Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When this law was passed, no one thought of women running for office, so it does not mention the first lady. I think that the spirit of this law does not allow for first lady to run for presidency. I think we need SCOTUS to rule on this before we can consider Hillary !
Yes she did serve in the Oval Office, her prostitution was First Lady. This is not different then what Putin does ruling the country by switching titles. We had the Clintons already, I am not saying they were horrible. Before Bill was president and Hilary was the first lady and now Bill is the first lady and Hillary is president. It's the same thing.
When this law was passed, no one thought of women running for office, so it does not mention the first lady. I think that the spirit of this law does not allow for first lady to run for presidency. I think we need SCOTUS to rule on this before we can consider Hillary !
this is a ridiculous post, of course she is eligible to run for president, since she was never elected to the office of president in the first place. same with vice presidents, there is no limit on how many times one can run for vice president, only on the office of president.
and there is another side benefit to the 22nd amendment, and that is that no one that has held the office of president for two terms or ten years, can ever run for vice president, speaker of the house, or be appointed to a cabinet post, since these are all people in the line of succession for president should something bad happen to the president.
Marriage make one man and one woman, as one. Joined. It is in the legal document.
Interesting angle to argue in litigation.
Is it? I was married once, and I remember no such thing on either the license or the certificate.
It's true that in the US, it used to be the legal fiction that a married couple was one person, just like it's a legal fiction that corporations are persons (legal fiction is a term of art - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction), but I don't believe that's been the case for quite a while. However, there are some holdovers (Husband and Wife legal definition of Husband and Wife).
Family members, including spouses, can be sued separately, can inherit property separately, and can own property separately. I think most voters would be very surprised to hear that they are voting for an entire family when they elect someone (doesn't that sound a bit like royalty to you?) and that most employers would be very surprised to learn that when they hire a person, they are hiring the whole family.
In fact, I think should anyone to try that theory in a court - well, they'd be laughed out of it.
Is it? I was married once, and I remember no such thing on either the license or the certificate.
It's true that in the US, it used to be the legal fiction that a married couple was one person, just like it's a legal fiction that corporations are persons (legal fiction is a term of art - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction), but I don't believe that's been the case for quite a while. However, there are some holdovers (Husband and Wife legal definition of Husband and Wife).
Family members, including spouses, can be sued separately, can inherit property separately, and can own property separately. I think most voters would be very surprised to hear that they are voting for an entire family when they elect someone (doesn't that sound a bit like royalty to you?) and that most employers would be very surprised to learn that when they hire a person, they are hiring the whole family.
In fact, I think should anyone to try that theory in a court - well, they'd be laughed out of it.
It would be hell to explain, if they filed their taxes jointly. It would be like dotting the i.
But she already served in the Oval Office by being the First Lady. She already held that Office !
"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."
overlooking the fact that "first lady" is not an official nor elected office, hillary has never been elected to the presidency nor has she served any part of any other president's term.
She's not running for first lady and she never served as President. There is no prohibition against family members - we've had fathers and sons and sets of cousins. And at least three times, a brother running after his brother had served (Robert and Teddy Kennedy and of course Jeb! Bush). There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution, or any amendments, prohibiting that, or remotely raising a question of whether a spouse of a prior president could be elected.
Wish-list item: After the Bush-Clinton experience, We the People should pass a Constitutional amendment barring members of the same family from holding the office of president for at least a hundred year interval.
Certainly parents, children, siblings, spouses, even divorcees, grand-children, possibly close in-laws and close cousins.
I remember being abroad when I heard Bush Jr had won the nomination for president, I simply could not believe it, thinking his only qualification is being the former president's son. And the actual policy results were in many ways disastrous.
Since then, outside of the passage of ACA, the actual policy results have been mainly status quo - and even ACA is mainly the gifting to insurance companies of captive customers locked into relatively complicated high deductible policies, which was laughable to me when I realized it, having already had such a policy for years. Too bad about Kathleen Sebelius, by the way.
Most likely, if Mrs. Bill Clinton becomes president, the actual policy outcomes will also mainly be continuance of the status quo.
Personally I'll be okay, but this family dynasty thing is really not healthy for a Constitutional representative republic.
So even if the best we can do is maintain the status quo and slog along, can't we at least have a bit more diverse rotation of power?
I realize that the democrat bench is thin, but this is totally uninspiring: they could have done better if forced to.
Wish-list item: After the Bush-Clinton experience, We the People should pass a Constitutional amendment barring members of the same family from holding the office of president for at least a hundred year interval.
I would never vote for a hundred-year interval. But 25? Sure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
