Skip to comments.
Ghoulish Media Fantasy: Hillary's Death Could Give Bill Third Term
Newsmax ^
| 5/7/02
| Carl Limbacher
Posted on 05/07/2002 6:57:41 AM PDT by Lucky2
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 121-132 next last
To: goldstategop
with a creature of Clinton's character with his demonstrated disdain for the Constitution, he's not likely to let the 22nd Amendment stand in his wayCan't argue about that.
But think about the number of courtroom victories sustained by the Clinton WH.
I think the number approached zero, on more than two dozen issues.
61
posted on
05/09/2002 1:48:46 PM PDT
by
angkor
To: agarrett
To be a candidate for VP, one must be legally eligible for the office of POTUS. Clinton is no longer eligible.
But the worst of all their arguments in favor of a 3rd Clinton term is that the 22nd amendment is unconstitutional. NO amendment to the constitution can be unconstitutional. It is IMPOSSIBLE
These people are absolute morons.
To: goldstategop
More to the point, Clinton would need a genuine victory on a genuine Constitutional issue.
Not some PR victory on the basis of the spin and BS opporunties it would engender. This one would need to be real and substantive.
And again, on the merits of law and substance, the Clinton WH persistently had a pathetic record of convincing any court in any juridiction of its arguments. The same would be true in this case. Bill Clinton is not going to "refine" the 22d Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (unless he refines the notion that former Presidents cannot run again for VP by using linguistic ambiguities within the United States Constitution).
I don't expect Bill Clinton's dismal litigation record to improve, and I also expect that the reaction to such an attempt would be far more vocal than during Al Gore's attempt to hijack the Constitution.
63
posted on
05/09/2002 1:59:32 PM PDT
by
angkor
To: Iota
Yes, the amendment says ELECTED. But look at it this way. If the President dies a week into his first term the VP takes over. If the now President is successful in being elected President in 4 years he can NOT run for president again. Even though he has been ELECTED only once. Not sure of what the particular time frame is, but serving a portion of an unfinished term greater than a certain length qualifiys as 2 full terms and therefor one can not run for a 3rd term. Even though they have only been ELECTED once.
To: Lucky2
That all assumes Slick had reinstalled Janet Reno at AG so he couldn't be prosecuted for whacking Hillary...
65
posted on
05/09/2002 2:07:34 PM PDT
by
medved
To: agarrett
It says nothing about him being elected to the position of vice-President, nor does it make any reference to him then being appointed President if the current President dies.You and the other promoters of this idea have correctly identified an area of linguistic ambiguity in the United States Constitution. Congratulations.
But the USSC does not rule on the basis of "lingustic ambiguity." It (usually) attempts to discern the intent of the Founders.
Personally, I'd love to see Bill Clinton force this issue. It would be yet one more shining example of his sleazy lawyering, slipperiness, and duplicity.
And the nation would once again heave a mighty sigh of relief when he and his minions were slapped-down by the USSC and the nation better protected from his ilk ("It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.")
I do hope they press this issue.
66
posted on
05/09/2002 2:07:42 PM PDT
by
angkor
To: Lucky2
So now the constitution is unconstitutional. Go figure.
To: Lucky2
To: Lucky2
It is just my opinion, but to me it would almost be worth having to endure a few more years of him in order to be rid of her.
However the way things work in the real world, it is far more likely that something would happen to him, just about the time she is ready to run.
Muleboy, 20 years in Hope Arkansas and damn glad to be in Texas now.
69
posted on
05/09/2002 2:18:27 PM PDT
by
muleboy
To: goldstategop
See #12.
To: Lucky2
With any article that references another one, like at Newsmax or CNS, I try to track down the original source article, in this case a Liz Smith column. Sometimes they don't add to the discussion, just rereport the original article.
If the slickster did come from a lower office than VP, he would still have to go through Senate and House confirmation hearings just like Nelson Rockefeller had to do to become Ford's VP. The Democrats would have to sell their souls to get Clintoon through those, and would fail in the House hearings(if we keep around the same number of seats we do now). So unless Bubba was elected as VP, (which he couldn't do) he most likely still couldn't get in.
To: Phantom Lord;Iota
The way I see it, the only way that X-42(i) could ever again BE President is thru a Line Of Succession scenario. He could, for example, be elected to the US House, and in the most wildly-improbable circumstance, be chosen as Speaker of the House. THEN, if the then-President AND Vice-President were to assume room temp, THEN X-42(i) could ascend and hold the office for its remaining term. But he could not run to succeed himself.
He most certainly cannot RUN for President again, and since he's ineligible to run for Prez, he couldn't run for Vice-Prez. BUT he could come up in the Line Of Succession. The chances of his doing so, however, verge upon the mathematically impossible. The easiest route would be House Speaker, but that takes the votes of a majority of the members of the majority party. Anyone in Congress who votes for Willy for Speaker just term-limited himself to zero. In other words, it's mathematically possible but politically unthinkable.
Michael
To: Iota
"It depends on what the meaning of IS is." BJ Clinton at his impeachment hearing.
You are parsing here. Numerous explanations, by others, have pointed out that BJ can't run because of the 22nd Amend(a part of the Constitution). ;-)
73
posted on
05/09/2002 2:48:29 PM PDT
by
cibco
To: Izzy Dunne
AMEN! Thank You For That Post!
74
posted on
05/09/2002 2:52:49 PM PDT
by
Pagey
To: Lucky2
The gossip columnist and "many others," she says, already believe the 22nd Amendment is unconstitutional. Gee, it's in the Constitution, it was legally ratified, so by definition IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL.
75
posted on
05/09/2002 2:53:08 PM PDT
by
Junior
To: 19th LA Inf
There's an argument among the tax protestors that, because the 16th Amendment runs counter to some notional "spirit of the Constitution." (Said spirit, of course, being a penumbra of an emanation of...wait a minute...well, doggone it, we don't like it, so it's unconstitutional!)
This, BTW, is a separate argument from the issue of whether the 16th was even passed.
76
posted on
05/09/2002 2:58:47 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
To: angkor
Do you have any specific support for your claim regarding the intent? For example, do the records of Congressional debate for the 22nd Amendment support said claim?
77
posted on
05/09/2002 3:05:17 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
To: Lucky2
The lefties are jerking our chains again. They don't read the Constitution, they have never read it, they just say what they want and..pooof..it's in the Constitution. I should know, I debate these fools enough to know. Even when you show them the actual words upon which you are debating they will just stick up their arrogant noses and say, "Well, that's not what it means", as if there is some mystic meaning beyond what is factually stated. These people are dilusional, I've learned to let them ramble on, and on until I have so much overwhelming evidence of their lies I can destroy them with a 30 second, factual, rebuttal.
I've gone through this argument with lefties before. Their last argument is always "Well, who's going to stop it". Standard answer: THE SUPREME COURT OF THESE HERE UNITED STATES, THAT'S WHO....EVER HEARD OF THEM? Ignore the lefties, they need to take a strong dose of "salts" and spend some time in the outhouse and they'll be fine.
78
posted on
05/09/2002 3:07:21 PM PDT
by
timydnuc
To: Lucky2
All things being equal, I'd much prefer another 4 years of Bill than two weeks of Hillary in the White House.
To: angkor
"Semantic hairsplitting," huh? I'm quoting the EXACT TEXT of the Constitution and explaining how it supports my conclusion. If you think you can demonstrate that I'm engaging in semantic hairsplitting, quote the text and have at it.
80
posted on
05/09/2002 4:02:46 PM PDT
by
Iota
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 121-132 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson