Posted on 12/12/2007 12:41:27 PM PST by henkster
United States Constitution, Amendment 22:
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.
So what of Hillary's "experience" that enables her to be a qualified President? Why does she NOT want to release the relevant documents from Bill's administration that would confirm her "experience?"
Maybe the reason isn't that the documents show a lack of experience. Maybe Hillary fears that the documents show all to well that she has too much experience. After all, isn't she the person who objected to a subpoena for records on the grounds of Executive Privilege, stating "We are the President?"
If her documentary record in the White House shows much more "hands on" activity in the Office of the President of the United States, doesn't that make her someone who "acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President?"
If true, she's limited to just one term. You know with her rabid pursuit of power, that's not what she wants. And to concede up front that she could not run for a second term, it might have a negative fallout in the present campaign. She'd be a lame duck from the get-go, with less chance of getting anything accomplished. That might be a good thing, but she doesn't want that known at the outset.
What a messy constitutional question. Better to avoid that cloud over her campaign by just keeping hidden from view the documents that would bring it all up.
Again, just throwing it out there....
Interesting.....
Acting Presidents are sworn in. Forget it!
No.
Regardless of the rhetoric, Hillary did not take the office in a Constitutional sense.
[ Hillary did not take the office in a Constitutional sense.]
Since when did a klinton pay ANY attention to the Constitution?
Only when it is to their benefit, which in this case it is (although, hilary! will never be president - too unlikable, imho)
So what are you going to do? Are you going to take a case to the US Supreme Court to argue that a hypothetical Pres. Hillary cannot run for a second term of office because she & her husband claimed a co-presidency? Let me know when Scalia & Thomas stop laughing.
Correct. As I had said in a prior thread, the “Acting President of the United States” is very different than Hillary “acting like she is President.”
[So what are you going to do? Are you going to take a case to the US Supreme Court to argue that a hypothetical Pres. Hillary cannot run for a second term of office because she & her husband claimed a co-presidency? Let me know when Scalia & Thomas stop laughing.]
Get ahold of yourself. Are you totally unable to understand sarcasm? Must I put a disclaimer in each post? Gawd, whadda dink!
Hillery! must be limited to NO TERM.
We beat her now, it’s over, she won’t run again.
Hillery! Not no, but HELL NO!
Ideal scenario = Hildabeast doesn’t even make it as the nominee.”
No way. Ideal scenario - Obama doesn’t even make it as the nominee. We can beat Hillary I am not sure if we can beat Obama given the way America is right now.
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.