Posted on 05/07/2002 6:57:41 AM PDT by Lucky2
Actually, you are quite wrong.
The contemporary opinion asserted even by the Washington Post in a 1951 editorial was that "power-grasping officials are common enough in history and current world experience to warrant this safeguard."
That "safeguard" being the 22nd Amendment.
Never mind, I thought I was talking to a strict constructionist.
You have quoted the initial clause of the 22nd Amendment accurately.
Are you saying that a person can therefore hold the office of Vice-president in perpetuity (e.g., for 10 continuous terms), because it isn't specifically prohibited by the 22nd?
Well, I don't think I was saying that, because the topic hadn't come up, but yes, we could have a perpetual vice-president because there's no Constitutional bar against someone running for VP over and over again -- just like there's no Constitutional bar to someone serving as Speaker of the House or Secretary of the Treasury over and over again.
You believe that in the event this was brought to the USSC, that the justices would scratch their heads and say "Well gee, it doesn't actually say Vice-president in the 22nd, so it must be OK"? That they would not attempt to reason from precedent and from the implied Constitutional role of the Vice-presidency?
Aside from the head-scratching part, yes. I believe they would read the plain text of the 22nd Amendment, say, "Well, that's pretty clear: Bill Clinton can't be elected to the office of the President ever again. What's all the hubbub?"
When the Supremes start ignoring the plain text of the Constitution and, instead, reasoning from precedent and "implications", you get decisions like Roe v. Wade. I would think most people on this board would oppose that.
That they would entirely ignore the 12th? (Are you thinking that the Constitution is not to be taken as a whole?)
I think you and I agree on what the 12th Amendment means: It prevents anyone not eligible to be President from becoming VP. Where we disagree is the 22nd. You think it makes Clinton ineligible to BE President; I think it makes him ineligible to RUN FOR President. If you're right about the 22nd -- which you're not, but assuming that you are -- then the 12th would bar him from the Vice Presidency, too.
Really, your argument is quite disingenuous, hinging as I said on semantics and not reason.
I challenged you to quote the text and explain how it supports your position, In reply, you quoted one phrase, and then spent three paragraphs arguing that it means something other that what it says. And then you accuse ME of relying on semantics rather than reason? You're projecting.
All that aside, I'll point out one last thing to you (and to all the lurkers who might be seeing this for the first time). As you quoted above, the 22nd Amendment states that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice." You are arguing that what it REALLY means is that "No person can be President more than twice" or something along those lines.
But what you're not realizing is that, for that to be true, the people that drafted and voted for that Amendment would have to have forgotten that being elected President is not the only way that someone can become President.
Do you really think they were that stupid? Particularly considering that this Amendment was debated and ratified under a President (Truman) who had not been elected to that office (at least originally)?
Yup. After April 15th, the TPs know that people aren't going to be as interested in buying their books...
And you nailed it on the case: Brushaber it is.
Slightly off topic from what we've been arguing about, I'm not sure this is correct, because I'm not anyone would have standing to complain if Clinton (or Reagan, for that matter) decided to run again. Who could file a lawsuit and say "I, personally, have been injured (or will be injured) by him running." The other candidates, maybe?
Actually, not really. Roosevelt "broke the rule" by being elected to his third term in 1940; Congress didn't get around to drafting the 22nd Amendment until 7 years later.
Is there some sort of TP-thread bump list I'm not aware of?
Well, sorta. I don't think Constitutional authors in 1950 anticipated a Clinton.
I agree with your parsing of the text, BTW. I am certain if the People elected Clinton to the Vice Presidency, and if Hillary (or Edwards, or whomever) Arkancided, the USSC would certainly allow the VP to become (not to be elected) President.
But of course the other candidates.
Certainly they would not. The intention of the 22nd if to limit a President to two terms. It's clear on the face of it by history, Presidential precedent (e.g., statements of Washington and Jefferson), and the historic melieu for the amendment sparked by FDR's four terms.
The USSC will simply not operate in the mechanical and linguistic vacume being posited here.
Maybe. But standing's a tricky concept, so I'm not 100 percent sure.
Because the title is the office as defined by the Consitution.
Bill Clinton is a carpetbagger extraordinaire, and I don't want him carpetbagging the Constitution again during my lifetime.
If you want to parse words like X42 himself, it doesn't even say THAT. It says he can't be *ELECTED* again -- but he can RUN all he wants.
We are a representative democracy.
Everyone exercises through proxy.
QED.
The rest of the country doesn't have THAT kind of proxy available.
Once again, the plain language of the amendment does not support this interpretation. You need to show other relveant information (debate during the ratification process in the House and Senate would be very useful here, HINT HINT HINT).
My consulting fees are expensive.
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.