Bill Clinton Eyes Repeal of 22nd Amendment (posted 5/29/03)

Newsmax.com ^ | 05-29-03 | Newsmax

[Theodore R.]

Clinton Eyes 22nd Amendment Repeal - Again

For the second time since he left the White House, ex-president Bill Clinton has engaged in open speculation about repealing the 22nd Amendment barring presidents from seeking a third term.

"I think since people are living much longer ... the 22nd Amendment should probably be modified to say two consecutive terms instead of two terms for a lifetime," Clinton told an audience at Boston's John F. Kennedy Presidential Library on Wednesday.

"There may come a time when we elect a president at age 45 or 50, and then 20 years later the country comes up against the same kind of problems the president faced before," he said, according to a Reuters report. "People would like to bring that man or woman back but they would have no way to do so."

In Sept. 2001, Clinton told reporters in Las Vegas that "some constitutional experts think it is possible" that he could run for a third term regardless of the 22nd Amendment prohibition.

"I would probably do well," he added, in comments picked up by the Las Vegas Weekly. Clinton said he thought he could have won a third term based on what he said was his 65 percent job approval rating when he left office.

"Clinton had obviously researched the subject," the paper observed, reporting that he spoke "for five minutes about constitutional law and academic studies about the prospect" of revising the 22nd Amendment.

Others have suggested that the best way for Clinton to win a third term would be to have him run as Mrs. Clinton's vice president, then "inherit" the Oval Office upon her death.

"The other day, someone lofted a weird proposition that bears thinking about," Clinton friendly gossip columnist Liz Smith mused last May.

"This scenario posited that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton would eventually run for president and her vice presidential candidate would be Bill Clinton." Smith said the hypothetical pairing raised "an interesting constitutional question. Should the hypothetical President Hillary die in office, would her husband be allowed to ascend to the Oval Office again?

"Several smarties I know say it would be "legally possible," the gossip maven claimed.

Removing Hillary from the picture is a popular theme with some of the ex-president's biggest supporters.

In his 1995 movie tribute to the Clinton presidency, "An American President," director Rob Reiner has the Hillary character die before the action begins, allowing Bill [Michael Douglas] to frolic in the White House with environmental lobbyist [Annette Benning] unencumbered by adultery issues.

[Theodore R.]

On C-SPAN this morning, a call-in segment asked people either to endorse or to condemn the 22nd Amendment. Many of the callers were supporters of former President Bill Clinton. Virtually all said that they wanted to repeal the 22nd Amendment -- but only if "their bill" could "get back in there." Moderates said they wanted to modify the amendment so that a president could serve 8 years, sit out four, then come back for 8 more. That is the provision used for the Louisiana governorship.

[ClearCase_guy]

Let's watch as W gets easily elected to a second term. Let's watch his second term be a huge success. Let's watch as the Dems stop talking about allowing a third term.

[Theodore R.]

I posted this twice. The first "posting" did not appear to work, but it went through. Sorry. Can the moderator remove one post and consolidate the comments onto one?

[Jeff Head]

Clinton is missing the power, badly. He is so pathetically transparent.

God protect us from individuals like this and the evil behind them. God grant that we can always stand against such evil.

Jeff

[linn37]

I don't think it needs changed,but its funny to see Clinton think that he can win another term.

[HankReardon]

Why did the Democrats never have the courage to denounce this man? They still don't. After all the problems this "man" left this nation that so many have fought and died for, he must be absolutely shameless to be able to act like there's not a thing wrong with him.

[Alberta's Child]

I came across an interesting story just before Election Day 2000 that received almost no attention. Some polling group conducted a poll to see how Bill Clinton would have fared against George W. Bush in the 2000 election -- Not only would Clinton have lost to George W. Bush, but he would have lost to former President George H. W. Bush, too!

[Noumenon]

Should this ever come to pass, Romanian term limits will be the order of the day.

[LurkedLongEnough]

This is scary - Ron Kuby on WABC New York talk radio mentioned that Bill Clinton could become President again without being elected. Here's the scenario: Hillary for Pres, Bill as her running mate, they win, she steps down. This would circumvent the 22nd amendment anyway.

[Vinnie_Vidi_Vici]

you are incorrect! You cannot be elected Vice-president if you do not meet the eligibility requirements for president. Since Clinton has already served 2 terms, he cannot reun for Vice-President.

[Faraday]

The 22nd Amendment was passed because the Democrats were concerned that Dwight Eisenhower would win a third and perhaps a fourth term, as FDR had. Running Bill Clinton for a third term would be the equivalent of firing on Fort Sumter.

[NEPA]

"This scenario posited that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton would eventually run for president and her vice presidential candidate would be Bill Clinton." Smith said the hypothetical pairing raised "an interesting constitutional question. Should the hypothetical President Hillary die in office, would her husband be allowed to ascend to the Oval Office again?

"Several smarties I know say it would be "legally possible," the gossip maven claimed.

I thought to run as VP a person had to be qualified to be Pres., which under the 22nd Amend., Bill isn't.

[goldstategop]

Lissen up... its all about HIM.

[StoneColdTaxHater]

Of course Der Schlickmeister wants it repealed. He can't live without the limelight or without being in a psoition of power. He seriously believes it is his birthright or something.

[Starboard]

Clinton is missing the power, badly. He is so pathetically transparent.

Yes, he clearly wants another chance to redeem himself after squandering eight years in office. Bush's substantial accomplishments and high popularity must be grating on him every day. IMO a second bid for power would fail miserably. There's been a political sea change since 911 and we now live in a world that requires real leadership.

[Sunshine Sister]

Hehehehehe! You got that right!

[Bluntpoint]

Last line of XII Amendment:


"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

[usapatriot28]

You cannot be elected Vice-president if you do not meet the eligibility requirements for president. Since Clinton has already served 2 terms, he cannot reun for Vice-President.

Wrong! The 22nd Amendment does not preclude a 2 term President from become President again. It merely prevents their election and does nothing to remove their eligiblity to serve as President.

Amendment XXII
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 to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. ...

[Michael.SF.]

Hillary for Pres, Bill as her running mate, they win, she steps down.

Absolutely no way on God's good earth would that, that.........female, step down and give anything away. Once she is in power, anything could happen:

[Bluntpoint]

Wrong. Read post above concerning XII amendment.

[1L]

What we need is an amendment preventing a democRAT from ever becoming President.

[Theodore R.]

You are right, Bill Clinton is not NOW qualified to seek either the vice presidency or the presidency. But if the public wants him, as it did in 1999, the powers that be might ignore the Constitution and let him run because "it's a democracy, and the people really want him." It's much like Trent Lott refusing to have a real impeachment trial on grounds that 45 Democrat senators would never vote for conviction regardless of the evidence.

[lawdude]

What a pompous, egotistical MF. I wish he would ....

[Bluntpoint]

"What we need is an amendment preventing a democRAT from ever becoming President."

As with the right to an abortion, maybe such disqualification can be "inferred" from an amalgam of enumerated rights.

[LiteKeeper]

Is there no limit to his ever inflating ego?

[OldFriend]

As usual Ron Kuby fast and loose with the facts when it suits him.

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed, Clinton misses the power. Thank you for the heads up! And may God deliver us from evil!

[Theodore R.]

But Artice I of the Constitution says that the qualification of vice president is the same as that of president.

[alex]

Actually it may be fun to watch. Clinton is unelectable (he would not be able to get in even in 1992 without Ross' and Pat's help), but he is a sure shot to win Rat's nomination, and he is young - what about next 30 years with Bill Clinton runing for president in every election?

[Theodore R.]

No, Amendment 22 passed Congress in 1947 and was ratified by 3/4 of the states in 1951. Eisenhower did not become president until Jan. 20, 1953.

[LurkedLongEnough]

"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

Thank you! This makes my day!

[Bluntpoint]

"As usual Ron Kuby fast and loose with the facts when it suits him."

Typical ACLU attorney! Clinton can be reelected and the Second Amendment was a typographical error!

[Tall_Texan]

With the four-year manadatory gap, I'd be open to the idea on the belief that, in general Republican presidents are more popular than Democrat ones. Alzheimer's disease aside, wouldn't you prefer Reagan in 1992, even to Bush the Elder? I would have.

And frankly, as long as the spouses can run for office, you've already circumvented the admendment.

[OldFriend]

LOL....loved that line about the typo........thanx

[lawdude]

"The 22nd Amendment was passed because the Democrats were concerned that Dwight Eisenhower would win a third and perhaps a fourth term, as FDR had."

Your history is a mite off. The 22d Amendment was ratified on Feb. 27, 1951. DWE was hardly a threat to the dems at that time since he didn't become president until 1953.

It was actually passed becaused the PEOPLE feared that the presidency might turn into a monarchy.

[Michael.SF.]

From Neal Boortz's Column, which is a daily "must read" IMHO:

A THIRD TERM

There he was, Bill Clinton, telling a group of slobbering admirers yesterday that our Constitution should be amended to allow someone to run for more than two terms. Maybe just limit them to two consecutive terms.

Evidently Clinton still has quite a list of Chinese military units he wants to strengthen, interns he wants to receive oral sex from, friends he wants to pardon, White House furnishings he wants to steal and lies he wants to steal.

Just keep at it, Slick Willie. Every time you or that hideous so-called "wife" of yours open your mouth more and more Americans are reminded of what an immoral and pathetic president you are. One thing though. If you ever do run again, make sure the American economy is poised for growth, just like it was the last time, or the people will never put up with your sociopathic crap.

Now, my humble opinion:

I would agree that the Consitution should allow for a President to serve in more then two non-consecutive terms. There is no reason why we the people should be denied the ability to re-elect the man we want.

Article 22 was put in for simple political reasons.

But I would be physically sickened if enough people were stupid enough to elect him again.

[Gary Boldwater]

Why not rewrite the Amendment to read like the limitation on discount coupons at the grocery store:

"Only one per household"

[usapatriot28]

Wrong. Read post above concerning XII amendment.

I read it and still disagree. The XII amendment says that any person ineligible to hold the Presidency can not become Vice President. But the XXII amendment does NOT remove the eligiblity of a two term President. It specificly uses the word "elected", a person can not be "elected" President more than twice. Everywhere else in the Constitution (and the XXII Amendment itself) when referring to a President's term they use the words "hold" or "held". I know it sounds picky, but there is a definite distinction between someone who "holds" the office of the President and someone "elected" to the office of President.

Maybe this will help clearify it for you. If a person becomes Vice President, then upon the President's death becomes President, with more than 2 years left on the term, he is only eligible to be elected President once. But what if he is never elected President, but becomes someone elses Vice President. And again becomes President after the President's death (again with more than 2 years left on the term). I think it is clear to see that NOTHING in the XXII Amendment would prevent this person from then being elected President, in spite of already serving the majority of two terms. A clear difference is made between "holding" the Presidency and being "elected" President. Amendment XXII deals only with the election.

[freekitty]

Silly boy, the amendment protects the American people from the likes of you and that hag that defines herself as a Senator from New York. We will always remember what you and she did(Not) for our country.

[Theodore R.]

That's an easy one, Gary. It all depends on the meaning of the word "household."

[Dionysius]

Clinton would be the poster child for all forces opposed to the repeal (Well perhaps Carter, too).

[Wright is right!]

Okey-dokey, let's have a look at what would have to happen for a repeal of the XXIInd to take place.

First, a repeal measure (I refuse to call it a "bill") would have to clear BOTH the House of Reps AND the Senate with a 2/3 vote. There is NO chance that such a repeal would allow any prior or current holder of the office of President to become eligible as a result of the repeal. In other words, the only person who could serve more than two terms would be someone elected to the presidency in the FUTURE. That knocks X-42(i) out. Plus, 2/3 of the current House and Senate would NEVER accept this repeal measure. Ain't gonna happen.

Secondly, the repeal would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. The GOP controls a LOT of state houses - certainly enough to guarantee that the repeal would fail.

Even if the measure somehow made it thru both houses of InCongruous and even if EVENTUALLY the measure were ratified by 3/4 of the states and even IF there were no prohibition on past office-holders running again for Prez, by then, X-42(i) will have long been repudiated politically. To almost all of the Red Zone, the fish that won't leave the stage is stinking more and more each day. By the time any such repeal might take place, the country would be absolutely SICK of him.

In other words - there is absolutely ZERO chance that X-42(i) will EVER be President again.

Michael

[Theodore R.]

But I would be physically sickened if enough people were stupid enough to elect him again.

Well, maybe you should buy some kind of over-the-counter medication for nausea because most people believe that another clintoid presidency is in our future, one way or another. Too many Americans "believe" in "democracy" and the "Clintons," even that word is an alias.

[Bluntpoint]

"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

Clinton is precluded from eligibilty as Vice President. The language is clear. Ron Kuby is wrong.

[Knightsofswing]

THERE IS NO WAY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH, THAT I WOULD ALLOW THAN SON OF A SNAKE BACK ANY WHERE NEAR MY WHITEHOUSE!!!
The only thing that he & hillary should be seeing is a 6X8 cell in Levenworth, or the end of a rope!!!

[wingnuts'nbolts]

If my memory serves I seem to remember Hillary, Terry, Carville et al, making noises like this during Hillary's becoming a NYer. I thought at the time that the plan would be to put Hill in the oval office for 4 years, then trot out ole Bill for another 8, assuming Hill would allow him to play leap frog with her. Had 9/11 not changed the face of the world who know what would have been set in motion. I see, however, that they are back on track.

[Wright is right!]

The only prob with your thinking is that you're forgetting that anyone ineligible to run for Prez ALSO cannot run for VICE-Prez. But let me throw you another poser, since your line of thinking leans toward the man inheriting the office as opposed to running for and winning it.

X-42(i) COULD run for Congress - and probably win a seat in a friendly district somewhere. THEN he could, if his party were in power, be elected by his party caucus to Speaker Of The House. THEN if both the Prez and Vice-Prez died, the line of succession would put him back in the White House for the remainder of the dead president's term. But he could not run for reelection.

Michael

[Bluntpoint]

You guys are going to give yourselves headaches.

[Bluntpoint]

What if... Clinton invents a reelection laser beam!

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Here's the scenario: Hillary for Pres, Bill as her running mate, they win, she steps down. This would circumvent the 22nd amendment anyway.

Now, think about that for a minute. Can you even imagine Hillary stepping aside for Bill? She bullied him the whole time he was President and ran the show anyway. Why would the first woman President, especially Hillary, do something that dumb?

Secondly, the Dems and the Clintons had better take another look at that blue and red map. Three quarters of the states have to ratify a Constitutional Amendment after it is passed by the Congress. If that were to happen it would be because they had someone other than Bubba in mind.