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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-125 next last
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]

To: Jet Jaguar

Interesting take.

It is at that,,Common Law prevails here in Alabama..


51 posted on 12/05/2007 7:43:59 PM PST by silentreignofheroes (I'm Southron,,,and I Vote...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: OESY

He got a minus 17 on his Bar exam.


52 posted on 12/05/2007 7:51:58 PM PST by MindBender26 (Is FR worth our time anymore? All the "fun" sees to be gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Theodore R.; NonValueAdded; JustaDumbBlonde; Dog Gone; Lizavetta; skimbell; ...
If you consider the 22nd Amendment to be "stupid" and without merit,
then it would follow logically that you would support its repeal, right?

.


53 posted on 12/05/2007 7:56:09 PM PST by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Stupid. But seeing the source, I suppose its just another failure to understand another country’s laws and customs.


54 posted on 12/05/2007 7:56:18 PM PST by bill1952 (The right to buy weapons is the right to be free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

“The only thing you have to fear is sixteen more years of my dictatorship.” - FDR


55 posted on 12/05/2007 7:58:28 PM PST by Reagan79 (Ralph Stanley & The Clinch Mountain Boys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

BS. Not even close.

56 posted on 12/05/2007 8:02:28 PM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, huh? I will not be bumping this thread any further by continuing to respond to your silliness. Good night.


57 posted on 12/05/2007 8:02:32 PM PST by JustaDumbBlonde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: OESY
I would not be surprised if this is the same guy that said Jews for Ron Paul, when the guy was a homosexual atheist or pagan or something like that. Ron Paul followers are the nuttiest around. Cows are smarter.
58 posted on 12/05/2007 8:10:06 PM PST by jrooney (Ron Paul makes Jimmy Carter look tough and Dennis Kucinich look sane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
It is CLEAR that Bill Clinton cannot serve in ANY roll as Hillary has already pledged.

It would need to be determined by the Supreme Court (hopefully BEFORE the 2008 general election) whether she could constitutionally serve:

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term [a term is four years] to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.

When Hillary ran Health Care with closed door sessions, she acted as President. Was that 2 years? Does it limit her to one more elected term, in her own name? Is there any sort of cap if she acted a president MORE than 2 years?

Clearly her candidacy is a violation of the INTENT of the amendment.

59 posted on 12/05/2007 8:26:56 PM PST by weegee (End the Bush-Bush-Bush-Clinton/Clinton-Clinton/Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton/Clinton Oligarchy 1980-2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

He must have missed school the day they taught reading.


60 posted on 12/05/2007 8:27:59 PM PST by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-125 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