If one who has already been elected twice to the presidency, and who served two full terms, could still be eligible for election as vice-president, and thereby be eligible to succeed to the presidency in case of necessity, it seems to me that the whole purpose of the 22nd amendment (to preclude one person holding the presidency for too long a time) would be thwarted. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, though the amendment does not explicitly reference the vice-presidency, it should be held to do so implicitly. (Of course, we cannot count on the courts to be reasonable.) Doing otherwise would also enable (at least theoretically) shenanigans like the unfortunate "accidental" death of the newly sworn-in president, or a secret pre-arrangement for early resignation by the president, which would effectively give nearly four more years in the presidency to somebody who has already held it for eight years, trumping the 22nd amendment. (Though the Congress could attempt to intervene by impeachment and removal from office.)

No way this will happen. Talk about the VP overshadowing the President. Kerry’s ego won’t let that happen (nobody’s ego will let that happen).

Great idea. Clinton would never shut up, so there’d be less of Kerry’s incessant droning on the news. And I’ve already had a decade’s experience learning how to tune out Clintonspeak.

The answer to the question is in the 12th ammendment. You must be a eligiable for the presidency to be V.P