Replies

The amendment is right, your interpretation I believe is incorrect.

You are distorting what “acting as President” means to be Hillary with her husband’s blessing to try to push her social programs through. “Acting as President” assumes that that person IS the President and has the authority to exercise Presidential powers. If you read the It is clear Bill was THE PRESIDENT. He never gave up his powers, he never sent a letter to the Senate saying he could not discharge his duties, he never was disabled and had anyone in the line of succession take over during such a time.

“Acting as President” refers to someone who is the current President, but may fall under the 20th Amendment, Section 2 issues. And that is what ‘acting as President’ refers to inthe 22nd Amendment you cite.

You are wrong that the VP holds the office as President via ascension (like this has any affect on their ability to run for President). If that were the case then Bush 1 and Gore would not have been able to run for President, as they were both VP’s for eight years - by your statement they held the office as President and therefore not constitutionally been able to run for President after their two terms as Vice Presidents.

I don’t know why you think this is a workable strategy. She was not acting as President. Ultimately she was under Bill, was working in his administration, but she was not the president.

I will grant you she WANTED (still does) to be president, and maybe even thought she was co-president (ie you vote for Bill, you get both of us) but you are messing up the definition of ‘acting’. “The Acting President of the United States” is different from “Hillary acting like she’s President.” One is a title, the other is a massive ego.