Is Hillary’s candidacy legal?

Independent Indian, via Indian & Pakistani Friends of Ron Paul ^ | July 10, 2007 | Subroto Roy

[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.

[OESY]

I still think it is worth pursuing 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 extension 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.

COMMENT: You two have clearly presented the reasons, respectively, for why it is important to have a discussion of what a Clinton co-presidency means for this country and why it violates the intent of the 22nd Amendment. There is a slim chance that the legal arguments advanced by the article’s author would prevail. The voting public may have too much invested in the possibility of Hillary as the first woman president for a judge to rule against popular liberal sentiment and her candidacy. It may also be too late, considering the strength and funding of the Clinton campaign machine. But if this not the right time for a challenge, then there is no appropriate time. We will deserve the leadership we get. How can people, especially Freepers, forget the abuse and corruption of the Clinton days?

A discussion of the potential problems would be healthy for this democracy as a way to alert the public to the dangers of Bill Clinton operating behind the scenes as the first third-term president since FDR. Some voters might have a sufficient regard for the Constitution, as amended, to hesitate to support a Clinton co-presidency. It might also serve to scuttle efforts to repeal the 22nd Amendment, which I believe has merit as does term-limit legislation in general. To paraphrase Lord Acton, power tends to corrupt more assuredly than money, despite all our checks and balances and campaign finance restrictions. The British historian knew what he was talking about.

.

[Sloth]

we would in effect be electing Bill Clinton to a third term as he will have extraordinary influence on his wife, the American President.

ROTFLOL! Good one!

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

“Many foreign reporters just don’t “get it” when trying to understand US laws and customs. I suppose we don’t know much about the laws and customs of India either! LOL”

Sure we do. Burn the wife on the husbands funeral pyre, poop in the streets, and treat the cow idols better than the real starving cows that wander around urban areas. That pretty much sums it up.

[Designer]

"This is a subject worthy of discussion."Better yet is the argument that she has already served as "co-president".

Her own words.

And lately, she has been claiming "experience" during "the first Clinton administration".

Now if the Republicans could find balls enough to bring charges against her...

If only.

[weegee]

What meetings did Nancy hold? I can point to which meetings Hillary held. The paperwork of those meetings is sealed.

[weegee]

It says ACTING AS PRESIDENT. As in fulfilling presidential duties without being sworn in.

“no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President”

So CLEARLY a person ACTING as President has NOT held the office of President.

[OESY]

Thanks for your comments. See also:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1935416/posts?page=81#81

[weegee]

Bill is getting long in the tooth and has an agressive power hungry wife. But consider another scenario, where an overwhelmingly popular male president dumps wife after wife and runs his trophy wives’ campaigns so that he can rule by proxy.

Then again, we didn’t have to rule out nepotism in appointments until JFK had his brother in charge of the Justice Department.

[weegee]

Bill Clinton: I'd Sit in on Hillary's Cabinet Meetings 'Only If Asked' [Projectile Vomiting Alert] (5 Dec 07 ABC News)

Again, they are flaunting the unconstitutionality. While Hillary MAY not be elligible to serve more than one term, Bill Clinton, impeached former president is ABSOLUTELY unable to fill that role again.

NO THIRD TERM

[Secret Agent Man]

Stop reading things into my posts. I said the PRESS treated and spread rumors that she was running the white house.

Don’t have such a knee-jerk reaction to what people actually write. Take the time to actually read and digest what someone says. Get off the damn hair trigger.

[Ancesthntr]

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.

So if I shoot someone for cutting me off on the highway, my wife goes to jail?

BS. BS. BS. BS. BS. BS. BS. BS. BS. BS. BS. BS.

Let's beat the witch the old fashioned way - show the American public what a lying, corrupt, socialist appeaser this beotch is, and take 40 states.

[Jadge]

By this rationale, she should not be able to obtain a driver’s license if he already has one. Very thin logic.

[Secret Agent Man]

“Acting as President” refers to anyone who takes the place of the president, such as VP Truman taking over for FDR, LBJ taking over for JFK, or Bush 1 when Reagan was shot and in surgery, or when Cheney has been in charge when Bush 2 has been in surgery. It also includes anyone in the ‘line of succession’ to the presidency (Speaker, cabinet secretaries, etc) who is not directly elected to the office.

If there were anything to this challenge I’d be for it, but I think people are just really stretching to make a wish here. I personally am in favor of her squandering millions and millions of her campaign dollars and not being elected. Less money going to other rats who may have more electability.

[McGruff]

Stupidest article ever.

May have something to do with the source "Indian & Pakistani Friends of Ron Paul".

[jetson]

" How dare you question my long lost, Frau Hittlary!"

[weegee]

Nancy Reagan and Hillary’s roles in the White House were QUITE different.

You cited Nancy as an example of another First Lady of influence. Hillary was acting as president (as I pointed out the amendment is clear that this is NOT someone serving AS president) when she managed health care with closed door sessions. The question (found among her sealed White House papers) is whether she was acting presidential for a period of 2 years or greater.

[weegee]

Wrong.

“1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,”

“and no person who has held the office of President” (a VP HOLDS the office of President through ascension)

“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.”

How do you HOLD the office of the president without election? Ascension by line of command.

[weegee]

Then repeal the amendment because it means nothing.

[RightWhale]

It’s a matter of law. Logic does not apply.

[weegee]

Bush Sr. WAS NOT in charge when Ronald Reagan was undergoing surgery for his gunshot wounds. Technically Al Haig claimed the reigns. He had the political football, he had the military briefings.

That was “acting as president”.