Posted on 12/05/2007 6:49:20 PM PST by OESY
Mrs Hillary Clinton, Senator from New York State, is one of the leading contenders for the Democratic Party’s nomination for President of the USA in 2008. But a question arises, as she is the wife of a former two-term President, whether her candidacy is legally allowed under the US Constitution and American law.
America’s first President, George Washington, held office for two consecutive four-year terms and declined to run for a third term in 1796. From that time onwards to Franklin D. Roosevelt, it became a constitutional custom in the USA that no President would serve for more than two four-year terms. Two Presidents (Ulysses S. Grant and Theodore Roosevelt) were criticised for wishing for a third non-consecutive term and were unable to break the unwritten rule that prevailed since Washington’s time.
Franklin Roosevelt won first in 1932 and then again in 1936; by 1940, the USA had almost joined the world war then in progress, and the constitutional custom was broken. Roosevelt won a third term in 1940 and a fourth term in November 1944, but died in office a few months later to be succeeded by his Vice-President Harry S. Truman.
Franklin Roosevelt will be the last American President to serve more than eight years in office as the US Constitution was amended to prevent anyone serving more than two terms ever again, thus enshrining into law the customary rule since Washington’s time. The 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution was passed by the US legislature on 21 March 1947 and ratified on 27 February 1951. It said: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.…”
Mrs Clinton’s problem is that she has been and remains married to a person who has been elected to the office of President twice, namely William Jefferson (“Bill”) Clinton. Ironically, Bill Clinton’s Presidency was marked by extra-marital sexual indiscretions, and Mrs Clinton may have had reason enough to end her marriage with him through divorce. But she chose not to. Had she done so, she would have been distinct from him in the eyes of the law and not faced any potential constitutional barrier to running for the Presidency now.
She remained and remains married to Bill Clinton. In the common law tradition, husband and wife are “one” in the eyes of the law. For example, a spouse may not be compelled to testify against his/her spouse. That is something enshrined in the law of India also: Section 122 of the Evidence Act says a person lawfully married cannot be compelled to testify against his/her spouse. In the common law tradition, a spouse also cannot be accused of larceny against a spouse during duration of a marriage.
The idea at the root of this is that marriage is a legally meaningful relationship and that spouses are one and the same person in the eyes of the law. Applying this to Hillary Clinton now, this means she and Bill Clinton are one and the same legal person and remain so as long as they are married. Hence, her candidacy for the US Presidency may well be found by a US federal judge to be unlawful in breaching the 22nd Amendment. Of course, the judge could advise her to get divorced quickly (e.g. in Nevada) and then run again as a single person who was legally distinct from a two-term President.
Her sux too!
Edith Bolling Galt Wilson, most notably.
Good grief. This is just pitiful.
|
.
Maybe we write stupid articles trying to interpret their laws, but I haven't seen any that I can recall.
To put the lack of logic and rational reasoning into perspective in this piece, a US corporation is also considered as a US citizen.
So, arguably Microsoft could run for President.
Well, Hillary did always say “We are the president.”
Nice try, but no cigar.
Sounds good to me.
Exactly, he should be illegal to put a rapist in as POTUS, but we crossed that barrier rather easily.
That would make Hillary guilty of perjury and has already been impeached!
Does that mean that Hillary is guilty of being with Monica too?
Don't capitalize the "S" when calling me this. It's just not right.
No court would touch the Clintons with a six foot pole!!!
One of the more stupid articles I have read. Not he stupidest, mind you.
LOL!
That doesn't change the fact that her candidacy won't possibly be found to be illegal. If you want to waste the bandwidth, have at it. It is still technically a free country. ;-)
Could be or was Hillary gone for the day?
This is Hugh and Series. Set beebers to stun!
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.