HILLARY CAN'T CONSTITUTIONALLY BE ELECTED PRESIDENT - OR VICE-PRESIDENT EITHER

Jon Christian Ryter ^ | 06/23/04 | Jon Christian Ryter

[inquest]

The author isn't saying that Bill and Hillary are inelgible for the presidency for the same reason; he's saying that they're ineligible for the vice presidency for the same reason (that reason being their ineligibilty for the presidency).

[dirtboy]

And why is Hillary ineligible to be vice president, then???

[inquest]

Because, as the author claims, she's ineligible to be president. That's the common thread between her situation and Bill's, that he's referring to.

[dirtboy]

Because, as the author claims, she's ineligible to be president. That's the common thread between her situation and Bill's, that he's referring to.

Nice circle you're running here. I ask you why Hillary is ineligible to be president, and you say because she's ineligible to be vice president. I then ask you why Hillary is ineligible to be vice president, and you say because she's ineligible to be president.

Sooner or later, you have to say SPECIFICALLY why she is ineligible to be president - because the only disqualification to be vice president is that someone would be ineligible to be president. So please tell me WHY Hillary is ineligible to be president.

[Cooter]

The Constitution requires one additional, often over-looked, requirement to be president.

To receive the most electoral votes?

Not a requirement. One could become president via succession. Example: Gerry Ford who was appointed VP and then became president upon Nixon's resignation.

[inquest]

I ask you why Hillary is ineligible to be president, and you say because she's ineligible to be vice president.

No, I didn't say that. We know the reason why the author says she's ineligible to be president - her gender. But regardless of why, she - like her husband - is indeed inelgible for it, according to him. And it's for that reason, common to both of them, that both are alleged to be inelgible for the vice presidency.

To recap his argument: They're inelgible to the presidency for different reasons, but their ineligible to the vice presidency for the same reason (that reason being their ineligibility to the presidency).

[dirtboy]

No, I didn't say that. We know the reason why the author says she's ineligible to be president - her gender.

So the author says that Hillary is ineligible to be president for exactly the same reason that Bill is ineligible. However, the reason Bill is ineligible is because he's already served two full terms, whereas Hillary is ineligible because she's female.

Last I checked, that doesn't conform to the Webster's definition of "precisely" - above and beyond the complete erroneous claim that Hillary is ineligible because she's female.

[inquest]

So the author says that Hillary is ineligible to be president for exactly the same reason that Bill is ineligible.

No, vice president. Read the rest of my post.

[dirtboy]

No, vice president. Read the rest of my post.

Once again, the only reason that someone is ineligible to be vice president is if they are ineligible to be president, so the distinction is moot. The author posits very different reasons why Bill and Hillary are ineligible to be president, and that hardly meets the condition of "precisely".

If you want to continute to engage in absolutely futile nit-picking defense of one phrase in a thoroughly discredited article, go ahead and I cede the field to you now.

[inquest]

Once again, the only reason that someone is ineligible to be vice president is if they are ineligible to be president

True, but it still is a reason - and that makes it the same reason for both of them.

[dirtboy]

True, but it still is a reason - and that makes it the same reason for both of them.

Ah. So Bill being ineligible because he served two terms is the same reason as Hillary being ineligible because she is female?

Have you ever looked up the meaning of the word "same" in the dictionary?

[inquest]

Nooo... being ineligble for the vice presidency because one is inelgible for the presidency, is the same as being ineligible for the vice presidency because one is ineligible for the presidency.

You can always keep deferring reasons. Spending any degree of time with a small child will prove that. He'll ask why something is, and you tell him, and then he'll say "Why?", and then you answer that, and he'll say "Why?", etc., etc. Even if the answer to the first "Why?" is precisely the same for two different observations, or even the first three "Why?"s, eventually the answers will start to diverge.

[dirtboy]

Nooo... being ineligble for the vice presidency because one is inelgible for the presidency, is the same as being ineligible for the vice presidency because one is ineligible for the presidency.

I give up. A dog that wants to chase its tail is gonna chase its tail.

[GLDNGUN]

Have it your way, Mad Hatter, because words apparently mean to you what you want them to mean. To normal folks, precisely the same reason means just that. So you can have the last word if you wish to further mangle the English language.

I am simply reading the obvious meaning of the author's article. Some have accused the author of reading more into the Constitution than is there. Then they turn around and do the same thing with his article, while insulting him. It's just rather ironical, not to mention hypocritical.

[Bobby_Taxpayer]

When has a few words on a measly piece of parchment meant anything to the a holes. Hillary and Obama wipe their rear ends with it and no one does crap.

[Political Junkie Too]

Wow! 11 years late to the discussion.

-PJ

[DoodleDawg]

...only men were eligible to run for elective federal office since the Constitution itself barred women from voting and, by extension, from holding office...

The Constitution didn't barr women from voting, the individual states did.

[DoodleDawg]

By this asinine bit of logic women cannot be senators or representatives either since Article I uses the male personal pronoun for them as well.

[DoodleDawg]

Damn. I’m really going to have to start looking at the dates posted.

[Political Junkie Too]

I always wonder what it was that draws someone to a long dead thread. Bad search?

-PJ