thing he cannot do anymore is be president. Sadly, that is the only office in our federal government that holds any sort of term limit.

Sure, no rules against it. Although it would be very unlikely as it would be demotion. And frankly two term Presidents seem happy to get the office and have nothing to with the Government again.

Well, Bill has had plenty of women serving under HIM in the Oval Orifice...

I think something like that would end up being challenged constitutionally, and it is possible, though highly unlikely, but one of them would have to move to a different state.

Cheney had to change his residence to Wyoming from Texas because both him and Bush were from the same state and that has an effect on delegates.

a reply to: WP4YT

And a Two-FER for the American people. Not that I care for BIllery-

I think Bill Clinton was (I am not a Dem) a great Pres. (his social life, well mehhhh)


If Billery DOES win, the experience from BIll would be ginormous !

a reply to: deliberator

I would think, yes he could.
However, I do not think it should, or maybe could, be in a position in the line of succession.
There are lots of cabinet positions where his influence could be warrented.

If she did win I wonder if they would be referred to as “Mr. and Mrs. President.”

Bill would be an excellent Secretary of State, and Monica could be appointed ambassador in Libya...

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: deliberator

He could even be vice president

Incorrect. Since Bill Clinton served two terms as president, this disqualifies him for running as vice president. You have to qualify to be president to be vice president.

I'm guessing he would be eligible to serve as anything but VP, as stated earlier. I don't think it would make him ineligible to serve as one of the cabinet officers who would be in order of succession after speaker, he'd have to be skipped if it came to that though.

But why would he want to?

a reply to: deliberator

Of Course! She would appoint him U.S. Ambassador to the U.N..

That is a pre-requisite for being elected Secretary General of the United Nations.

It follows the 'anti-Christ' predictions....

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: deliberator

He could even be vice president, if he wanted, or run as a senator or congressman, or take any appointed job. The only thing he cannot do anymore is be president. Sadly, that is the only office in our federal government that holds any sort of term limit.

I don't think he could serve as VP or in any other capacity where he may be in line to serve as POTUS again.

I don't know of any specific law, but it just makes sense that he couldn't be put in any position that could lead to a third term.

After that, I'd say he could pretty much serve wherever she wanted him to.

Having Bill back in the game is bad enough, but if Hillary actually became president after doing nothing to save the men at Benghazi is just beyond me. Her record from the Watergate years and on seems to mean nothing to the people who would support her. So in my opinion, those who support her bear some of the responsibility of the death of those men.
The new revelation recently disclosed through her emails, that the Pentagon was ready to respond that night in Benghazi but wasn't given the go ahead to do so, should be enough to drop her as a choice........thus Bill wouldn't serve in any office.

originally posted by: tebyen

Incorrect. Since Bill Clinton served two terms as president, this disqualifies him for running as vice president. You have to qualify to be president to be vice president.

I'm not necessarily doubting this information, but where does it say that in the Constitution?

I guess the only place I could see the constitution supporting your claim--and I would agree with it, now that I've looked into the issue more deeply--is the 12th Amendment that states that you can't be VP if you're ineligible to be POTUS. Having served two full terms does indeed negate someone's eligibility to be president, therefore they couldn't be VP.

While I think that this is kind of a round-about way of making someone who has served two terms as president from being VP (and, therefore if something happened to the president, president for another partial term), I do think that it's in the spirit of the reason that we have term limits. Although, I think that it could be argued that the verbiage in the 12th Amendment probably is making reference to the three requirements listed in Section II of the Constitution, but maybe not--I haven't read the notes concerning the 12th Amendment, and honestly, I have no ambition to right now.

Thanks for making me look into it a bit further, though...I side with you on the matter now.