Ghoulish Media Fantasy: Hillary's Death Could Give Bill Third Term

Newsmax ^ | 5/7/02 | Carl Limbacher

[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.

[angkor]

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 way

Can'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.

[Phantom Lord]

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.

[angkor]

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.

[Phantom Lord]

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.

[medved]

That all assumes Slick had reinstalled Janet Reno at AG so he couldn't be prosecuted for whacking Hillary...

[angkor]

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.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

So now the constitution is unconstitutional.  Go figure.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Although not previously posted, this was discused at at length from the original Liz Smith article, Bill Clinton Constitutionally Eligible to 'Inherit' 3rd Presidential Term? Legal Experts Say Yes...

[muleboy]

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.

[afraidfortherepublic]

See #12.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

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.

[Wright is right!]

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

[cibco]

"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). ;-)

[Pagey]

AMEN! Thank You For That Post!

[Junior]

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.

[Poohbah]

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.

[Poohbah]

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?

[timydnuc]

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.

[GSWarrior]

All things being equal, I'd much prefer another 4 years of Bill than two weeks of Hillary in the White House.

[Iota]

"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.