Skip to comments.Is Hillary’s candidacy legal?
Posted on 12/05/2007 6:49:20 PM PST by OESY
Mrs Hillary Clinton, Senator from New York State, is one of the leading contenders for the Democratic Partys 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.
Americas 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 Washingtons 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 Washingtons 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 Clintons 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 Clintons 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.
I’ll bet this guy also thinks he doesn’t have to pay Federal income tax.
Wonderful points, but if she were disallowed, that would really get the sheeple aroused. They are awaiting their “shepherd”.
Being in India he doesn’t, no!
I think her felonious activities in regards with Peter Paul and Norman Hsu carry more weight.
This is a non-starter. Don’t even waste your time.
Stupid is as stupid does.
This is wishful thinking at best and Hillary Derangement Syndrome at worst. Total non-starter IMHO.
Stupidest article ever.
If there is anything here, rest assured that it does not apply to the Clintons.
She's not in the lead, she's not a shoo-in, and she's not particularly competent. But she does have a complicit media machine to create that mirage. Nobody as unlikeable as her will get elected president.
Not so. It’s still possible for an individual to serve about 10 yrs. A V.P. could fill out the last 2 years of another president term (dies, assassination, impeachment etc.) and then be elected to two of his own terms.
Just a FWIW.
“They are awaiting their shepherd.”
Well, there’s the fact that Eleanor Roosevelt was effectively the President for at least a year while FDR was debilitated - though it was never officially recognized. I believe other women were in similar circumstances before her.
Damn, even our whack-jobs are being outsourced to India now.
for the laughs!
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
Your word to God's ear...
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.