Posted on 08/31/2007 7:13:11 AM PDT by presidio9
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told a talk show her husband, Bill, had "looked into" running as her vice president.
Appearing on the David Letterman show on Thursday, the talk-show host asked if Bill Clinton could serve as her vice president should she be elected to the White House.
But the former first lady acknowledged that he could not. "Believe me," she joked, "he looked into that."
She also remarked that if the Constitution didn't forbid a president from a third term, "he might be running."
The interivew marked Clinton's seventh appearance on "The Late Show," which was celebrating its 14th anniversary on CBS.
She first appeared on February 14, 1994, when Letterman's mother, Dorothy, interviewed her briefly from the Winter Olympics in Norway.
On Thursday's show, Clinton recounted a summer in Alaska during which she donned boots and an apron to gut salmon with a spoon.
"Best preparation for being in Washington that you can possibly imagine," she joked.
Clinton talked shop, too, discussing the need for campaign finance reform, how to pull troops out of Iraq and the importance of caring for wounded veterans.
She said that while resistance to a female commander in chief has diminished, it hasn't disappeared.
"I think it's not so much that people don't think a woman can do the job, it's just that we've never done it before," she said.
"I'm not running because I'm a woman; I'm running because I think I'm the best-qualified and experienced person who can do the job. But I know that it's a big deal that I might be the first woman president."
Clinton also read a "Top Ten List" of tongue-in-cheek campaign promises, including No. 3: "We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions."
Twain kept a 30% share for himself, so he did quite well in addition to helping set up Grant's family for a comfortable life after his death. He tried to repeat the success by publishing Sherman's memoirs and took a bath on them. I've read them both and I actually thought that Sherman's were the better of the two.
Show me the law that says he's ineligible. It isn't in the 22nd Amendment.
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.
and there were not more than two years left in the term
That limit is wholly a figment of your imagination.
Be is ineligible to be elected.
To be elected president. No other office.
I'm still bitter over the god-like reverence given FDR in light of his ruinous domestic policies, a consuming addiction to power despite failed health, disregard for Holocaust refugees and a horrifying blindness to the growing evil that was Joseph Stalin.
We're in a very bad situation if we return to a Clinton, especially one with such a calculating personality and lifelong craven lust for personal power.
The 12th amendment says:
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Anyone ineligible to be elected president is also ineligible to be elected vice-president.
-PJ
Go read some more and get back to me. I’m pretty busy.
You will find language regarding him being ineligible to run for VP because he is not eligible to serve as prez.
thanks
i don’t get fox except when i visit my inlaws... so i miss brian’s sly remarks...
teeman
Why would anyone gut a salmon with a spoon? She is a crazy, lying lunatic. Wackjob. Weirdo. I am suspicious of everything that comes from the gaping wound between her nose and chin, even when she states her “gender”. She’s a thing, an it, an alien, asexual mutant. I wish she would just blow away. Forever.
She said the Constitution doesn’t prevent him from running for a third term. I am no expert but wasn’t two terms and out a amendment to the Constitution?
The beast already proved that first lady is more powerful than vice-president.
That fanasty made me laugh out loud.
Hey mom, can I get a pair of boots and travel 2,000 miles?
Why whatever for, dear?
To gut fish with a spoon. Oh, certainly dear. run along.
Nonsense.
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Bill Clinton is not constitutionally ineligible to serve as president. He is ineligible to be elected president.
Anyone ineligible to be elected president is also ineligible to be elected vice-president.
That's what you say -- it's not what the 12th amendment says, and it's never come up for a court to rule on it either way. It says "ineligible to the office." Does that mean ineligible to be elected, or ineligible to serve? A court could go either way, but the legislative intent of the 22nd seems pretty clear to me.
Millions hate her and with good reason. She was arrogant as First Lady, so just imagine her as President. A monster.
I think I have a sound enough argument -- agree or not -- that a "run along, kid" reply is uncalled for.
You will find language regarding him being ineligible to run for VP because he is not eligible to serve as prez.
This argument is not new. We kicked it around in '04, when Bill was rumored to be a candidate for veep. What emerged was no clear ruling (no part of the 22nd has been tested) and no real consensus among the pundits or scholars asked. But why take my word for it? From the annotations to the 22nd Amendment in the U.S. Code, Annotated (emphasis mine):
The Twenty-Second Amendment has yet to be tested or applied. Commentary suggests, however, that a number of issues could be raised as to the Amendment’s meaning and application, especially in relation to the Twelfth Amendment. By its terms, the Twenty-Second Amendment bars only the election of two-term Presidents, and this prohibition would not prevent someone who had twice been elected President from succeeding to the office after having been elected or appointed Vice-President. Broader language providing that no such person ‘‘shall be chosen or serve as President . . . or be eligible to hold the office’’ was rejected in favor of the Amendment’s ban merely on election.2 Whether a two-term President could be elected or appointed Vice President depends upon the meaning of the Twelfth Amendment, which provides that ‘‘no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President.’’ Is someone prohibited by the wenty-Second Amendment from being ‘‘elected’’ to the office of President thereby ‘‘constitutionally ineligible to the office’’? Note also that neither Amendment addresses the eligibility of a former two-term President to serve as Speaker of the House or as one of the other officers who could serve as President through operation of the Succession Act.3
2
H.J. Res. 27, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. (1947) (as introduced). As the House Judiciary Committee reported the measure, it would have made the covered category of former presidents ‘‘ineligible to hold the office of President.’’ H.R. Rep. No. 17, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. at 1 (1947).
3
3 U.S.C. § 19. For analysis of the Twenty-Second Amendment and its applica- bility to the various scenarios under which a person can succeed to the office see Bruce G. Peabody and Scott E. Gant, The Twice and Future President: Constitutional Interstices and the Twenty-Second Amendment, 83 MINN. L. REV. 565 (1999).
I don't have Lexis access, and the issue of the Minnesota Law Review cited doesn't even seem to have an abstract available online. So I can't further illuminate Messrs. Peabody and Gant's thoughts about constitutional interstices and the 22nd amendment.
But I went and read some more.
I’m not telling you to run along. I have made about 20 calls to reporters today to get them to report on Hillary’s campaign finance fraud. I really am busy and hope to have more time to talk later. I’ve got to put up a post for Ed Rendell that I hope will give him heartburn.
Limiting the President to only two elected terms is in the XXII Amendment to the Constitution (1951), it is not something the Founders wrote into the original document.
Thanks, you are about the fifth person to point this out to me...I’m sorry for not doing my research...it was an off the hip post....one that I’ll not repeat.
Fair enough. It sounded a bit rude and dismissive, which is why I raised the issue. I didn't know if you meant it that way, which is why I didn't snark back. If you say your post wasn't dismissive, then it wasn't. That's good enough for me.
Deadline [ded-line], n.1, An arbitrary point in time when anything before is incomplete, and anything after is late. Usually a blunt instrument used by an editor to cudgel (q.v.) a writer or reporter.
I'm a big fan of Ambrose Bierce's "The Devil's Dictionary." The above is offered in that spirit.
Whether he would get an invitation to a private party at Ft. Marcy Park would depend on just how confrontational his question was.
HF
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.