I still think it is worth pursuing because
1) There is no federal legal precedent for this so there is no sure way to know how the courts might rule.
2) The publicity from such a suit might cause some people to think a Hillary presidency *would* be an extension of Bill’s and thus violate the Constitution and will choose to vote against her because of it.
3) Clinton, Inc. would have to divert some resources to fight the suit, meaning money they can’t put elsewhere.
Granted, it’s a longshot but conservatives have nothing to lose by trying it. And the time to do it is before she clinches the nomination while judges can’t hide behind the idea that it is “too late” to rule against it after she’s been nominated.
COMMENT: You two have clearly presented the reasons, respectively, for why it is important to have a discussion of what a Clinton co-presidency means for this country and why it violates the intent of the 22nd Amendment. There is a slim chance that the legal arguments advanced by the article’s author would prevail. The voting public may have too much invested in the possibility of Hillary as the first woman president for a judge to rule against popular liberal sentiment and her candidacy. It may also be too late, considering the strength and funding of the Clinton campaign machine. But if this not the right time for a challenge, then there is no appropriate time. We will deserve the leadership we get. How can people, especially Freepers, forget the abuse and corruption of the Clinton days?
A discussion of the potential problems would be healthy for this democracy as a way to alert the public to the dangers of Bill Clinton operating behind the scenes as the first third-term president since FDR. Some voters might have a sufficient regard for the Constitution, as amended, to hesitate to support a Clinton co-presidency. It might also serve to scuttle efforts to repeal the 22nd Amendment, which I believe has merit as does term-limit legislation in general. To paraphrase Lord Acton, power tends to corrupt more assuredly than money, despite all our checks and balances and campaign finance restrictions. The British historian knew what he was talking about.
.