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?
The Republic is collapsing under the immorality of a non Christian electorate
Hillary claimed to be “Unelected co-president”. She served on the panel to overhaul/nationalize healthcare.
I raised this issue in 2008. She said then that she would let him sit in on meetings on a variety of issues.
So does he get any more years as ‘co-president’?
WJC cannot serve as VP due to the constitutional restriction of serving more than 2 terms as president. (10 years is possible for the elevation of a VP to POTUS).
HRC has no such constitutional prohibition as considering a 1st Lady as equivalent to POTUS is ridiculous.
Having said that, I’d love to see Hitlary run over by a subway train.
Yes, she is eligible under that consideration. She is wholly unfit and a traitor and a murderer. Felons may not be president. Therefore she is ineligible.
It’s a real loop hole. So I think you got nothing. An interesting nothing.
It does remind us though there ought to be some legislation started and defining this further and instituting laws in regards to co-mingling of leadership from spouses.
Of all the potential issues w Hillary, I don’t think this will stick and it’s a waste of time.
Focus on things that will resonate with people, such as refusing to support and save our ambassador in Benghazi.
...Is HRC eligible under the 22nd Amendment?....
Unfortunately, any way it’s looked at, yes.
However, high crimes and misdemeanors are another matter.
The Constitution says nothing about this.
If this ever gets in the way of a presidency, she’ll divorce Bill between the words “Twenty-Second” and “Amendment”.
Hell, she’ll have him killed.
Who with an IQ above temperature and not in a mental institution has suggested Bill as Hillary’s VP?
So, taking your premise to the extreme:
If a spouse commits murder are both guilty of the same crime or an attached crime by virtue of your “Single Person” premise?
GTFOH
According to the first definition in Black’s Law Dictionary she is not. To be eligible for president you must be a PERSON.
From Black’s definition of PERSON:
“A MAN considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes.”
Unfortunately, it then goes on to reference Bouvier’s Law Dictionary of 1856:
“A human being considered as capable of having rights and of being charged with duties; while a “thing” is the object over which rights may be exercised.”
Going to the Bouvier dictionary, that has additional info:
“This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons.”
NOTE: The good news above is that transgenders and hermaphrodites are EXCLUDED from the Presidency!!!
“But when the word “Persons” is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. “
Artificial persons being corporations. If you want to include “marriage” as a type of artificial person because it is a “partnership” in estate and common law, since the candidacy for presidency refers to natural persons by the quote above, a spouse would be eligible as a distinct natural person.
I think that's very mean of you. The train would be immediately stopped and all of those people will be late to their appointed destinations. Nobody should be subjected to that unnecessarily.
This doesn’t matter... She’s gonna lose the general and she’s gonna lose BIG!
***Hillary claimed to be “Unelected co-president”.***
I remember when Slick Willie got elected President. Hillary’s response was...”WE ARE THE PRESIDENT!”
What, EXACTLY, does XXII prohibit, and on whom does it operate?
What the text says is that "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 President more than once..."
The XXII Amendment places NO RESTRICTION on any individual SERVING AS PRESIDENT. It does not add to, or subtract from, the Constitutional criteria for eligibility to the office of President (or Vice President).
It merely limits achieving the office (of President only, it does not mention the Vice Presidency) BY THE MECHANISM OF ELECTION.
Now, they could easily have said, "No person...may serve as President", or even better, "Any person who has served as President twice, shall become ineligible to the office of President", but that's not what it says.
Actually, she can run for Pres, and he for VP, and in the event of her inability to exercise the duties of the office of Pres, (death, etc.) he would become Pres.
Check the wording:
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.
Would she be limited to a single hit or be allowed to be hit more than, say, twice?
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.