Posted on 12/05/2007 6:49:20 PM PST by OESY
Mrs Hillary Clinton, Senator from New York State, is one of the leading contenders for the Democratic Party’s nomination for President of the USA in 2008. But a question arises, as she is the wife of a former two-term President, whether her candidacy is legally allowed under the US Constitution and American law.
America’s first President, George Washington, held office for two consecutive four-year terms and declined to run for a third term in 1796. From that time onwards to Franklin D. Roosevelt, it became a constitutional custom in the USA that no President would serve for more than two four-year terms. Two Presidents (Ulysses S. Grant and Theodore Roosevelt) were criticised for wishing for a third non-consecutive term and were unable to break the unwritten rule that prevailed since Washington’s time.
Franklin Roosevelt won first in 1932 and then again in 1936; by 1940, the USA had almost joined the world war then in progress, and the constitutional custom was broken. Roosevelt won a third term in 1940 and a fourth term in November 1944, but died in office a few months later to be succeeded by his Vice-President Harry S. Truman.
Franklin Roosevelt will be the last American President to serve more than eight years in office as the US Constitution was amended to prevent anyone serving more than two terms ever again, thus enshrining into law the customary rule since Washington’s time. The 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution was passed by the US legislature on 21 March 1947 and ratified on 27 February 1951. It said: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.…”
Mrs Clinton’s problem is that she has been and remains married to a person who has been elected to the office of President twice, namely William Jefferson (“Bill”) Clinton. Ironically, Bill Clinton’s Presidency was marked by extra-marital sexual indiscretions, and Mrs Clinton may have had reason enough to end her marriage with him through divorce. But she chose not to. Had she done so, she would have been distinct from him in the eyes of the law and not faced any potential constitutional barrier to running for the Presidency now.
She remained and remains married to Bill Clinton. In the common law tradition, husband and wife are “one” in the eyes of the law. For example, a spouse may not be compelled to testify against his/her spouse. That is something enshrined in the law of India also: Section 122 of the Evidence Act says a person lawfully married cannot be compelled to testify against his/her spouse. In the common law tradition, a spouse also cannot be accused of larceny against a spouse during duration of a marriage.
The idea at the root of this is that marriage is a legally meaningful relationship and that spouses are one and the same person in the eyes of the law. Applying this to Hillary Clinton now, this means she and Bill Clinton are one and the same legal person and remain so as long as they are married. Hence, her candidacy for the US Presidency may well be found by a US federal judge to be unlawful in breaching the 22nd Amendment. Of course, the judge could advise her to get divorced quickly (e.g. in Nevada) and then run again as a single person who was legally distinct from a two-term President.
Co-presidency was the Clintons’ own term and even during the 1992 race, they said it was a two for one deal, you KNEW as a voter you were getting both co-presidents in the White House.
We are supposed to forget that unconstitutional crap they pulled. Let them hang themselves by their own rope.
She is inelligible to serve but not for the reason the author cited.
There may be some weight to the premise. Although, I would certainly have legal scholars look into this further.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1899902/posts
I made roughly the same argument in this thread. Despite the ridicule we’ve both received, I still think it is worth persuing because
1) There is no federal legal precedent for this so there is no sure way to know how the courts might rule.
2) The publicity from such a suit might cause some people to think a Hillary presidency *would* be an extention of Bill’s and thus violate the Constitution and will choose to vote against her because of it.
3) Clinton, Inc. would have to divert some resources to fight the suit, meaning money they can’t put elsewhere.
Granted, it’s a longshot but conservatives have nothing to lose by trying it. And the time to do it is before she clinches the nomination while judges can’t hide behind the idea that it is “too late” to rule against it after she’s been nominated.
This has to be one of the weakest arguments I’ve ever seen. Hillary Clinton may be Bill Clinton’s wife, but she has never been elected to the office herself, despite the “common law.” Using this argument we have always had two people elected President as long as the President was married. This is a ridiculous argument.
It was also a custom to only run for two terms, but it was not a “Constitutional” custom as this was not in the Constitution.
The amendment says only that you had to be acting a president for 2 years. It specifically AVOIDS saying that you had to BE the President.
The marriage argument is incorrect but the conclusion is correct. She cannot serve (at least more than one term, I’d have to review her authority in 1997-2001).
Read the amendment sometime. It is really short and most of the language is just about who is or isn’t covered by it at the time of its passing.
No argument there. We’ll have to beat her the old fashioned way - at the ballot box.
“Is Hillary’s candidacy legal?”
OOOPS. I thought it said “Is Hillary’s candidacy lethal?”
NEVERMIND.
Bill and Hillary were co-presidents and will be so again if the Beast wins.
That is an untrue statement.
LBJ is the perfect example. He became President in Nov. 1963, serving out 14 months or so of JFK's administration.
He was elected outright in 1964 and chose not to run in 1968. Had he run and been elected he would have served as President 9 years.
I believe the cap is at 10 years. If a VP becomes President, after the death of the President, and serves two years, that then counts as his first administration.
And .. the Clinton-appointed judge will throw out the case!
I know. But technically and legally only Bill was President. I’m not saying I wouldn’t WISH she couldn’t run because of it, but she was not sworn in, Billy boy was.
Then the MSM could toss the same argument at Cheney (he’s supposed to be the real brains behind the desk). They did accuse Nancy Reagan of running the white house for senile ol’ Ronny too.
Let’s not get into a wishing contest here. Of course Hillary was pushing for things in the White House. She was not legally the president. Bill was the president. He did acrappy job, he let his wife try to push through several ideas and programs. But she was not the president.
I detest The Beast but this is utter nonsense.
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.