What exactly does the Twelfth Amendment say about eligibility for vice president and how would it apply to a two‑term former president?

1. What the Twelfth Amendment actually says about vice‑presidential eligibility

The Twelfth Amendment restructures Electoral College voting and explicitly extends the constitutional qualifications for the presidency (age, natural‑born citizenship, and residency) to the vice presidency; it closes by stating that anyone “constitutionally ineligible to the office of President” cannot be Vice‑President ^{[1] [5]}. That final clause is textual and categorical, not accompanied by illustrative examples, so it functions as a binding cross‑reference from the presidency’s eligibility rules to the vice‑presidency ^[1].

2. How the Twenty‑Second Amendment complicates the picture

The Twenty‑Second Amendment forbids any person from being “elected to the office of the President more than twice,” language that limits election to the presidency rather than service or holding the office in every instance ^{[2] [3]}. Congress considered broader language that would have made former two‑term presidents “ineligible to hold the office,” but rejected that broader phrasing during drafting, a legislative history fact that commentators use to argue the Amendment targets election rather than all forms of accession ^{[3] [2]}.

3. Two competing interpretive camps among scholars and institutions

One authoritative strand argues the Twenty‑Second Amendment bars only election and therefore does not make a two‑term former President “constitutionally ineligible” to be President in all circumstances; under this reading such a person could be elected or appointed Vice‑President and, if necessary, succeed to the presidency ^{[4] [6] [7]}. Another camp points to the Twelfth Amendment’s cross‑reference and contends that if a person is constitutionally ineligible to be elected President under the Twenty‑Second Amendment, that ineligibility could make them ineligible to be Vice‑President—creating a textual conflict that the courts would need to resolve ^{[2] [8]}.

4. How the ambiguity plays out in practical succession scenarios

Under one plausible scenario accepted by several commentators, a twice‑elected former President could ride on a ticket as Vice‑President and, if the President died or resigned, succeed and serve out the remaining term because the Twenty‑Second Amendment constrains election, not succession or appointment ^{[4] [3]}. Conversely, others warn that electing such a ticket could trigger litigation or a congressional challenge at the moment of succession because the Twelfth Amendment could be read to bar anyone constitutionally ineligible to be President from being Vice‑President in the first place ^{[2] [8]}.

5. Who would decide, and on what basis

The constitutional tension has never been litigated and would likely reach the federal courts — ultimately the Supreme Court — or be decided politically by Congress, the Electoral College, or the House and Senate during a disputed succession or certification; contemporary legal commentators stress that resolving the question requires interpretation of text, history, and draft choices made during the Twenty‑Second Amendment’s adoption ^{[2] [8]}. There is no definitive judicial precedent because no twice‑elected former President has ever sought the vice‑presidency, so current conclusions rest on legal argument and historical inference rather than case law ^{[9] [10]}.

6. Bottom line: what the Twelfth Amendment permits and what remains unsettled

Textually, the Twelfth Amendment makes presidential eligibility a precondition for vice‑presidential eligibility and therefore raises the bar for who can be Vice‑President ^[1]; practically, the Twenty‑Second Amendment’s focus on who can be “elected” President leaves open a pathway for a two‑term former President to serve as Vice‑President and succeed to the presidency under some interpretations ^{[3] [4]}. The honest verdict is that the Constitution contains a genuine ambiguity: respected scholars and institutional analyses reach opposite, reasoned conclusions, and the question would likely be settled only through litigation or a political judgment in a concrete case ^{[2] [6]}.