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.
I'm not sure it's even really debateable. I mean, if the drafters had wanted to keep someone in Clinton's position from ever becoming president again, it would have been easy enough to draft a 22nd Amendment that clearly did so: "No person who has served two terms as president of the United States shall be eligible to become president again" or "No person shall serve more than eight years as president of the United States" or something like that.
Instead, they drafted an amendment that says "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice". I think they meant what they said, and not what certain Freepers wish they'd said.
I'm arguing the plain text of the Constitution, and you're arguing that the plain text should be ignored in favor of the intent behind that text. This should be setting off warning bells in your head.
Not to mention that you've got no evidence of what the intent was behind the 22nd Amendment -- but I'll bet you I can come up with some to show it was aimed at future FDRs rather than future Reagans or Clintons.
Feel free to demonstrate your point. I wouldn't mind being proven wrong.
I agree with the point you're making. In addition to the part I've been regularly quoting, the 22nd Amendment provides that "no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." (I didn't bother quoting the latter part because it didn't apply to Clinton.)
But I don't see how that counters the point that I've been making, which is what your "But look at it this way" suggests. Am I missing something?
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). ;-)
Ah. You seem to be operating under the assumption that I think the 22nd Amendment is unconstitutional. I don't. But it only stops Clinton from being elected president, not vice president, and not from becoming president. Read what it says, not what people are telling you it says.
Is it just me, or have the TP threads seriously dwindled around here?
On a side note, I don't understand what all the fuss is about with regard to this VP thing. If we're willing to assume that (1) Hillary can get elected president and (2) she's willing to do so for the sole purpose of letting BJ be president again -- both of which we have to assume for this ascension-from-vice-president scenario to take place -- then he can act as President without ever having to assume either office. (She can just let him make all the decisions without the title.) I don't think either of those assumptions is justified, but if some people do, I can't understand why they're getting upset over whether he could get the TITLE back.
Here's another fly in the ointment.
Article. 2.
Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
bill was impeached for purjuy (a felony), not removed from office.
bill was found guilty by the judge in Arkansas of perjury and was disbarred and payed a hefty fine, and was darn lucky he didn't get 5 years in jail.(only the judge's respect for the Office of the Presidency prevented it).
Impeached and convicted of a felony would be a tough hurdle to shrug off, and hillary ain't stupid enough to tie this albatros around her neck, she's got enough political baggage of her own without borrowing any of bill's.
As much as you have for your argument from semantics.
It was aimed at presidents wanting to serve more than two terms. Period.
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice."
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?
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?
That they would entirely ignore the 12th? (Are you thinking that the Constitution is not to be taken as a whole?)
Really, your argument is quite disingenuous, hinging as I said on semantics and not reason.
Well...yea. God help us, but there is nothing in the Constitution which prevents Bill Clinton from running as Vice-President and being elected. There is nothing which prevents him from becoming President if the president died. There is language which would prevent him from running for reelection. Call it semantics, call it being disingenuous, call it what you will. The Constitution doesn't prevent it, let's hope that the good judgement of the American people will.
Yes there is. The 22nd Amendment.
Like any other matter of Constitutional law, this would go right to the USSC, and they would reason from intent, not semantics.
From the Framers to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, the unambiguous intent had been to limit the terms of service in the Presidency.
Roosevelt being the first President to "break the rule" of two terms, Congress immediately drafted and passed the 22nd Amendment.
What is the "intent" of the 22nd Amendment?
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice."
Obviously that would include election through the vehicle of the Vice-presidency.
To erect and then entertain these other torturous semantic arguments is seriously absurd.
The plain language used does not support this broad a claim; you would need to show evidence that such was the intent from sources such as Congressional floor debates regarding the 22nd Amendment.
I am sure that you remember that there is no such rule. The President and VP can indeed be from the same state, under the Constitution. What you may be thinking of is the Constitutional provision that electors can not vote for a Presidential and a Vice Presidential candidate from their state. So if the New York electors vote for Hillary Clinton for President, they would not be able to vote for Bill Clinton for Vice President. or half could vote for one of them, and half for the other.
As a practical matter, no party would nominate two candidates from the same state, because this would mean that the ticket would be damaged by the inability to get all electoral votes from their home state for both candidates.
Said intent being derived from a reading of the text of the 22nd Amendment.
From the Framers to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, the unambiguous intent had been to limit the terms of service in the Presidency.
If such was their intent, they did not write it down in the Constitution.
Roosevelt being the first President to "break the rule" of two terms, Congress immediately drafted and passed the 22nd Amendment.
Got it.
What is the "intent" of the 22nd Amendment?
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice."
"Elected" has a specific meaning.
Obviously that would include election through the vehicle of the Vice-presidency.
Bzzt. Thank you for playing. It is NOT obvious.
To erect and then entertain these other torturous semantic arguments is seriously absurd.
You are the one engaging in Clintonian parsing, as opposed to confining yourself to the meaning of the plain text.
Yes, but not solely from the text of the 22nd Amendment, which is what you and others are repeatedly asserting. This literal parsing of the 22nd is not what the USSC would or should do.
There was a case called "Marbury vs. Madison" in 1803, which granted the USSC the right to interpret the meaning of the Constitution and its provisions, and that's what the USSC has been doing for the last 200 years.
That's also what they'd do with the 22nd, should Bill Clinton be insidious enough to actually press the issue.
If such was their intent, they did not write it down in the Constitution.
Nor did they need to. That's why the USSC exists.
"Elected" has a specific meaning.
Correct. And the Vice-president is "elected" as a subordinate office to the President. Not independent, not parallel, but subordinate. The office of the Vice-president draws its powers and its constraints from the office of the President.
You are the one engaging in Clintonian parsing, as opposed to confining yourself to the meaning of the plain text.
The USSC will not "confine itself to the meaning of the plain text." It will confine itself to the text, to intent, to precedent, going back even to the first Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers, and the interpretive guidelines established in Marbury vs. Madison.
The USSC is not a bunch of monkeys charged with correctly parsing or deparsing sentences and grammar. It has an intepretive function which draws from U.S. history, legal intent, and precedent.
And it is clear here that the 22nd's "two terms" means nothing more and nothing less than "two terms." The 22nd was the culmination of debate which began prior to 1787, and continued through Washington, Jefferson, and every president up to Franklin Roosevelt.
That is the spirit in which it would be considered, and not by your mechanical deparsing of grammars.
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.