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.
.
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.
“Damn, even our whack-jobs are being outsourced to India now.”
ROFLMAO! Post of the day.
I didn't read your comment before posting my #35. You may be right. "stupidest" as opposed to my, "one of the more stupid".
Oh my.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. LOL
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.
lol...yeah, I bet he has more than a few over there.
ROFL
That's a great take. ;OD
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.
Very interesting
Though I’m thinking it will get shot down in the courts .. especially if it’s a Clinton Judge
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.
.
Interesting take.
It is at that,,Common Law prevails here in Alabama..
He got a minus 17 on his Bar exam.
Stupid. But seeing the source, I suppose its just another failure to understand another country’s laws and customs.
“The only thing you have to fear is sixteen more years of my dictatorship.” - FDR
BS. Not even close.
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.
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.
He must have missed school the day they taught reading.
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.