Posted on 09/20/2007 6:51:09 PM PDT by Tall_Texan
Can Hillary Clinton be sued out of becoming president? Her husband, after all, won two terms and the Constitution forbids a president from serving three terms. There's no legal precedent before the Supreme Court claiming that a married couple cannot serve four total terms (16 years) as president but it has never been challenged either.
Given that there is no term limits for being a U.S. Senator and women office holders were rare before the past 20 years, there would seem to be no Court decision to answer this issue. There have been spousal office holders who have followed after their husbands on a state level, but those would be the subject of state courts, not federal courts.
Imagine, if you will, that Republicans unhappy with the current field of candidates decided to run Laura Bush in 2008 (hypothetically, work with me here), don't you think the Democrats would perceive this as a stealth campaign to re-elect George W. Bush? If they could argue that about Laura, why should we not be arguing that about Hillary? And should the time to issue this legal challenge come after the Democrats nominate her or before? Certainly, you wouldn't want to make this legal argument after she had taken office (although it would make my day to see Hillary served with a restraining order as she was preparing herself to take the oath of office).
You could argue that Hillary has already served her two terms as self-announced "co-president" and therefore should be prevented from serving a third term.
And I wonder what they would rule if Hillary divorced Bill. Would it change the merits of the case?
Seriously, the worst this challenge would do is cost the Clintons a lot in legal defense and serve as a distraction to their campaign. Heck, I'd be glad to throw in the first $100 to get this lawsuit rolling.
Let the word go out "NO third term for Clinton!"
No, she can’t.
I’ve got an idea, though. Vote for the guy who’s most likely to defeat her.
He name is Clinton, she is female, a democrat, a feminist, a Senator, a socialist, a “done wrong” wife … ain’t a chance in Hades a lawsuit would mean anything.
Unfortunately in this case, being First Lady for two terms is not a constitutional bar to running for President.
We’ll just have to win.
But how do we know? There is no precedent.
I wonder how hard it would be to run the executive branch from a jail cell? SNL, get yer thinking hats on.
If one crazy old bat in Texas didn’t sue to get prayer thrown out of school, who would have ever thought it would be possible to win that in court? Back in the 1960s?
Because the Constitution says absolutely nothing about spouses.
Judicial activism is for liberals. This is a horrible idea.
Could it not be argued that one married couple serving 12 or 16 years in the presidency violates the principle of the Constitutional amendment that bars presidents from serving more than two terms? Would it have really mattered if Eleanor Rossevelt had been the figurehead president during what were FDR’s final terms? It’s an end run around the amendment which was ratified by Congress and 2/3rds of the states.
And should some president be callous enough, they could win two terms, get there spouse to win two terms, then divorce her and get two more terms out of the next spouse. Wouldn’t it be a mockery of the Constitution to violate the intent of the amendment by electing spouses in perpetuity?
Come on, gang... let’s not follow the Moonbats down Tinfoil Lane.
Cute idea, but it complete out in (pardon the expression) left field.
I’m finding it hard to believe you call yourself a Tall Texan. To be so scared of Hillary Clinton winning the presidency that you would propose such a desperate idea—one that I would think only a Democrat could come up with—is ridiculous. Grow a pair!
Mockery? Yes. Violation? No.
I also think there would be a better chance of getting President Bush a third term based on all the dems claiming he was never elected for his first term.
There is no precedent, but your thesis is silly. Although the Catholic Church, and other Christian denominations, speak of “oneness” in marriage, it is not a constitutional barrier to the Presidency. Please think of better things to help keep her out of the Oval Office.
So, you're saying that though the text says nothing about this, you find the principle implicit in the penubras of the Constitution. Too bad Justice Blackmun isn't alive to write an opinion for you.
Sons are more familiarly related than spouses. This did not stop John Quincy Adams from being President. Let this be your precedent.
Forgive me - I’m blond and senior - if we have a crisis of gigantic proportions, can’t Bush postpone the election or cancel it?
why couldnt they have decided this before the democrats got in and make a law before she got a chance that would have been nice
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.