Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Hillary’s candidacy legal?
Independent Indian, via Indian & Pakistani Friends of Ron Paul ^ | July 10, 2007 | Subroto Roy

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 Party’s 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.

America’s 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 Washington’s 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 Washington’s 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 Clinton’s 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 Clinton’s 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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 22ndamendment; clinonlegacy; clinton; clinton2008; copresident; hillary; mrsbillclinton; nothirdterm; oligarchy; paulbearers; presidency; queenhillary; termlimits; unconstitutional
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-125 next last

1 posted on 12/05/2007 6:49:22 PM PST by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OESY

I’ll bet this guy also thinks he doesn’t have to pay Federal income tax.


2 posted on 12/05/2007 6:51:48 PM PST by jiggyboy (Ten per cent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
Not logical, not likely.
3 posted on 12/05/2007 6:52:33 PM PST by allmendream ("A Lyger is pretty much my favorite animal."NapoleonD (Hunter 08))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Wonderful points, but if she were disallowed, that would really get the sheeple aroused. They are awaiting their “shepherd”.


4 posted on 12/05/2007 6:52:38 PM PST by Theodore R. ( Cowardice is still forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy

Being in India he doesn’t, no!


5 posted on 12/05/2007 6:52:48 PM PST by Revolting cat! (We all need someone we can bleed on...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OESY
In the common law tradition, husband and wife are “one” in the eyes of the law.

Interesting take.

I think her felonious activities in regards with Peter Paul and Norman Hsu carry more weight.

6 posted on 12/05/2007 6:53:43 PM PST by Jet Jaguar (Who would the terrorists vote for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

This is a non-starter. Don’t even waste your time.


7 posted on 12/05/2007 6:54:08 PM PST by NonValueAdded (Fred Dalton Thompson for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Stupid is as stupid does.


8 posted on 12/05/2007 6:54:27 PM PST by svcw (There is no plan B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
Furthermore, by electing Hillary, we would in effect be electing Bill Clinton to a third term as he will have extraordinary influence on his wife, the American President. This is what the 22nd Amendment was crafted to prevent. The validity of this amendment is no less important today as when it was ratified by over three-quarters of the states.

.

9 posted on 12/05/2007 6:54:29 PM PST by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

This is wishful thinking at best and Hillary Derangement Syndrome at worst. Total non-starter IMHO.


10 posted on 12/05/2007 6:55:39 PM PST by JustaDumbBlonde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Stupidest article ever.


11 posted on 12/05/2007 6:55:44 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

If there is anything here, rest assured that it does not apply to the Clintons.


12 posted on 12/05/2007 6:55:53 PM PST by freespirited (I'm voting for the GOP nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
I don't know if it's legal but I am convinced that her "lead" is like the "wizard" behind the curtain in "The Wizard of Oz". There's no there there.

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.

13 posted on 12/05/2007 6:56:09 PM PST by Lizavetta ( Politicians: When they're speaking, they're lying - when they're not speaking, they're stealing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

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.


14 posted on 12/05/2007 6:57:02 PM PST by skimbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

“They are awaiting their “shepherd”.”

Shepherdess.


15 posted on 12/05/2007 6:57:33 PM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OESY

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.


16 posted on 12/05/2007 6:58:13 PM PST by NewRomeTacitus (2008 - Won't Get Fooled Again...No No)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!

Damn, even our whack-jobs are being outsourced to India now.


17 posted on 12/05/2007 6:59:05 PM PST by jiggyboy (Ten per cent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OESY
See, this is a perfect example of why I come to FR........

for the laughs!

18 posted on 12/05/2007 6:59:43 PM PST by hole_n_one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

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


19 posted on 12/05/2007 7:01:48 PM PST by vox humana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lizavetta
Nobody as unlikeable as her will get elected president.

Your word to God's ear...

20 posted on 12/05/2007 7:02:41 PM PST by NewRomeTacitus (2008 - Won't Get Fooled Again...No No)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Her sux too!


21 posted on 12/05/2007 7:05:53 PM PST by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewRomeTacitus

Edith Bolling Galt Wilson, most notably.


22 posted on 12/05/2007 7:06:40 PM PST by Past Your Eyes (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Good grief. This is just pitiful.


23 posted on 12/05/2007 7:08:04 PM PST by Past Your Eyes (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
Don't hold your breath.

24 posted on 12/05/2007 7:15:40 PM PST by I see my hands (_8(|)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Theodore R.; NonValueAdded; JustaDumbBlonde; Dog Gone; Lizavetta; skimbell; ...
To quote another blogger:

"But what [is] the real issue? It was concern that more than two terms as President would lead to excessive executive power and influence over government and public policy matters! The longer a person or a party holds political power, the greater the opportunity and, therefore, the possibility that he or she will seriously compromise the processes by which politics and representative government can function. When you have a charismatic leader, these concerns become even more worrisome."



COMMENT: This is a subject worthy of discussion. Hillary's election is not inevitable, Sheeple.

.

25 posted on 12/05/2007 7:16:08 PM PST by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: vox humana
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

Maybe we write stupid articles trying to interpret their laws, but I haven't seen any that I can recall.

To put the lack of logic and rational reasoning into perspective in this piece, a US corporation is also considered as a US citizen.

So, arguably Microsoft could run for President.

26 posted on 12/05/2007 7:16:26 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

Well, Hillary did always say “We are the president.”


27 posted on 12/05/2007 7:19:36 PM PST by darkangel82 (And the band played on....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Nice try, but no cigar.


28 posted on 12/05/2007 7:21:11 PM PST by wimpycat (Hyperbole is the opiate of the activist wacko.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Sounds good to me.


29 posted on 12/05/2007 7:21:47 PM PST by dmw (Aren't you glad you use common sense? Don't you wish everybody did?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
Heck with Hillary, who are the “Pakistani friends of Ron Paul” and why are they in India?
30 posted on 12/05/2007 7:23:08 PM PST by BallyBill (Serial Hit-N-Run poster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Exactly, he should be illegal to put a rapist in as POTUS, but we crossed that barrier rather easily.


31 posted on 12/05/2007 7:23:22 PM PST by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: OESY
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.

That would make Hillary guilty of perjury and has already been impeached!

Does that mean that Hillary is guilty of being with Monica too?

32 posted on 12/05/2007 7:23:23 PM PST by uptoolate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
COMMENT: This is a subject worthy of discussion. Hillary's election is not inevitable, Sheeple.

Don't capitalize the "S" when calling me this. It's just not right.

33 posted on 12/05/2007 7:26:21 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: OESY
COMMENT: This is a subject worthy of discussion. Hillary's election is not inevitable, Sheeple.

No court would touch the Clintons with a six foot pole!!!

34 posted on 12/05/2007 7:27:38 PM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: OESY

One of the more stupid articles I have read. Not he stupidest, mind you.


35 posted on 12/05/2007 7:28:24 PM PST by Graybeard58 ( Remember and pray for SSgt. Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy
Damn, even our whack-jobs are being outsourced to India now.

LOL!

36 posted on 12/05/2007 7:30:27 PM PST by Azzurri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: OESY
Who said Hillary's election was inevitable? I have, in fact, said many times that she will not win the democrat nomination.

That doesn't change the fact that her candidacy won't possibly be found to be illegal. If you want to waste the bandwidth, have at it. It is still technically a free country. ;-)

37 posted on 12/05/2007 7:30:35 PM PST by JustaDumbBlonde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: OESY
Well... They did market themselves as "co-Presidents" back in the '90s.
38 posted on 12/05/2007 7:31:37 PM PST by Redcloak (This post certified 100% Hillary-free. um... Never mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: uptoolate
Does that mean that Hillary is guilty of being with Monica too?

Could be or was Hillary gone for the day?

39 posted on 12/05/2007 7:32:02 PM PST by Buddy B (MSgt Retired-USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: OESY

This is Hugh and Series. Set beebers to stun!


40 posted on 12/05/2007 7:32:12 PM PST by Panzerlied ("We shall never surrender!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy

“Damn, even our whack-jobs are being outsourced to India now.”

ROFLMAO! Post of the day.


41 posted on 12/05/2007 7:32:13 PM PST by atomic conspiracy (Rousing the blog-rabble since 9-11-01)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Stupidest article ever.

I didn't read your comment before posting my #35. You may be right. "stupidest" as opposed to my, "one of the more stupid".

42 posted on 12/05/2007 7:32:15 PM PST by Graybeard58 ( Remember and pray for SSgt. Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Oh my.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. LOL


43 posted on 12/05/2007 7:32:49 PM PST by Petronski (Reject the liberal superfecta: huckabee, romney, giuliani, mccain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: uptoolate

I would never allow the Clinton/Rodham inc. the dignity of assuming they were ever married in the first place. They lost their credibility years ago.


44 posted on 12/05/2007 7:33:13 PM PST by BerryDingle (Illegitimi Non Carborundum (Don't let the bastards wear you down))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: OESY
Source: Pakistani Friends of Ron Paul

lol...yeah, I bet he has more than a few over there.

45 posted on 12/05/2007 7:34:22 PM PST by Mr. Mojo (My other Telecaster is a Thinline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy; dighton; jdm; martin_fierro; Larry Lucido
Damn, even our whack-jobs are being outsourced to India now.

ROFL

That's a great take. ;OD

46 posted on 12/05/2007 7:34:32 PM PST by Petronski (Reject the liberal superfecta: huckabee, romney, giuliani, mccain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Buddy B

This is the entireties theory of marriage that when a husband and wife marry they effectively together become a single unit. This theory is still used in many eastern states where married couples can own their home or property by a tenancy by the entirety. It makes it very difficult for creditors to move against the home and effectively provides an exemption for non-mortgage creditors from executing a judgment against the realty. However, it is an anachronistic doctrine that is no longer recognized by the courts. It effectively gave the husband complete control over the wife as she was deemed to be an extension of his will. Ah, the good old days.


47 posted on 12/05/2007 7:36:13 PM PST by appeal2 (r)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Very interesting

Though I’m thinking it will get shot down in the courts .. especially if it’s a Clinton Judge


48 posted on 12/05/2007 7:39:54 PM PST by Mo1 ( http://www.gohunter08.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

They may be “one” in the eyes of the law for marital property reasons but only Bill Clinton was actually sworn in as the Commander in Chief.

The guy is trying to change the definition of “one” in order to prevent Hillary from being a valid candidate. Not even God looks at us like this. In marriage husband and wife are also “one”, but God does will not judge the husband for the wife’s sins, nor the wife’s, to the husband. And even though husband and wife are “one”, they have equal yet distinct roles only they can fill. Just because you are “one” doesn’t mean if “one” of you holds an office with a term limit, the other spouse who wasn’t elected to that office, by being married to the officeholder, is disqualified from runnning for that office later.

It is wishful thinking at best. I say let Hillary be the candidate. She is such a high negative candidate, and has such a low charisma, she will not win. As the stress on her increases, she will only get meaner, and more shrill, and defensive, and shouting. And that will just turn off people even more.


49 posted on 12/05/2007 7:40:24 PM PST by Secret Agent Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Panzerlied


A lot of stupid people discounted the influence of
the Swift Boat Veterans and POWs on the 2004 election.



Isn't it a bit early for you to surrender?
You haven't begun to fight, let alone
marshall cogent arguments, Beeber.


.


50 posted on 12/05/2007 7:42:34 PM PST by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-125 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson