Posted on 12/05/2007 6:49:20 PM PST by OESY
Co-presidency was the Clintons’ own term and even during the 1992 race, they said it was a two for one deal, you KNEW as a voter you were getting both co-presidents in the White House.
We are supposed to forget that unconstitutional crap they pulled. Let them hang themselves by their own rope.
She is inelligible to serve but not for the reason the author cited.
There may be some weight to the premise. Although, I would certainly have legal scholars look into this further.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1899902/posts
I made roughly the same argument in this thread. Despite the ridicule we’ve both received, I still think it is worth persuing because
1) There is no federal legal precedent for this so there is no sure way to know how the courts might rule.
2) The publicity from such a suit might cause some people to think a Hillary presidency *would* be an extention of Bill’s and thus violate the Constitution and will choose to vote against her because of it.
3) Clinton, Inc. would have to divert some resources to fight the suit, meaning money they can’t put elsewhere.
Granted, it’s a longshot but conservatives have nothing to lose by trying it. And the time to do it is before she clinches the nomination while judges can’t hide behind the idea that it is “too late” to rule against it after she’s been nominated.
This has to be one of the weakest arguments I’ve ever seen. Hillary Clinton may be Bill Clinton’s wife, but she has never been elected to the office herself, despite the “common law.” Using this argument we have always had two people elected President as long as the President was married. This is a ridiculous argument.
It was also a custom to only run for two terms, but it was not a “Constitutional” custom as this was not in the Constitution.
The amendment says only that you had to be acting a president for 2 years. It specifically AVOIDS saying that you had to BE the President.
The marriage argument is incorrect but the conclusion is correct. She cannot serve (at least more than one term, I’d have to review her authority in 1997-2001).
Read the amendment sometime. It is really short and most of the language is just about who is or isn’t covered by it at the time of its passing.
No argument there. We’ll have to beat her the old fashioned way - at the ballot box.
“Is Hillary’s candidacy legal?”
OOOPS. I thought it said “Is Hillary’s candidacy lethal?”
NEVERMIND.
Bill and Hillary were co-presidents and will be so again if the Beast wins.
That is an untrue statement.
LBJ is the perfect example. He became President in Nov. 1963, serving out 14 months or so of JFK's administration.
He was elected outright in 1964 and chose not to run in 1968. Had he run and been elected he would have served as President 9 years.
I believe the cap is at 10 years. If a VP becomes President, after the death of the President, and serves two years, that then counts as his first administration.
And .. the Clinton-appointed judge will throw out the case!
I know. But technically and legally only Bill was President. I’m not saying I wouldn’t WISH she couldn’t run because of it, but she was not sworn in, Billy boy was.
Then the MSM could toss the same argument at Cheney (he’s supposed to be the real brains behind the desk). They did accuse Nancy Reagan of running the white house for senile ol’ Ronny too.
Let’s not get into a wishing contest here. Of course Hillary was pushing for things in the White House. She was not legally the president. Bill was the president. He did acrappy job, he let his wife try to push through several ideas and programs. But she was not the president.
I detest The Beast but this is utter nonsense.
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.