Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hillary not ruling out putting impeached husband on ticket as VP.
AM630 WMAL | 11/27/2007 | Kevin

Posted on 11/27/2007 7:56:27 AM PST by LetsRok

I heard on the news this morning on WMAL in Washington that Hillary has NOT ruled out putting her impeached husband on the ballot as her VP.

Is this legal?? The Constitution says candidates for VP MUST be eligible to be President. Bubba is not eligible since he has served his two terms.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: billary; hillary; hillaryvp; nutcases; talkradio; unconstitutional; wmal; x42
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-189 next last
To: stevio

I thought that it was a requirement that the president and VP not have resident status of the same state.

I’ve been wrong before.


41 posted on 11/27/2007 8:15:07 AM PST by listenhillary (You get more of what you focus on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
Bill Clinton is not eligible to be ELECTED President. He certainly is eligible to be elevated to the Presidency from the Vice Presidency.

I think this is a fair question for debate. Your summary of the 22nd Amendment is correct, but the 12th Amendment is pretty expansive, stating that no person who is constitutionally ineligible for the office of President shall be eligible for Vice President.

I don't think this is an easy question at all. Obviously, B. Clinton is no longer constitutionally eligible to run for President, so is the 12th Amendment triggered? But as you pointed out, the 22nd Amendment just states "elected." This seems to be a careless drafting in my opinion, but it states "elected" nonetheless.

Presidential succession is a tricky thing. I'm not even sure that the Supreme Court would address this issue. I think it might simply sidestep it and call it a political question.

42 posted on 11/27/2007 8:15:36 AM PST by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer
He can NEVER serve in any capacity that would lead to him being President again.

This is false. This would preclude a fromer President from holding a variety of elected offices and offical government positions because the order of succession is very lengthy. And past Presidents have continued in public office and service after they were president.

43 posted on 11/27/2007 8:16:14 AM PST by Phantom Lord (Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary; stevio

That “nonsense” is the 12th amendment to the Constitution.


44 posted on 11/27/2007 8:17:28 AM PST by L98Fiero (A fool who'll waste his life, God rest his guts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary; stevio
Yes, the President and VP can NOT be from the same state (based on legal residence).

But as we learned with Cheney, all it takes is a quick couple pieces of paper and BOOM, your residence is quickly changed.

Bill could easily register to vote and list his legal address in Arkansas.

45 posted on 11/27/2007 8:17:28 AM PST by Phantom Lord (Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: LetsRok

Article II

Section 1. ...No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

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. 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.


46 posted on 11/27/2007 8:18:51 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed ("We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them, I won't chip away at them" -Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
This would preclude a fromer President from holding a variety of elected offices and offical government positions because the order of succession is very lengthy.

The Succession Act simply skips ineligible people. For instance, a foreign-born person could well be Speaker of the House, but in the event that the President and Vice President were rendered unable to discharge the duties of the office, the Speaker would simply be skipped and the President pro tempore would be sworn in as President. The reason that Vice President is special is because of the 12th Amendment that specifically forbids anyone ineligible for President from being Vice President.

47 posted on 11/27/2007 8:18:58 AM PST by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie
The ONLY way Billy Jeff could POSSIBLY become President again would be to be appointed VP, then succeed to the highest office via death or removal from office.

And that wouldn't work because his nomination to be VP would be unconstitutional and would be prevented. The Senate would never get a chance to vote on the nomination.

48 posted on 11/27/2007 8:19:13 AM PST by Phantom Lord (Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: LetsRok

She’s just saying that the get the Welfare Queens to vote for her. The Welfare Queens are too dumb the understand that its unconstitutional. They just think that with Bill in the White House again, their Welfare payments will increase.


49 posted on 11/27/2007 8:19:15 AM PST by Cowboy Bob (Real men don't vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Holicheese
>>>...she would fall down a flight of stairs ...<<<

Only if Hillary didn't cave in the side of his skull with a table lamp first!

50 posted on 11/27/2007 8:19:42 AM PST by HardStarboard (Take No Prisoners - We're Out Of Qurans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
Let me correct my post I am referring to. It is amendment 22, not 25.

bad fingers!

51 posted on 11/27/2007 8:19:47 AM PST by Phantom Lord (Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: LetsRok

Patently unconstitutional.


52 posted on 11/27/2007 8:19:51 AM PST by Constitution Day (Everything was fine until membership lost its privileges)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

If I were BJC, I would be thinking “I gotta take her out no matter what...especially if she loses...” What will she need this big oaf for when that happens? It won’t be pretty, I can tell you. They have so much on each other that Bill better watch those heart meds before one of Hill’s minions does the ol’ switcheroo.

Geez, Honey, I did all I could to help you, but the People just weren’t having it. I can give you the words, but I just can’t give you my charm...........


53 posted on 11/27/2007 8:19:57 AM PST by Sioux-san
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

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


54 posted on 11/27/2007 8:20:49 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed ("We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them, I won't chip away at them" -Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

Howdy PL!


55 posted on 11/27/2007 8:20:57 AM PST by Constitution Day (Everything was fine until membership lost its privileges)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: AU72
They’ll have to legally seperate as you can’t have a Presidential ticket, both from the same state.

This is a misconception. They can both be from the same state - but the electors from New York would not be able to vote for both of them if they are both from New York. If they voted for Hillary for president, they would have to vote for the other VP candidate, which could cause us to have a president from one party and a VP from the other.

56 posted on 11/27/2007 8:21:35 AM PST by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day

YO!


57 posted on 11/27/2007 8:21:39 AM PST by Phantom Lord (Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

I disagree, it does not disallow a president to be vice president, he just cannot be president again. President Pelosi would follow a disabled Clinton. In a way the only thing standing between impeachment of Bush and President Pelosi is Cheney and 35 senators. Good health Dick.


58 posted on 11/27/2007 8:21:40 AM PST by depressed in 06 (Bolshecrat, the amoral party of what if and whine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AU72
They’ll have to legally seperate as you can’t have a Presidential ticket, both from the same state.

A state's electors cannot vote for both President and VP from their own state. Thus New Yorkansas's electors couldn't vote for both. They would vote for another VP and if because of that no VP ends up with the 270 votes needed the VP choice will be kicked to the (likely Dem) Senate and they vote for him.

And all that assumes that he doesn't just make a quick move back to Arkansas.

59 posted on 11/27/2007 8:22:15 AM PST by KarlInOhio (Government is the hired help - not the boss. When politicians forget that they must be fired.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
Yes, the President and VP can NOT be from the same state (based on legal residence).

Why not?

60 posted on 11/27/2007 8:23:11 AM PST by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-189 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