Posted on 06/12/2006 3:28:21 PM PDT by HAL9000
How to bring back Bill
A Clinton-Clinton 2008 ticket is constitutionally possible.
WASHINGTON, D.C., AND MADISON, N.J. – Americans are nostalgic for the 1990s. They long for a time when terrorism was perceived as a problem confined to foreign lands and when the stock market's rise seemed unstoppable. And, it turns out, many of them miss former President Bill Clinton.
In a recent poll conducted for CNN, respondents favored Mr. Clinton over President Bush on a variety of issues, including policy areas traditionally viewed as GOP strongholds. By a wide margin, those surveyed indicated that Clinton did a better job managing the economy and handling foreign affairs and taxes.
Clinton's resurgent popularity, and Democrats' difficulties in taking over the White House in recent years, might counsel a bold strategy for 2008. Whoever is selected as the Democratic nominee for the next presidential race should consider William Jefferson Clinton as a candidate for vice president.
~ snip ~
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
(For context as to what RTFM and RTFConstitution stand for:
"Read The F*****g Manual"/ "Read The F*****g Constitution").
So .. you're trying to make me believe that if Bill was "elected" VP - and something happened to Hillary, Bill could take over as President ..??
If you believe that .. I think you have rocks for brains.
And .. even if you choose to use the word "serve" as the key, it still doesn't work - BECAUSE BILL HAS ALREADY BEEN ELECTED TWICE AND THAT MAKES HIM INELIGIBLE TO "SERVE".
IS ANYBODY GETTING THIS YET ..?? Clinton is not eligible to SERVE or be ELECTED !!
If I'm wrong, then show me where. Show me where there's a shortfall in my logic.
You won't, of course, because you can't. All you can do is make a bald assertion that I'm "dead wrong," with zero discussion, with zero engagement of any of the points I made, and utterly without proof. This is precisely the same tactic liberals use.
Having seen your posts here before, I assumed you were a pretty good guy. Obviously, I was wrong.
If the truth upsets you, there are other websites where that is no impediment. As for my comments, if you don't like my peaches, don't shake my tree.
Truth doesn't upset me. I will confess, though, that I have little tolerance for ignorant jerks who respond to a cordial invitation to a thread by advising me to "Read The F*****g Constitution."
There's no reason to "discuss" this subject, any more than there's a need to "discuss" gravity.
Obviously, a lot of people on this thread think you're wrong. But Congressman Billybob knows better, because he's Congressman Billybob. And if you don't like Congressman Billybob's OPINION, presented utterly without any justification whatsoever, then "Read The F*****g Constitution."
Incidentally, a lot of physicists would find quite ample reason to discuss gravity. But that's a minor point.
P.S. I don't seek the support of people who can't read and/or don't like the Constitution.
Since you're not likely to get the support of those like myself who do, then if I were you, I wouldn't quit my day job.
Where does it say that?
I haven't found any place where it explicitly says that a person twice elected President is ineligible to SERVE as President.
If you can find it, I'll happily admit I'm wrong. As far as I can tell so far, IT'S NOT THERE. Not in explicit words.
What IS there is the 22nd Amendment, which says that a person already twice elected is ineligibel TO BE ELECTED to the Office of President.
So if the meaning you claim is there, IS there, then it is there (as far as I see) by INTENT, and NOT LITERALLY SPELLED OUT.
Those claiming they know what the Constitution says ought to read it!
Incidentally, I don't like the analysis any more than you do. But at least I'm brave enough to engage what is actually written, rather than fantasize that words that I wish were there, are there.
This author is really clueless. There's a rather big problem: It would be blatantly unconstitutional.
Incidentally, I'm glad someone appointed you the Grand Policeman of which topics may and may not be discussed on FreeRepublic. Can I see your badge, please?
We've been over this before, please read the thread.
The question is whether the 22nd Amendment, which prohibits certain persons from being elected as President, makes those same persons "constitutionally ineligible to the office of President" (which would likely be read as "constitutionally ineligible to serve in the office of President.
Whether you agree with the argument or not, and whether you like the argument or not, there's definitely a reasonable argument to be made that from the wording of the 22nd Amendment, from what it DOES and (more importantly) DOES NOT say, said Amendment may be construed to be SOLELY a bar on ELECTION to the office; that it does NOT speak to arrival in the office, and service thereof, gained through the line of Presidential Succession.
Frankly, those who favor a strict interpretation of the Constitution are likely to have trouble on this one.
Billybob,
Aside from pointing out that I incorrectly read the length of time that a person may serve as President, no one has yet found any significant fault with my analysis.
If you're intellectually capable, then do so. And if you can't demonstrate that I'm absolutely wrong and an utter idiot in my reasoning, then apologize for your arrogance and rudeness.
It says the VICE PRESIDENT must be able to SERVE as president.
People are trying to say that Bill Clinton could run as a vice president and SERVE as president .. because it only restricts Bill from being "elected" again.
We've already argued this mess before, so I'm done arguing about it.
Excuse me? I was responding to a post asking for that passage and that post had not yet been responded to.
People are trying to say that Bill Clinton could run as a vice president and SERVE as president .. because it only restricts Bill from being "elected" again.
Precisely. So to refute the idea, you have to convincingly demonstrate that the 22nd Amendment bars an otherwise qualified person from ascending to the Presidency without being elected, through the line of Presidential Succession.
Nobody has been able to do so.
Apologies. I thought you were making a point that had been made several times before. My bad. :-)
This is off topic, but I need some clarification on this one. This has been argued in here before--and heatedly, at times. Does "native born" include children born on US military bases which are located in other nations? When I had my son, I came home from Germany to have him in the USA because I was told that his birth on a US base in Germany would mean that he would be a NATURALIZED CITIZEN...and, therefore, not eligible to run for President. WHADDA' YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS? :-)
oh please, please, please let the left do this please, please, please. i wanna hear the S-T-O-M-P!!!!!!
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.