ADVERTISEMENT

A Clinton/Clinton ticket????

Maybe if he is kept from being eligible for president, the Republicans would love to vote for that ticket that much more, as then the successor to the leaving Boehner might be first in line for the presidency then, if the Republicans manage to maintain control of the House in 2016.
 
It would be appropriate, if we were to have the first illegal presidency, for it to be a Clinton-Clinton ticket.

Frankly, I am semi-shocked that Congress was so sloppy drafting the 22nd Amendment. I would have thought somebody would have pointed out the flaw. All that was necessary was to say the person shall not serve as president, instead of shall not be elected president.

Considering how much the Republicans hated FDR, and considering his personality, I'd have thought somebody would have said, "Hey, what if we get another FDR, and after he serves two terms, he gets a flunky to run for president with him as vice president, and then the flunky resigns?" FDR would have done something like that, IMHO. And people would have gone along with it.

Something similar has been done by governors. George Wallace was term-limited, so his wife, Lurleen, ran for governor of Alabama in '66 and was elected. I think something similar happened in Texas a long time before,
 
If you consider the 12th amendment which says "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States." I would say it's not legal. It would have to go through the courts and who wants to do that.

Besides it's a security problem. A married couple one would expect (at least for appearances) would live and travel together. This puts both the POTUS and VPOTUS in the same place at the same time most of the time. Not a good plan.
 
Lone Clone said:
It would be appropriate, if we were to have the first illegal presidency, for it to be a Clinton-Clinton ticket.

Frankly, I am semi-shocked that Congress was so sloppy drafting the 22nd Amendment. I would have thought somebody would have pointed out the flaw. All that was necessary was to say the person shall not serve as president, instead of shall not be elected president.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be illegal. Against the drafters' intent - likely. But not illegal because of the very language you quoted. Bill isn't constitutionally ineligible to serve as President, just ineligible to be elected as President. It doesn't matter - Hillary is not going to win the nomination, and she would not ask Bill to run as VP.
 
St. Louis Hawk said:
It wouldn't be illegal. Against the drafters' intent - likely. But not illegal because of the very language you quoted. Bill isn't constitutionally ineligible to serve as President, just ineligible to be elected as President. It doesn't matter - Hillary is not going to win the nomination, and she would not ask Bill to run as VP.
Click to expand...

Intent though can play a big part. . . The more recent SCOTUS decision on the healthcare law focused not on the direct text of the law but instead the intent of the writers and the congress that passed it. If it was just based on words alone there is a strong chance ACA could have been mostly overturned on a technicality.

So there is reason to believe that the court looking at this case may again focus on the intent of the writers of the 22nd amendment.

My guess is that they intended that a person who's already served 2 terms as President doesn't get elected as VP BUT they used the term elected so as to make it possible that if said person became the Speaker of the House that in an emergency he/she could act as president.

In any case I don't think this will be tested by the courts any time soon. Since the VP is selected by the party's nominee and it's usually selected someone to help the nominee get elected then it would be politically foolish for them to pick someone controversial like that. I mean what campaign wants to waste their time and money on a court fight when they could easily just pick someone who hasn't been president before.

Also I think it hurts her selected someone whom she's married to. As a general rule I don't think the president and vice president should be closely related at all and it would be even worse for them to be in the same immediate family like that. The last thing we want is in a time of crisis for a VP to take over while mourning the death of a close family member.
 
Clinton/Clinton vs. Bush/Bush. Husband and wife take on a pair of brothers. I like it.
 
If a Clinton/Clinton ticket is elected, I'm making the prediction now that she meets with her unfortunate demise less than 6 months after being sworn in.

That will allow the rapist three and a half years of unfettered debauchery without having to worry about the bulldyke interfering with his fun.;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: belezabro
Didn't Putin arrange something like this to get around a similar rule in Russia? I'm sure Rs would appreciate this as the move of a strong leader.
 
Rand/Rand needs to jump in the mix, too. Father/Son, Husband/Wife, Brother/Brother. Turn this thing into a battle Royale. I'll even give the Bushes their dad to make things really interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: torbee
What Would Jesus Do? said:
Caroline Kennedy and RFK, jr.
Click to expand...
And apparently Caroline is no fan of the Clintons. Would make for good drama. :)

Talk in Kennedy circles is that Caroline Kennedy is furious over the revelation that a longtime confidant of Hillary Clinton’s secretly sabotaged her bid to become a US senator — and Kennedy may seek her revenge by backing veep Joe Biden if he runs for president. In June, leaked emails revealed that Hillary henchman Sidney Blumenthal had orchestrated news stories undermining Caroline while she was vying to be appointed to Hillary’s Senate seat in 2008.

http://www.targetliberty.com/2015/09/coming-caroline-kennedy-revenge-against.html
 
I'm putting Boehner/Biden on the same ticket, too. I've always thought that those two looked like brothers while they sat behind Obama during the SOTU speeches.
 
naturalmwa said:
Didn't Putin arrange something like this to get around a similar rule in Russia? I'm sure Rs would appreciate this as the move of a strong leader.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he and Medvedev switched off between being Prime Minister and President with whichever office Putin held at the time holding the real power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
naturalmwa said:
Didn't Putin arrange something like this to get around a similar rule in Russia? I'm sure Rs would appreciate this as the move of a strong leader.
Click to expand...

Note completely like this. They had a 2 consecutive term limit in Russia (as opposed to 2 total terms like us). So after his 2 terms as prez was up he got his Prime Minister (Dmitry Medvedev) elected Prez and then the Dmitry appointed him Prime Minister. I think that lasted for 1 term and then he went back to being Prez again and Dmitry is back as Prime Minister.

I would imagine in 2020 when his consecutive term limits are up again they will trade places again.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa, cigaretteman and CarolinaHawkeye
St. Louis Hawk said:
It wouldn't be illegal. Against the drafters' intent - likely. But not illegal because of the very language you quoted. Bill isn't constitutionally ineligible to serve as President, just ineligible to be elected as President. It doesn't matter - Hillary is not going to win the nomination, and she would not ask Bill to run as VP.
Click to expand...
I know. I think I pointed out that I understand the situation. For some reason, the people who drafted the amendment had a brain outage. But I couldn't resist the urge to call it illegal, anyway. Sue me. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, let's recognize that based on a number of recent rulings, SCOTUS doesn't really give a rat's ass what the Constitution says.
 
Lone Clone said:
I know. I think I pointed out that I understand the situation. For some reason, the people who drafted the amendment had a brain outage. But I couldn't resist the urge to call it illegal, anyway. Sue me. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, let's recognize that based on a number of recent rulings, SCOTUS doesn't really give a rat's ass what the Constitution says.
Click to expand...

Would agree with you there on decisions like Citizen's United. SCOTUS tried to rationalize that it (corporate personhood judicial activist notion of the court that was used to justify this decision) over the years through the 14th amendment's language (or lack of specificity in ensuring that "person" had "natural" in front of it in one place when that was the clear intent of it to refer to "natural persons" by the authors of that amendment). It would be interesting to see if Donald Trump gets his wish on invalidating the 14th amendment, how the corporate powers would like him doing that which would destroy a huge number of decisions based on that judicial activist notion that gives corporations their huge power now. One more reason why the corporate lobbyists will be paid for ads and the corporate media to gang up on Trump.
 
shank hawk said:
If a Clinton/Clinton ticket is elected, I'm making the prediction now that she meets with her unfortunate demise less than 6 months after being sworn in.

That will allow the rapist three and a half years of unfettered debauchery without having to worry about the bulldyke interfering with his fun.;)
Click to expand...

This. Bill would off her in a heartbeat.
 
Clinton and Clinton? Bad idea.

canstock12137544.jpg
 
Anyone running as VP must match the same criteria as the person running for President. Bill can no longer be elected as President, therefore he is not eligible to run as VP.
The only possible way he could serve again would be if he replaced a sitting VP in the second half of a term and then ascend to the office after the sitting President is no longer capable of fulfilling his duties.
He would then be ineligible to run once that term had ended.
No one person can hold the office more than 10 years.
 
BubsFinn said:
Anyone running as VP must match the same criteria as the person running for President. Bill can no longer be elected as President, therefore he is not eligible to run as VP.
The only possible way he could serve again would be if he replaced a sitting VP in the second half of a term and then ascend to the office after the sitting President is no longer capable of fulfilling his duties.
He would then be ineligible to run once that term had ended.
No one person can hold the office more than 10 years.
Click to expand...
That's what was intended, but that's not what the Constitution says.
 
Ok, now I'm confused again! Was this thread intended to be a real discussion or just bait to help the GOP feel better about their chances next year? Barring what is illegal or not... Bill is loved by Independents and a large share of Dems. It would guarantee a GOP defeat. Not that it will even matter because the Republicans will self destruct by fall 2016.

In the end... the state of the economy will ultimately determine which party wins, imo. Just as it did in 2008, most voters look at their personal situation to justify a vote. Am I better off than 2008 under Bush, or 2016 under the Dems???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

alaskanseminole

The Creation of Bill Clinton's Deep State

Replies
5
Views
433
Off Topic
ICWestfan
ICWestfan
RicoSuave102954

Amendment to allow third Donald Trump term

Replies
38
Views
978
Off Topic
cigaretteman
cigaretteman
cigaretteman

The birthright citizenship ban is a losing hand. Why play it?

Replies
1
Views
148
Off Topic
cigaretteman
cigaretteman
RicoSuave102954

Can Donald Trump run for president in 2028? Here's what an amendment says.

Replies
0
Views
355
Off Topic
RicoSuave102954
RicoSuave102954
cigaretteman

Democrats, Trump has given you a mission. Accept all of it.

Replies
2
Views
150
Off Topic
Scruddy
Scruddy
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back