Posted on 05/15/2016 6:13:52 PM PDT by asinclair
While reading articles about HRC and the possibility of tagging Bill for vice-president, I saw that the authors suggested strongly that there would be tension in such a choice with the 22nd Amendment. It then occurred to me that there is also some tension with Hillary herself and the 22nd Amendment. Could she be ineligible?
Consider that a married couple is, for many legal purposes, a "single individual." So when a person is elected to the office of President of the United States, the spouse is part of the package by virtue of their marriage. (This situation will get even more interesting when [if?] we elect someone in a same-sex marriage, but that's a discussion for another time.) Before you say "but wait a minute, the spouse doesn't have any powers of office," consider the actions of President Wilson's wife when the President collapsed in 1919 -- an act that led eventually (just under 50 years later) to the 25th Amendment.
Family? We have examples galore of siblings and children of former Presidents being able to run for the Presidency, without alarm. In recent history, the Kennedy clan tried with no objection, and the Bush family accomplished the deed. When you look at the larger picture, wives have succeeded their husbands in Congress...but no term limits were in effect at the time. (Look up "the widow connection" for some interesting details.) But a wife, for a term-limited office? For the Presidency?
So now we have a situation unique in the 200-plus years of U.S. history: a Former First Lady running for the office of the President of the United States. An office which has term limits, courtesy of the 22nd Amendment, which became effective in 1951. So the question is, has Hillary already served two terms as President as part of a marriage unit, as part of a "legal person"? Just as the 22nd Amendment may block Bill Clinton's running as a Vice Presidential candidate, could Hillary may be estopped because she has already spent her eight years in the White House?
Sorry, but legally a non-starter. In fact, he could run for VP, and she ceased to be able to be Pres, he would elevate to that position.
No person shall be ELECTED to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Can you, or anyone discuss the recent plot line on House of Cards SPOILER ALERT STOP READING HERE IF YOU NEED TO in which the first lady was put on the ticket as Veep? I need to know that that’s impossible in real life! I know 2 people can’t come from the same state, but in the show the pres. is running for re-election so in a way they both live in DC, which isn’t a state at all.
Surely you jest.
Hillary is actually precluded from holding any office of trust because of the classified emails. Nowhere in the statute does it say that she has to be convicted. Only the fact that she did it. Or more precisely: didn’t do it correctly.
Bill Clinton is ineligible to the office of VP.
See Amendment 12:
...But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
You may be very right, but it would be litigated.
One argument would be that intent of 12th was only for issues involving special circumstances selection of President and that element of the 12th was superseded by the 22d.
The other argument would be the “plain language” one.
My bet, the prohibiting provision of the 12th would be upheld (5/4) .... but what the heck, I still argue there is no FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL “Right to Privacy”, ergo; Roe v. Wade is wrong on that grounds (I’m not getting into the moral or ethical issues), and abortion is neither permitted nor prohibited federally and it is a states’ issue.
Good luck with challenging that in Roberts’s court.
After running against Trump, Hillary will wish she had been ineligible. ;-)
I don't think that there is anything in the Constitution that would prevent him from continuing to be Acting President until Jan. 20, 2021 (assuming he doesn't die of VD or a cocaine overdose in the meantime).
I think when Kissinger and Albright held ‘high’ Cabinet positions they were disqualified from becoming Pres because of birth/citizenship issues -
Be interesting to see how that would be handled today??
Like an earlier poster said you can’t ‘backdoor’ it if you are Constitutionally ineligible on one hand.
She would just get divorced. These things have no consequences for Klinton.
Don't make it up as you go along. That's what Progressives do.
The Constitution contains nothing about married couples, thank you very much!
Haven’t there been several situations where an American politician died and his wife served out his term?
I assume by political appointment or special election.
Would the critics have been ok with Ted Cruz’s wife being elected as the nominal president for a proxy presidency by “ineligible” Ted Cruz?
In 2007, Bill’s name was floated as if it was a proxy third term.
And by Hillary and Bill’s own mouths, they called theirs a two for one “co-presidency” and she did work on policy (Hillarycare).
She couldn't be compelled to testify against him, which explains why they are still married.
If theirs was not a marriage of convenience at this point, I could see her gtting a divorce and then co-habitating with him to circumvent such a law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.