Posted on 05/07/2002 6:57:41 AM PDT by Lucky2
Tuesday May 7, 2002; 8:43 a.m. EDT Ghoulish Media Fantasy: Hillary's Death Could Give Bill Third Term
Just how badly do some journalists want to see Bill Clinton serve another term as president? Enough to openly speculate about a scenario where Hillary Clinton's death would nullify the 22nd Amendment baring a third term for her husband.
That's the fantasy offered up by gossip columnist and media F.O.B. Liz Smith, who said Tuesday that she'd like to hear from "some Constitutional experts" on whether the macabre scheme would be "legally possible."
Here's the plan: Have Hillary run for president with hubby Bill on the ticket as V.P. They win the election, then - oops - "should the hypothetical President Hillary die in office, would her husband be allowed to ascend to the Oval Office again?"
Smith argues the answer should be yes. The gossip columnist and "many others," she says, already believe the 22nd Amendment is unconstitutional. And if Vice President Bill were succeed his dead wife, the columnist contends, he would have "'inherited' the office. He would have still 'run for it,' in a manner of speaking."
Smith decided to air the ghoulish third term scheme - which she says was floated to her "the other day by someone" - after she decided "it bears thinking about, even if - as we always say when we're treading hypothetically - it is a complete unfeasible idea."
But, the friend of Bill adds, "several smarties I know tell me" that if President Hillary dies in office, Vice President Bill would indeed be able to return to the throne.
Unbeknownst, to Smith, Mr. Bill has already been contemplating ways around the 22nd amendment. (See: Clinton Eyeing Third Presidential Run?)
In off the cuff remarks to the The Las Vegas Weekly last September, the ex-prez said it was conceivable he "could be reelected."
"Clinton had obviously researched the subject," the paper observed, since he spoke "for five minutes about constitutional law and academic studies about the prospect" of revising the 22nd Amendment limiting a president to two terms.
"Some constitutional experts think it is possible," Hillary's husband told reporters.
The Supreme Court will, in the absence of other relevant argument, read the amendment and apply the plain text.
What I find astonshing about this is how this gossip columnist blithely assumed that Hillary would suddenly turn up at Fort Marcy Park or something after leading a Hilly & Billy ticket to the White House...that is one SICK assumption.
Excerpt from Thomas Jefferson's letter to James Madison
Paris
20 December 1787
...I like much the general idea of framing a government which should go on of itself peaceably, without needing continual recurrence to the state legislatures. I like the organization of the government into Legislative, Judiciary and Executive. I like the power given the Legislature to levy taxes.... I am captivated by the compromise of the opposite claims of the great and little states, of the latter to equal, and the former to proportional influence. I am much pleased too with the substitution of the method of voting by persons, instead of that of voting by states; and I like the negative given to the Executive with a third of either house, though I should have liked it better had the Judiciary been associated for that purpose, or invested with a similar and separate power. There are other good things of less moment.
I will now add what I do not like. First the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land.... Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.
The second feature I dislike, and greatly dislike, is that abandonment in every instance of the necessity of rotation in office, and most particularly in the case of the President. Experience concurs with reason in concluding that the first magistrate will always be re-elected if the constitution permits it. He is then an officer for life.... If once elected, and at a second or third election outvoted by one or two votes, he will pretend false votes, foul play hold possession of the reins of government, be supported by the states voting for him, especially if they are the central ones.... An incapacity to be elected a second term would have been the only effectual preventative. The power of removing him every fourth year by the vote of the people is a power which will not be exercised....
I have thus told you freely what I like and dislike: merely as a matter of curiosity for I know your own judgment has been formed on all these points after having heard every thing which could be urged on them. I own I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.... After all, it is my principle that the will of the Majority should always prevail. If they approve the proposed Convention in all it's (sic.) parts, I shall concur in it chearfully (sic.), in hopes that they will amend it whenever they shall find it work [sic.] wrong.
I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries; as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When they get piled upon one another as in Europe. Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to; convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty. I have tried you by this time with my disquisitions and will therefore only add assurances of the sincerity of those sentiments of esteem and attachment with which I am Dear Sir your affectionate friend and servant....
From Jefferson, Thomas. The Portable Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Merrill D. Peterson. New York: Penguin Books, 1975.
I'm sorry to inform you that there is a wealth of "relevant material," and things will go precisely the opposite of your intended "plain text" deciphering.
Sorry I don't have the 1947 CR at hand, I'm sure you'd love to argue every miniscule point made by members of that congressional body.
Their intent was a two-term limitation on all presidents. Period.
And that's the way the USSC will intepret the 22nd. No ifs, ands, or buts.
That may have been his wish, but it didn't happen that way.
The key will be if the debate on the 22nd Amendment--the one that says no one shall be elected President--actually encompassed a formerly elected President being appointed President, and the backers stating that such was their intent.
If it does, then Clinton's task will be much harder.
However, merely pounding the table and saying that such IS the case is not going to convince the Supremes. They will want to see real evidence.
That I do not presently have access to the 1947 Congressional Record - or the transcripts of the 1st Congressional Convention - does not represent "pounding on the table."
Of course anyone arguing before the USSC will have the CR, and the little I've discovered from the contemporary record doesn't just indicate, but makes certain, that the intent of the 22nd was to end 150 years of ambiguity and to create a two-year limit on the office of the Presidency.
All you've presented so far is linguistic parsing, and it is most unconvincing. It's naive to the working of the USSC at best, and Clintonian at worst.
Certainly. He acknowledges that as "a feature I greatly dislike."
And as a feature that both he and George Washington protested through the action of refusing third terms.
If it does, then Clinton's task will be much harder.
No, it will be impossible. Bill Clinton will have done us the noble service of proving that the office of the Vice-president cannot be used to advance an unconstitutional desire to surmount the 22nd Amendment.
As I've said, I hope he gives it a shot, because the certain outcome (that a former present cannot run again as VP) will further damage his "legacy" and at the same time strengthen the rule of law.
Any President who allowed another to exercise the powers of the Presidency would be in violation of the oath of office. “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States..."
I miss Coyote.
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.