You're implying he'd wear the pants of another co-presidency in hell if it were to occur. What makes you so sure he wore the pants the last time?
As I recall, a constitutional amendment requires 3/4 of the states to ratify, regardless of the make-up of the Congress and Senate. I don't even think they'd get to a constitutional convention.
However, if SHE (or THEY) gets elected, we'd have many, many, other problems.
The Clintons will be 2 of the 1st casualties of war when the shooting begins in the Middle East. They know and you should know that Iraq will fold like a cheap Japanese camera once the attack begins. The Clintons strategy is simple, stop the war from happening and maybe we can stop Bush in 2004.
Unfortunately for the Clintons, Saddam Insane is going down, probably very soon, and when Saddam is gone so are any chances of Hillary in the White House in 2004. I suspect the pummeling the Demorats will be subjected to in 2004 will see the demise of McAuful as head of the DNC and the decline of the Clintons influence within the Democratic Party.
No, they wouldn't dare. Such a repeal would take ratification by the states, and by the time it got out of Congress--even assuming it could; the Senate would be held by the Democrats by a narrow margin, and even the threat of a filibuster would kill it--and was signed by Pres. Hillary!, the continuing drumbeat from the right would kill any chance it had of being ratified.
It would be so easy to connect the dots between Clinton's desire for his legacy, the election of his wife, and such a repeal.
Remember that WJC was never elected by a majority.
You obviously are in need of rereading the US Constitution. There's no way, such a constitutional ammendment could pass. It takes a 2/3rds majority in both the House and Senate to propose a constitutional ammendment. It then takes 3/4ths of the state legislatures approval to ratify. If you look at the state by state map of the 2000 presidential election, Bush won 30 states. The process of ammending the Constitution is deliberately set up to give the states a maximum amount of leverage over the federal government. Also notice, the power to prevent the ratification of an ammendment is disproportionately held by small states. On constitutional ammemdments, the 13 smallest states can block ratification. The reason socialists hate the US Constitution is that it sets up tremendous barriers to concentration of power that do not exist in other countries.
don't bet the farm on it, or let it keep you up nights.
i'd wager there's at least one patriot out there unwilling to allow that to happen ...
$0.02
Remember the movie Seconds? Using that technique, he can replace any President-elect, Democrat or Republican, who resembles him in any way and serve out two more terms. He won't even have to campaign.