Is Bill Clinton eligible to return to the White House as co-president?

[jcrew2001]

The 22nd amendment limits a president to 2 terms. In many ways this was to prevent a monarchy/dynasty. Legally speaking, no individual can serve more than 2 terms as president according to the constitution. Much has been said about Hillary serving as Bill's "co-president" and "two-for-one" slogan she made in 1992. But is it Constitutionally legal for Bill Clinton to reside in the White House for a 3rd term?

Obviously this is an issue the Supreme Court should decide, or we can ratify a new Amendment allowing for future presidents to serve as 'First Spouse.'

In the past, many wives have won elections to extend their husbands legacy - in the governorship, in Senate Seats, and in other countries. If Hillary had run for president in 2000, this would have been a more serious Constitutional issue.

Even with GWB jr, it was an issue, but GHWB only served one term. Likewise for John Adams and JQ Adams, both serving one term as president.

Could "Uncle Sam" sue "Bill Clinton" to prevent him from returning to the White House? That would surely be a landmark case.

[illinoisprogressive]

1. no. constitutional admendment says 2 terms period.

[rinsd]

2. Cool. A debunked Hillary issue with a new twist.

"The 22nd amendment limits a president to 2 terms. In many ways this was to prevent a monarchy/dynasty."

I see history is not your strong suit. The tradition of two terms was started by George Washington. FDR while not the 1st to try was the 1st to actually break that tradition. A Republican Congress fearful of Roosevelt's ease at re-election (even his 4th in which the gap between his opponents and himself narrowed) under the guise of stopping the theoretical President for life pushed thru the 22nd amendment.

It had nothing to do with monarchies (where the means of succession is blood) or dynasties.

There is no Consitutional issue with a Hillary candidacy just as there would not have been an issue with the Kennedy brothers or god forbid Jeb.

[jcrew2001]

3. No, the issue is with Bill Clinton living in the White House

It has nothing to do with Hillary - she can finally divorce him.

Can Bill Constitutionally reside in the White House and serve as "First Husband" or any executive capacity. Imagine if Hillary ran for President in 2000, would Bill have been eligible to remain in the White House.

I would not be surprised if the Supreme Court needs to decide on this issue. I can just imagine Laura Bush trying to pull this stunt.

With JEB, GWB, or RFK - their father or brother would not live in the White House with them.

[Wilms]

4. Think, man. Think.

Perhaps if you clear your mind of the fantasy you're weaving you can do it.

[jcrew2001]

5. Well, we were stupid enough to elect GWBush

so I will leave the judgement up to the Supreme Court - even if they are all a bunch of GOPers.

[Wilms]

7. Still not thinking?

Here's a hint: Is the First Lady (or First Husband) an office, electorally speaking?

[jcrew2001]

8. Many have tried to install puppet govts

We've done it via the CIA all over the world. Now it will only be more blatent.

At least GHWB only served one term. Bill served 2 terms, I think this is a potential issue.

This isn't just an election issue for voters - The Supreme Court needs to be clear who is eligible to occupy the White House.

[rinsd]

10. The spouse of the President has no official capacity and zero Constitutional bearing

"I would not be surprised if the Supreme Court needs to decide on this issue."

I'll put that one along with Hillary can't get elected as part of jcrew's pearls of wisdom.

[Captain Hilts]

14. Spare us the anti-Hillary dig. That's not what this thread is about.

And she's not on my list of favorites either.

[rinsd]

17. What anti-Hillary dig?

"And she's not on my list of favorites either."

Because she does make my list ;-)

[pnwmom]

330. I'm sure that wasn't an anti-Hillary dig.

It was just a statement of fact. Constitutionally speaking, there is no such thing as a co-President.

Bill Clinton has had two terms as President. He cannot be reelected.
Hillary Clinton has had zero terms as President. She can stand for election.
This is an open and shut case. No need for any court here.

[karynnj]

15. This is quite silly

The idea that Hillary must divorce Bill to be President is strange. The constitution very likely did not consider women Presidents - women couldn't even vote. It says that a person can be President for 2 terms. Bill is a person and Hillary is a person - they are not the same person.

Also if you are OK with Hillary having 2 terms of first spouse and 1 or 2 as President - why can't Bill have the same thing?

[jcrew2001]

20. Other countries have installed their spouses as Puppets

But from the sounds of hill-raisers, the thought of Bill Clinton being a puppet master is good for the "2 for 1 deal" and co-presidency.

Is Bill the better-half? Do people like Bill better, or both the same?

[karynnj]

Other countries have spouses?

Is the US simply dating? I never thought of that. Which country should the US marry?

[MGKrebs]

393. Italy would be a better date, France a better spouse.

:7

[jcrew2001]

334. The issue is not about First Spouse - its about Ex-presidents

and their obligation to exit office and never return; after serving their 2 terms.

That's how we prevent monarchies.

[MonkeyFunk]

359. you really need

to learn the definition of "monarchy"

[Drifter]

31. According to your logic ...

Bill Clinton can be President again, just as long as he doesn't live in the white house.

Where a President lives has nothing to do with anything.

Cheers
Drifter

[jcrew2001]

38. I say just let Hillary divorce him already

or he can sleep on the couch in Westchester, permanently!

[MonkeyFunk]

95. Is this a joke?

there's no limitation on living in the White House.

This would NEVER get to the Supreme Court. Your argument would be laughed out of small claims court.

[jcrew2001]

123. The purpose and intent of the 22nd Amendment is to limit the power

of a two term president, serving in the capacity of the executive branch of the 3 branches of govt.

As First Husband, Bill is part of the Executive Branch by marriage. Thereby, he extends his power beyond 2 terms and uses Hillary as a puppet.

As First Husband, his duties will include entertaining the wives of foreign leaders. He will also likely use his past title to sit in on cabinet meetings, receive CIA updates - which is legal, and perform the day-to-day duties of the presidency.

[MonkeyFunk]

246. There's no such thing

as being part of the executive branch "by marriage".

It's a ridiculous notion.

[LanternWaste]

249. For my own edification, could you please point me in the direction of

For my own edification, could you please point me in the direction of codified law that states (or even paraphrases) "As First Husband, Bill is part of the Executive Branch by marriage"?

Is the converse also true? Ase HRC was First Lady for eight years, does that also mean that she's ineligible to assume office?

[sabbat hunter]

120. first husband

is not a constitutional role. it is a role that developed over time. there is nothing that prevents someone from being 'first husband' or first lady.

[jcrew2001]

124. His role is to entertain the wives of foreign leaders

and decorate the White House, only. Haha.

[jcrew2001]

379. What if Ex-Presidents were not allowed to become First Husbands?

The title of President will always remain superior and eternity for Bill Clinton.

He will not be called First Husband, period.

[Virginian]

152. "It has nothing to do with Hillary - she can finally divorce him. "

Who says she wants to?

That is a meme that was created by their opponents.
I don't understand why they can think that as the wronged wife, she is required to divorce him.
I also don't understand why they hate her for being cheated on.


Being The President is not just living in the White House, Living in the White House once does not disqualify anyone from moving back in later.

"With JEB, GWB, or RFK - their father or brother would not live in the White House with them."
But with John Adams or George HW Bush, their sons could have lived with them in the White House. If they took in their elderly as some families do, the elderly ex-presidents could have lived in the White House again.

The White House is just a residence. It makes it easier to protect the presidential family if they live there and it has all the "stuff" the presidents need to do their jobs.

[jcrew2001]

180. John Adams and GHWB only served one term each

and it is my interpretation that Bill Clinton cannot have any perceived power or actual power in the Exec Branch.

[Virginian]

Using that logic, GWB could not have run for a second term. n/t

[jcrew2001]

212. it would have been an issue if it was consecutively

after GHWB.

[asthmaticeog]

253. Are you really this stupid or just a staggeringly disingenuous troll?

The term limits are for holding an office, not residing at an address.

And "First Lady" or "First Husband" are not executive titles.

On edit: Upon reading through the rest of the thread, I've settled on "you're really this stupid."

[jcrew2001]

380. thanks for the personal attack

The title of President supercedes the title of first Husband, for Bill.

[asthmaticeog]

395. Thanks for proving me right over and over again.

:hi:

[jcrew2001]

417. Obviously you don't have as much concern for the constitution

as I do, but if you think we should be allowed to end presidential term limits and vote Bill Back in for a 3rd term, then I am okay with that.

[asthmaticeog]

422. And AGAIN!

Get this through that thick, dense, apparently impenetrable fucking skull of yours: if Senator Clinton becomes President, that does NOT IN ANY WAY constitute an unconstitutional third term for Bill Clinton. Because HE WON'T BE THE FUCKING PRESIDENT, YOU FUCKING UNBELIEVABLE DOLT.

[jcrew2001]

425. President Bill Clinton will always be President Clinton

it doesn't change, it won't change no matter what.

[asthmaticeog]

429. Yes, former presidents ceremonially retain the title "Mr. President."

That does not make them the actual current sitting president. No matter where they live. It's similar to if I were to call you "Einstein" - I wouldn't mean you're actually intelligent. There's nothing unconstitutional about what you're describing. Nothing.

[jcrew2001]

431. Do you think Bill should be required to use First Husband instead

of "President" - to make this distinction clear when Hillary is elected President?

Does "President" Bill Clinton have a unwritten responsibility to maintain the dignity of the office, or at least his own dignity as an Ex-president, by retiring from politics gracefully and no longer taking an active role in executive govt.

Do you think it blurs the line of an Ex-President if he returns to the white house as First Spouse. If he puts himself in that position, he doesn't need the title of "President" anymore, seeing how he doesn't want to be a retired ex-president, but instead an active member of the current President's family.

If this is the case, then we should just get rid of the ceremonial "President" title; because by Bill's action it would come in direct conflict with the Actual "President" Hillary. And we don't Need two "official" presidents in the white house.

In essence, I'm saying we would need to get rid of the ceremonial "President" Bill Clinton - and replace him with "First Husband" Bill Clinton in order for Hillary to rightfully accept her own ceremonial and official role as President.

[asthmaticeog]

433. ...

"Do you think Bill should be required to use First Husband instead of 'President' - to make this distinction clear when Hillary is elected President?"

What I think is immaterial here. As is what you think.



"Does 'President' Bill Clinton have a unwritten responsibility to maintain the dignity of the office, or at least his own dignity as an Ex-president, by retiring from politics gracefully and no longer taking an active role in executive govt."

He doesn't have to retire from pubic life. He can't serve as President again, but there's no constitutional prohibition against him serving in an executive administration in any capacity, as an advisor or cabinet member for example, though he couldn't be Vice President for obvious reasons. But again, Constitutionally, no other office or post is forbidden to him.



"Do you think it blurs the line of an Ex-President if he returns to the white house as First Spouse."

No, it doesn't. It's unprecedented, but not prohibited by any law of our country. Our current President's father is still properly addressed as "Mr. President." And nobody gives a shit.



"If he puts himself in that position, he doesn't need the title of 'President' anymore, seeing how he doesn't want to be a retired ex-president, but instead an active member of the current President's family."

None of which is Constitutionally relevant.



"If this is the case, then we should just get rid of the ceremonial 'President' title; because by Bill's action it would come in direct conflict with the Actual 'President' Hillary. And we don't Need two 'official' presidents in the white house."

If Senator Clinton is inaugurated as President, there won't be two "official" Presidents in the White House. There will be one. I'm sure they will deal with the issue of her husband's manner of address in a manner that will be simple for everyone to understand, with the possible exception of you.



"In essence, I'm saying we would need to get rid of the ceremonial 'President' Bill Clinton - and replace him with 'First Husband' Bill Clinton in order for Hillary to rightfully accept her own ceremonial and official role as President."

The ceremonial address of former presidents as "President" is customary, not legally mandated. There's nothing to get rid of but a tradition. Maybe you should alert all the reporters, anchors, diplomats, congresspeople, et al NOW so they have time to devise a manner of address that doesn't leave you perplexed. Hillary Clinton, if inaugurated, rightfully accepts her own ceremonial and official roles as President no matter what people call her husband.



















































You're still baffled, I can tell. Maybe go look at something shiny for awhile.

[jcrew2001]

435. So you agree that Bill's ceremonial title of President will provide

confusion or complication of those involved in the White House and executive branch. My answer to this is simple, Hillary doesn't need to run for president, we don't need her to run, we've already had her serve for 8 years, she's not obligated to serve any more than 8 years and doesn't have to.

[asthmaticeog]

436. Wow. That's in fact the DUMBEST thing I've heard in weeks.

Look, be against Senator Clinton all you want, I don't like the idea of another god damn appeasing centrist candidate very much myself, but if THAT'S your argument against her candidacy? Dumbfucks like yourself might get confused as to who the POTUS is? That's just sad. So, very, sad.

[jcrew2001]

445. Thats my point exactly, who will be the shadow president? Is it really Bill?

as the man behind the curtain, you can't prove it or disprove it.

[asthmaticeog]

450. Since "you can't prove or disprove it" then it can't serve as a basis for judgment.

Welcome to ignore. You're almost too stupid to live.

[jcrew2001]

451. But shouldn't govt officials and ex-presidents be held accountable

that is my point, that is why the white house has guest logs; and why cheney won't turn his over.

[Imagevision]

355. Leagally Bill Clinton can accept the VP. slot should Hil choose him.

that's a fact, he just can never run again for president if he lasted two terms as VP. under Hillary.

[jcrew2001]

456. I just think its unsavory for him, as ex-President to continue any

involvement in the day-to-day activities of the Executive Branch, when the intent of the 22nd Amendment prevents him from serving as President.

[Captain Hilts]

6. Nope. Sec State, Supreme, AG are all available to him though. nt

[jcrew2001]

9. What if Bill Clinton was nominated for the Supreme Court by Hillary

that would blow your mind!

[ElizabethDC]

11. No, they aren't

after Bobby Kennedy served as AG, I believe an anti-nepotism law was implemented, so the president can't nominate a family member for one of those positions.

[Captain Hilts]

13. I read that it's not really a law. It came up when Jeb Bush's name came up. Anyone know for sure?

[hughee99]

90. I believe it is a law, here's a link I was able to find

http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/non-nara-statutes.html

ANTI-NEPOTISM ACT: 5 U.S.C. § 3110

Public Law Number: Pub. L. 90-206, Dec. 16, 1967; Pub. L. 95-454, Oct. 13, 1978
Legislative History: S. Rep. No. 801, H.R. Conf. Rep. No.1013, 1967 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 2258; S. Rep. No. 95-969, H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 95-1717, 1978 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 2723

Synopsis: A public official is prohibited from employing, appointing, promoting, advancing or advocating for appointment, employment promotion or advancement any relative for a civilian position in the agency in which the public official is serving.

It seems like this could possibly conflict with the constitution's outlined presidential powers, so I guess it could be challenged, but that would be a matter for the courts.

[Virginian]

158. 1967 - After Kennedy - "Agency"

Is the Justice department in the same "Agency" as the Presidency?

I think that JFK could still nominate RFK for AG.

[doggyboy]

209. Yes, same agency

but SCOTUS is a different agency

[rinsd]

16. While I think that may have poltical consequences.

I do not think its against the law.

[ElizabethDC]

18. I've heard that it was a law, but perhaps it's merely informal

Hillary herself has said that she doesn't think it's allowed (in response to people asking her if she would appoint Bill as Sec of State - she always cites the Kennedys.) I had heard about it several times before, too. But I don't know details.

[rinsd]

24. I was also under that impression but my research skills failed me.

The only check against nepotism in nominations appears to be the Senate's confirmation process.

[Posteritatis]

345. Bill as SecState? Not gonna happen, but I'd be strangely comfortable with it... (nt)

[Honeycombe8]

12. America doesn't allow "co-Presidents." You're either Prez, or you're not. n/t

[BootinUp]

19. Whats a co-president?

I don't remember seeing that in the constitution. lol.

[jcrew2001]

22. Exactly, we have the 22nd Amendment - it needs to be followed

and I don't think Bill is eligible to return to the White House. Its legally complicated - is the Husband/Spouse one entity or are they 2 separate entities - legally speaking?

[BootinUp]

33. I don't follow your question then

Just because Hillary or anyone else calls themselves a co-president, doesn't make it so. And Hillary never had any of the constitutional powers of a President. Neither would Bill should she be elected to that office in the future.

[jcrew2001]

55. I say she just needs to divorce him

make a clean break. But some people do want Bill to serve a 3rd term - but that would be illegal and facilating that would be Conspiracy to break the law.

[BootinUp]

66. You're not even responding to my posts

This is some thread you have goin though.

[jcrew2001]

71. If Bill tries to circumvent the 22nd amendment by using Hillary

to get elected, but he retains executive powers. That would be Conspiracy.

[ElizabethDC]

76. Do you really think that's what he's trying to do?

Bill's using Hillary as a puppet? Yes, that would be an amazing conspiracy. But, somehow, I don't see Hillary ceding her executive powers to Bill when she gets elected.

[jcrew2001]

80. Who knows - maybe they'll show it on C-SPAN

the Truman show/big Brother in the White House.

Bill Clinton followed everywhere he goes - I'm sure it will be very promising or promiscous.

[LanternWaste]

251. I'll bite--

I'll bite-- where is the "he retains executive powers" idea coming from? Who has said this? Who is advancing the idea that Bill Clinton is attempting to circumvent the 22nd Amendment?

I keep my ears open to most national political themes these days and this is the absolute first time I've come across this one.

[MonkeyFunk]

107. You can't possibly be serious.

This is a gag, right?

[pnwmom]

333. The building is unimportant. Bill Clinton is ineligible to be President.

Hillary Clinton IS eligible, regardless of where she has previously resided.

And a husband and a spouse are two separate entities, legally speaking and in every other way.

[Marnieworld]

346. I dunno

Go commit a crime by yourself and see if your wife/spouse goes to jail too.

[jcrew2001]

369. what if its conspiracy to break the law?

nt

[SaveElmer]

21. Hmmm...interesting....

And I wonder if it will be constitutional for John Edwards to work at a Hedge Fund as President...you know...so he can learn about the relationship between the Presidency and Hedge Funds!!!

And how about Kucinich...you know his wife ain't Amurikan...I wonder if she will be allowed to live there...

[jcrew2001]

23. Probably not, but Dick Cheney still works for Halliburton

so I think you can have a side job for additional income. Can Bill Clinton still get paid for speaking engagements?

[jcrew2001]

27. She's a spy for da Brits

They're trying to recapture America - I knew it! Wonder if Jeb's mexican wife will be eligible for first lady or if Continental Africans like Teresa Heinz can turn the White House into an extension of the UN.

[Orangepeel]

25. Of course. "First Person" has no constitutional role

The president can have anyone he/she wants as an advisor.

[jcrew2001]

370. If the Ex-President serves as First Person - should the role be

defined to preserve his neutrality from the Executive branch?

[Warpy]

26. He is not legally prevented from doing anything in the White House

except serving another term as President.

With any luck, his wife will be Senate Majority Leader and he will be Ambassador to the UN.

[jcrew2001]

28. No, Bill wants to be head of the UN

He wants to be President of the World - He's said so quite frequently.

[ElizabethDC]

29. Have you got a link for that?

ya know, when he said he wanted to be president of the world?

[jcrew2001]

30. I've heard it on cable news shows

but I'll see if there is anything in print.

[ElizabethDC]

If cable news says it, it must be true.

:sarcasm:

[jcrew2001]

35. Here you go elizabeth, some stories on the interwebs

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41038

Bill Clinton as secretary-general of the United Nations?

It has been talked about in U.N. circles and among the former president's insiders for more than two years.

And now, according to a United Press International report, Clinton "definitely wants to do it."


http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_id=8208

Clinton, under his assignment of coordinator for Tsunami relief, has already been given a United Nations office, a UN identity card and diplomatic passport.


--------------------------
My take - he's already acting in the role as un-official UN rep, he wants to follow Jimmy Carter and be a global humanitarian.

[ElizabethDC]

37. You just cited worldnetdaily and al Jazeera

:rofl: and even with sources like those, no where does he say he wants to be "President of the World." The most we have are second-hand sources saying that he wants to be Sec. General, which does not equate to "President of the World."

BTW, I believe that Sec. Generals of the UN are usually chosen from smaller countries that aren't major powers.

Bill Clinton probably has a lot more freedom to do the kind of work that he wants without being Sec. General of the UN or U.S. Amb. to the UN.

[jcrew2001]

39. i'll look up more links - but you act like this is a new rumor???

Its been highly circulated in Washington and everyone else. Frankly, your naiviness is alarming.

It will never happen, but I know Bill would love it if he was elected.

[ElizabethDC]

45. I had heard that he wanted to be Sec General

but everyone knows it will never happen. I just haven't seen him on the cable news shows proclaiming that he wants to be "President of the World."

I'm not naive, I just doubted your claims that Bill has said "lots of times" that he wants to be "President of the World." Bill's a realist, he knows that's not gonna happen.

[rinsd]

40. I was able to track down the source.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3292155&mesg_id=3292289

That's the problem with arguing with people playing dumb. One assumes they aren't playing.

[jcrew2001]

43. Some people read the news

and others don't.

[rinsd]

49. So you can remember off hand a 2 year old article yet cannot understand the 22nd amendment?

Maybe you should put down the paper and pick up a history book.

[jcrew2001]

54. The intent of the 22nd is to limit the power of one individual

so I believe that there is ample evidence and gray area for this to be brought to the Supreme Court.

As much as I believe in the democratic elections, I would be worried about another Bush in the white house.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jcrew2001]

81. thanks for the personal attack

nt

[rinsd]

32. Probably another scoop from Inner Rectum News (nt)

[jcrew2001]

34. Its quite well known that Bill wants the UN job

I'm surprised you didn't know this. I mean he's practically doing it already. Anyone familiar with the Clinton campaign knows this.

[rinsd]

36. The very least you can do is provide links.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/31/AR2005053101825.html

In 2001, in the opening months of his ex-presidency, Bill Clinton confided to an aide that he had decided on his dream job for the next chapter of his life: secretary general of the United Nations.

The goal may not be realistic, he acknowledged, but he then went on to analyze all the factors in minute detail, as though he were preparing for a political campaign: whether a U.S. president would ever see fit to back him, for one, and what it would take to persuade other nations to bend the long-standing tradition that the top job does not go to someone from a country with permanent status on the U.N. Security Council.

His ambition, as the aide described it, was both breathtaking and entirely logical for a natural-born politician who had reached the top of the American political ladder: "president of the world."

Four years later, say several associates who have spoken with him in recent months, Clinton regards his dream of leading the United Nations as something more than a flight of fancy and something less than a serious prospect. Already, however, he has succeeded to a surprising degree in fashioning his ex-presidency to make himself a dominant player on the world stage.

So you are able to recall a 2 1/2 year story that focused on Clinton outshining Bush on the world stage yet you can't grasp the 22nd amendment.

[ElizabethDC]

41. Finally . . . a reputable link

this confirms what I thought: theoretically, Bill would like to continue to be in a powerful position (unsurprising, as he's said he doesn't think there should be presidential term limits).

The "president of the world" title seems to have come from the unnamed aide, because that's not really what the UN Sec. General is.

And the article points out, as I did above, that it's unlikely that he would even have a shot at the job, given that he's from the U.S.

Now, if jcrew2001 would like to provide direct quotes of Bill proclaiming, multiple times he alleges, that he wants to be president of the world.

[rinsd]

44. Shall we hold our collective breath?

"Now, if jcrew2001 would like to provide direct quotes of Bill proclaiming, multiple times he alleges, that he wants to be president of the world."

[jcrew2001]

52. Are you of voting age - because you seem very uninformed about

the Clintons. If you pick up a paper or read anything about Bill, you will learn these interesting facets about his life. He's probably the most public president ever.

[rinsd]

72. I shouldn't be having this much fun but please go on o wise one

Educate the uninfromed about one William Jefferson Clinton. Wow me with something from the annals of the American Spectator.

[jcrew2001]

74. If you didn't know about the UN situation

I'm afraid you are either too young, or too far removed from the clinton campaign to exercise any statements of value.

[rinsd]

78. I know this is hard and only the 4th time I have said so in this thread

But I was aware of his desire for the Sec Gen job it was your staement in regards to President of the World.

"too far removed from the clinton campaign to exercise any statements of value"

You thought I was an insider? LOL.

[jcrew2001]

86. there is no official president of the world

its a common description for the Head of the UN.

If you care so much about Hillary - you would have been informed about this a long time ago. I doubt you know anything about them at all. But I guess thats why you support her.

[rinsd]

94. "its a common description for the Head of the UN." No, it isn't.

But again thank you for this thread.

This may be the most lopsided argument in favor of Hillary CLinton that DU has ever had.

[jcrew2001]

99. its a joke about the Head of the UN

I'm sure you are capable of understanding sarcastic descriptions of the UN job.

[rinsd]

104. "understanding sarcastic descriptions of the UN job"

I am aware of it being popular amongst militia types and David Ickes followers, perhaps that's where you gleamed it from?

[jcrew2001]

109. I heard Chris Matthews say it in response to the UN opening

regarding Bill and I thought it was a funny quote.

[rinsd]

111. From God's lips to your ears....

[jcrew2001]

112. maybe you just don't appreciate humor

nt

[rinsd]

115. Chris Matthews is funny?

[ElizabethDC]

101. I don't know about you, rinsd

but I'm having *lots* of fun in this thread. It's providing my evening entertainment.

[rinsd]

There's something scandalous about how much fun its been.

And now for a pic of our favorite Co-Conspirators to undermine the 22nd Amendment

[jcrew2001]

46. You are blaming me for your naivite?

Why is it difficult for you to comprehend that Bill wants to be head of the UN? He may have said so privately, or publicly - but the intention and desire is there. That is without a doubt. He would love it!

Do you want sources - go ask Bill yourself and see what he says. He won't deny it being a dream of his.

Do you think I'm lying?

[ElizabethDC]

56. I never once said he didn't want the job

I question his proclamation that he wanted to be "president of the world," which, as I've stated, isn't a job.

Additionally, I'm not naive enough to not question everything you say. You spend a lot of times making things up. One of my favorites was when you stated that most Floridians are northeastern retirees. :rofl: You're very entertaining, jcrew2001.

[LanternWaste]

254. I have this bad image...

I have this bad image of Pres. Clinton's head superimposed on DeCaprio's body in 'Titanic' yelling from the bow, "I'm President of the World!!!" And now, every time I hear about of see a J Crew store, I'll have a subconscious mnemonic device triggered...

[ElizabethDC]

288. LOL

I nearly just spit out my food. Now *I'm* going to think kabout this every time I pass by J. Crew. :rofl:

[Marnieworld]

348. "You're very entertaining, jcrew2001."

I too am becoming a fan. It is delightful silliness. It's almost message board art. :rofl:

[Forkboy]

361. "message board art."

:spray:

[jcrew2001]

42. If you knew this, why did you question my prev post?

I told you Bill wants to be head of UN - I follow the news, something you apparently do not.

Kofi Annan was just replaced, Bill was considered one of the replacements.

As for the 22nd amendment, that will be up to the Supreme Court to enforce.

[rinsd]

47. LOL. This gets funnier post by post.

I knew that Clinton had discussed wanting the Sec Gen job but that isn't "President of the World". When I googled that phrase I got the wapo article. That seems to be your problem, a drop of truth in a pile of BS.

"Kofi Annan was just replaced, Bill was considered one of the replacements."

Considered? He was discussed by the punditocracy but considered?

"As for the 22nd amendment, that will be up to the Supreme Court to enforce."

There is nothing to enforce. You know that.

[jcrew2001]

60. Try asking Bill if he wants to be head of UN

Do you think he will say no? Are you that uninformed about the Clintons?

Would it be illegal for someone to commit Conspiracy to break the 22nd amendment? How can we ensure a separation of power if Bill is in the White House?

Only a divorce can permanently answer those questions.

[ElizabethDC]

62. What if they get a divorce but continue living together?

and he moves into the White House with her. Would that be okay with you, then (and, accordingly, your interpretation of the 22nd amendment)?

[jcrew2001]

63. Legally it will be okay with me

She can go back to using Rodham, plus for her.

[ElizabethDC]

65. She's continuing to use the Rodham now. n/t

[ElizabethDC]

53. I'm not doubting his desire to be Sec. General of the UN

I'm waiting for you to back this up: "He wants to be President of the World - He's said so quite frequently."

President of the World is not a job, and I've never heard Bill say that he wants such a role.

Bill was never seriously considered for the role, there was just some speculation.

[jcrew2001]

68. Of course, there is no official "President of the World" title

but UN is the de-facto global governing entity.

It was a joke Chris matthews made about bill being "president of the world" so I can't claim it be my own.

[ElizabethDC]

70. But you said that Bill said repeatedly that he wanted to be "President of the World"

I've seen/watched a lot of interviews with Bill, but I've never heard him say that!

Always good to cite Matthews, though. :sarcasm:

[jcrew2001]

73. Its an often repeated rumor among everyone who works

in Washington. Bill wants this, I've never heard him say it exactly though.

[ElizabethDC]

77. Dude, *I* work in Washington

Nice try, though. I saw Bill in October. He wasn't walking around saying that he wanted to be President of the World, though.

[jcrew2001]

83. thats why i'm surprised you know nothing about bill clinton

since his retirement, that's the thing he's ever 'talked' about doing by the press.

[ElizabethDC]

88. WTF are you talking about?

first of all, that sentence doesn't even make sense. Second of all, how do you know how much I know about Bill Clinton? Did I miss some sort of a quiz? If so, I'm super bummed.

[jcrew2001]

92. The press occassionally reports on Bill's activities

after 2000. Most of the time, this involves Bill's work with the UN and the possibility of his becoming head of the UN.

Seriously, do you work in govt? in fact that explains a lot about you.

[ElizabethDC]

98. I've read lots of reports about Bill

most articles about him do *not* involve the UN thing. Like, he wrote a book, and had some pretty serious surgery. Also, his wife is running for president.

And, I can't really say who I work for. It's a privacy thing.

[jcrew2001]

102. You must have missed his AIDS, Tsunami, Africa fund-raising

activities.

[ElizabethDC]

106. I've read about that, too

but that has nothing to do with his wanting to be Sec General of the UN.

Also, you left out his Katrina fund-raising. Am I really supposed to be listing for you all the things that Bill has been doing since he left office?

[jcrew2001]

110. If you know this, then why didn't you know about the UN job

it surprises me greatly.

[ElizabethDC]

113. Like I said a gazillion times, I knew that he had some fanciful desire for the job

but I'm sure Bill realizes what I've already pointed out (as have others) - UN Sec Generals are never from the major powers (permanent members of the Security Council - which the US is). It was a story for about 5 minutes - I remember discussing it with a friend in the fall.

[jcrew2001]

114. I will say Bill has spent more than 5 minutes thinking about this

as a desire.

[LanternWaste]

264. Now you have me confused. Is President of the world a...?

Now you have me confused. Is President of the world a "common description for the Head of the UN" or is it a "joke Chris matthews made"?

[Cameron27]

51. Thanks rinsd.

Good research as usual.

[rinsd]

59. Thanks

:hi:

[hughee99]

96. IIRC,

He can't do that either. Citizens of permanent security council member countries are not eligible to be UN Secretary General.

[jcrew2001]

105. It won't stop Bill from dreaming

or trying to get around the law - or the 22nd amendment.

[JI7]

48. this thread belongs with the one you made about Durbin

[jcrew2001]

75. why doesn't durbin run for president if he's so smart

he would beat Obama easily.

[JI7]

79. and the respones are as stupid as the ones in the Durbin thread

[jcrew2001]

125. thanks for the personal attack

nt

[Adelante]

324. BWWAHAHAHA

You know I was thinking about that one! :rofl:

[jcrew2001]

328. I'm just telling the truth that everyone else can plainly see

If it involves Durbin or Bill Clinton.

Bill is returning to the white house via loophole in the 22nd amendement, blatently creating a pseudo-monarchy - which is different than the bush-dynasty.

A monarchy is rule by one person - Bill clinton via proxy of his wife.

I thought the constitution was meant to prevent this, but i was wrong.

[MonkeyFunk]

360. yes you are wrong

about the constitution, AND the definition of monarchy.

[jcrew2001]

367. but why is it a good thing that an Ex-president can regain

the power of the presidency through the back door?

[MonkeyFunk]

373. because he can't

you seem to be under the delusion that Hillary and Bill are one person.

They are not.

If Hillary is elected President, that does not make Bill president.

over 350 replies in this thread, and not one person has even conceded that you MIGHT have a point. Doesn't that tell you anyting?

You're as wrong as anybody has ever been on any topic.

Sadly wrong. Tragically wrong. Comically wrong.

[jcrew2001]

374. Bill is still President - the title never goes away

he won't be called first spouse/first husband. So he will be President Bill Clinton living in the White House, yet not having any specific duty, power. Is that strange and alarming to you?

[MonkeyFunk]

391. Surely

you're not arguing that the honorific use of "President" for former Presidents means they actually ARE President?

Is Jimmy Carter president now? George H.W. Bush?

Not once, after being asked about a 100 times, have you answered by you think more than one person can be President at once.

And no, I don't find it strange or alarming at all that Bill Clinton could be married to a future president.

[jcrew2001]

401. I don't trust any ex-president who reclaims the

white house via spouse. I don't trust their motives. Its always about power and influence - its just irrational that an ex-president would be constitutionally barred from serving/elected again; yet wanting to return to that position of power.

[MonkeyFunk]

402. and it has been explained to you countless times

that the spouse of a President has no power in any official sense of the word. You seem to think marriage makes them one person. I can assure you, it does not.

[jcrew2001]

409. You seem to think that Bill will have no power in this white house

and I can assure you, he will have lots of unofficial power and be the most powerful First Spouse/Ex-President ever.

[MonkeyFunk]

411. So?

He could have "power" in any Democratic administration that took advice from him.

The fact is, as the spouse of the President, he has no official role, no official title, no salary, no resonsibilities.

Hillary would be President, not Bill. And any President is free to rely on the advice of anybody they choose, whether married to them or not.

[jcrew2001]

416. I think we need as much oversight on are elected officials

and ex-Presidents who are re-engaged in the daily activities of the white house. He will have First Husband duties, what will those exactly be, innocent photo-ops, or govt business. I want to know, as an American citizen and as a voter.

I want guidelines as to when an ex-President rejoins govt in a first spouse capacity.

Some voters actually want Bill Clinton to serve a 3rd term (which is illegal) but if he could I would support him doing so. But I just don't agree he should "serve a 3rd term" through his wife.

[MonkeyFunk]

420. and he won't be joining the government....

how many times do you have to be told that he won't have an official position? There's no such thing as co-President.

And he won't be serving a third term. If elected, his wife will be serving her first.

[jcrew2001]

423. I want Oversight on the activities of Ex-Presidents

is that too difficult to understand, after all, they have been elected officials who bear the responsibility of preserving the constitution.

[Stargazer99]

50. This post has all the earmarks of a Republican

this same crap was an editoral by a conservative in the Morning News Tribune in Tacoma WA

[Wilms]

57. Bingo.

I was looking for a can of roach spray when you posted.

[jcrew2001]

64. I can't wait for the lawsuit to happen when Hillary gets elected

but by then, even the supreme court can't stop her. Even if she is forced to divorce Bill, she'll still be president.

[ElizabethDC]

67. Will you be filing it yourself? n/t

[jcrew2001]

69. we'll have to wait until after the primaries

I won't be surprised if someone files a lawsuit. Maybe Howard Dean or Dick Morris?

[Orangepeel]

84. I wouldn't put any kind of stupid shit past Morris

and it's a safe bet that nutbar Larry Klayman would go back to suing the Clintons for any kind of ridiculous lunacy.

But anybody who thinks Howard Dean might sue the Democratic nominee for anything (let alone something as crazy as "her husband is really pulling the strings") knows less than nothing about Howard Dean.

[jcrew2001]

87. I know Dean hates Carville

and that secretly Dean is sabotaging Hillary (according to Carville).

[Orangepeel]

91. I'm sure he doesn't support her in the primary

although he would never say so publicly. But he wouldn't sabotage her after the primary, should she win, and there is no way in hell he'd file a lawsuit against the Democratic nominee.

[jcrew2001]

93. you're right, but morris could

nt

[Orangepeel]

103. yeah, like I said. I wouldn't put any kind of stupid shit past Morris

and I'd count on all kinds of stupid stuff from Klayman.

[MonkeyFunk]

116. a lawsuit?

on the grounds that the 22nd amendment prohibits a former president from living in the White House?

This really is a joke, isn't it? Surely nobody capable of using a computer could be so thick.

[ElizabethDC]

117. LOL

I don't know what's going on MonkeyFunk, but I'm enjoying it while it lasts. This thread has provided me with an unreasonable amount of entertainment.

[MonkeyFunk]

118. I have to admit

it is pretty funny.

[jcrew2001]

127. Well, some people need to read more about Bill Clinton

considering that some weren't aware that Bill was interested in heading the UN, which is a widespread rumor.

[LanternWaste]

257. However, it appears that this "widespread rumor"

However, it appears that this "widespread rumor" is the only supporting evidence you present in alleging that he wishes to circumvent the 22nd Amendment. Is that correct? Or am I missing other valuable evidence?

[jcrew2001]

126. What if GHWB wanted to live with GWB?

This is a question of power and the perception of power, as dictated by the 22nd Amendement and the length that an individual can serve in the role as President.

Bill cannot serve as President by proxy through Hillary!

[onenote]

131. Thanks for taking this to a whole new level of giggliness

Ooh..if GHWB wanted to live with GWB it would create a constitutional crisis!! Of course, if he lived in his own house and spoke to him every day by phone, you'd admit there was no problem. Am I getting this?

Or are you saying that the constitution, which up until the 22nd amendment put no restriction on the number of terms that one person could serve, but now limits a person to two terms, has some "between the lines" provision that bars someone who is related by blood or marriage to someone who served two terms as president from also serving as president? Someone better dig up John and John Quincy and give them the news. How close does the relationship have to be? Do we need to dig up FDR and Teddy too?

[jcrew2001]

141. Do you doubt a Bush conspiracy to control the presidency?

Unlike GHWB, Bill will return to the white house.

John Adams and JQ Adams served one term only.

[onenote]

149. What I don't doubt is that nothing in the 22nd amendment limits chimpy to one term

or prevents his father from living with him, or talking to him on the phone, or sending him emails, or any other fucking thing.

And you have absolutely failed to show anything to the contrary.

[jcrew2001]

167. GHWB only served one term

so he is not qualified from running for election again if he chose.

[onenote]

179. qualified or disqualified?

I"m guessing you meant "disqualified" but at this point I'm reluctant to guess what you might mean. In any event, chimpy has served two terms. By your reasoning, his second term already violated the 22nd Amendment because his first term and daddy's first term should be considered together. And that would mean, of course, that daddy also is barred from serving again, since, the combined number of terms of the two bushes exceeds two.

Or maybe that's not what you mean. Who can tell anymore.

[jcrew2001]

183. GHWB can run for a 2nd term if he wanted

therefore there was no perception issue with GWB running in 2000.

[onenote]

189. You realize that you're not making any sense

I thought you said there would be a problem with GHWB living in the White House. Now you don't have a problem with him running (and presumably getting elected again).

[jcrew2001]

196. The perception of conspiracy was minimal because he

was only a 1 term president when GWB ran in 2000.

[onenote]

203. Still not making sense

Your "interpretation" of the 22nd Amendment apparently would bar husbands and wives or fathers and children from serving a combined total of more than 2 terms. Why does the order in which they occur suddenly matter? Are you saying that under your interpretation its not okay for Bill to be a presidential spouse after serving two terms himself, but if he had served one term, and Hillary served two, he could then run again? (The answer of course is that he could run again if he had only served one term).

[jcrew2001]

214. Certainly the issue of consecutive 16 year Presidency

may arise if someone wanted it. It is of grave concern to prevent this from happening in the future IMO, because Constitutionally this is allowable.

Bill Clinton has wanted the rule limiting a president to "2 consecutive terms" but allowing for a return afterwards. Was he really planning for Hillary to take over? I am 100% sure this is his reasoning.

[onenote]

219. "Constitutionally it is allowable" - finally!!!!

You have seen the light. Even though I'm not sure you know it.

[jcrew2001]

221. LOOP-HOLES in the Constitution will be exploited

until they are decided upon by the courts.

[onenote]

224. Ah, well, it was nice to think you had seen the light for a moment. Back to the silliness

[jcrew2001]

226. thanks for ripping up the constitution and its intentions

to limit the power of an ex-president.

[onenote]

230. The only place the constituion tries to limit the power of an ex-president

is the 22nd amendment and the only limit it places on an ex president is that if such person has been elected to two terms, he/she can't be elected a third time (or if he/she has served more than two years of a term to which he/she wasn't elected, they can only be elected once). That's it. No restrictions on an ex-president being married to someone elected separately to be president, living in the WHite House with someone who was separately elected president, or talking to someone who was separately elected president. Sorry. Just doesn't do any of those things no matter how hard you try to make it do so.

[jcrew2001]

236. A phone call is different than living in the white house

are you aware of the ramifications that this would create by allowing for future husband/wives to rule the US just like the monarchies in old Europe.

Don't let your partisanship blind you from the fact that this is a serious issue.

[MonkeyFunk]

247. no court will

ever decide this because it's so obvious that the 22nd Amendment doesn't bar Hillary Clinton from being elected.

C'mon fess up - this is a joke, right?

[onenote]

270. It must be a joke. Sort of like Borat meets DU

[muffin1]

406. I just had to jump in here somewhere

I have never laughed so hard in my entire life. There are tears running down my face, and I'm about to pee in my pants!
Funny, funny stuff. Now, off to the bathroom.

[Robeson]

82. ....

....:thumbsup:

[jcrew2001]

316. Can you post a link?

This thought just came to me yesterday when a Hillraiser was describing how HIllary has the experience of 8 years co-presidency in the white house. Which got me thinking that if she already spent 8 years in the white house, why would she need to return. But the more serious and dangerous result would be that Bill would return to the white house by loophole of the 22nd amendment, which would create a perception of monarchy in are presidency. Which I am against, monarchies.

[onenote]

85. I've seen some silly crap on DU, but this may be one of the silliest ever

Let's walk through this:

The 22nd Amendment states that "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."

Bill Clinton is one person. Hillary Clinton is another. Therefore, if Hillary Clinton is elected president, the fact that another person, Bill Clinton, previously held the office is no more relevant than the fact that chimpy's daddy was president before chimpy.

And there is no such thing as a "co-president". If hillary wants to refer to bill as her co-president, it makes not the slightest difference from a constitutional, legal standpoint. If she were to leave office during her term, the duly elected vice president would succeed to the presidency, not her unofficial "co-president."

Not sure why this is so hard for anyone to understand, unless of course they don't want to understand.

[jcrew2001]

89. Is there a danger of Conspiracy to break the 22nd amendment

and break the Constitution. Certainly Bill can be an advisor but the official capacity will be from Hillary.

I'm surprised no spouse has tried this in the past, but women have only been edumacated for such a short period of time.

[Orangepeel]

97. more likely the other way. Edith Wilson made decisions. So did Nancy Reagan.

Unfortunately, we have only reached the point -- if indeed we have -- that a woman could be elected president.

[onenote]

100. The answer is no there isn't any such danger

One person is president. One. Uno.

Having someone who once was president be an advisor to the president doesn't violate the 22nd amendment any more than having someone who wasn't president be advisor to two presidents.

[jcrew2001]

122. But isn't this really a way for Bill to circumvent the 22nd Amendment

If he has any role in the Executive Branch - even as First Family. It will create a constitutional crisis of the limiting of power of a previous two-term president.

With longer life-spans, this issue will come up again and again; as spouses try to prolong their reign by having their wives run in their place as president.

This has been tried in other countries, so it is not far-fetched at all.

[onenote]

128. No. It. Is. Not.

There, have I made it clear. You can't "circumvent" the 22nd Amendment. It allows what it allows and disallows what it disallows. If Hillary is elected, Hillary is elected, not Bill. If you see a constitutional crisis in this, then why haven't you seen a constitutional crisis in the possibility that the same person might be chief of staff or a top advisor to more than one president?

Bill and Hillary are actually two separate individuals, both as a legal construct, as well as physically.

[jcrew2001]

130. If a former president was nominated to serve as Chief of Staff

the Congress would never ever allow it, or the Free Press.

[onenote]

134. No one gets "nominated" to serve as Chief of Staff

The position doesn't require confirmation. Of course, I don't why I'd expect you to know that given the level of knowledge displayed on this thread.

And the point isn't that a former President becomes chief of staff, its that, under your bizzarro-world reading of the constitution, the 22nd Amendment is violated by having two individuals who are related by marriage separately get elected to and serve as President. My point is that if you are concerned that someone who previsously was president is serving in an unofficial advisory capacity to the president could somehow trigger the 22nd Amendment because that person is an unofficial "president" (I can't believe I just typed that), then you should be equally concerned if one person serves as an unofficial president (as chief of staff or some other advisory role) to two presidents.

I've yet to see anything posted by you on this thread that makes a bit of sense. That's an amazing accomplishment!

[jcrew2001]

140. Let me explain this - an individual serving 2 terms as president

can no longer have any role in the Executive Branch after his term has ended. Do you agree with me on this?

We have a constitution and the 22nd Amendment that states this.

Bill Clinton's role as First Husband will be up to interpretation by the media, by the courts, and by the citizens.

[onenote]

154. Under the constitution, an individual serving 2 terms as pres, can't be pres

To the extent that he/she can't have "any role in the Executive Branch", that is true only to the extent that by statute (5 USC 3110), the president can't appoint any close relative to a position in the Executive Branch. But that applies even to people who have never served as president (i.e., even if Bill had never been president, Hillary couldn't appoint him to an official, salaried position within the executive branch).

But being the spouse of the president isn't a job within the Executive Branch, so there is no restriction on Bill living in the White House, talking to his wife, giving her unofficial advice, and so on.

But keep making up stuff, its very entertaining.

[jcrew2001]

160. A monarchy is un-American

Whether it is a puppet govt by the Bushes, or by Bill Clinton - any perception of a monarchy or puppet govt is un-American.

[onenote]

162. A non-response is a non-response.

And I'm confused. If having members of the same family get elected separately as president creates a monarchy, and the founders of the nation were so concerned about a monarchy, why exactly didn't they put something in the constitution that would prevent members of the same family from serving as president?

[jcrew2001]

169. I don't know, maybe they had too much wine

Wives could not vote or run for elected office. They did not see an issue with offspring.

[onenote]

175. Funny, because most "monarchies" are passed along through offspring

Rather glaring oversight, wouldn't you say?

[jcrew2001]

182. But the power falls on one individual who can win election

after election. This was a glaring oversight that many saw needed to be amended to the constitution.

[MonkeyFunk]

248. The congress

has no say over who is Chief of Staff. you're just thrashing now.

[jcrew2001]

272. well, the media will never allow it

besides, its beneath an ex-president

[Marnieworld]

351. Every time with "spouses prolonging their reign by having their wives"?

C'Mon . You realize how insulting this is to women don't you? You didn't conceive of a legitimately elected woman with a puppet husband? No it's just the endless sucession of dynasties of men and their puppets. I'd love to hear Hillary's response to being called Bill's puppet. I almost wish this ludicrous, but often entertaining, "consitutional crisis" that you've conjured actually takes off into the stupid pundit world just so we get to hear her response.

[jcrew2001]

381. So bill was actually Hillary's puppet in the 90's?

and now HIllary is running as the woman behind the curtain?

spouses will be used to prolong the reigns, using wives/husbands.

the ex-President has a responsibility to leave office, permanently.

[Marnieworld]

388. why not?

And they have been conspiring since then- even worse than you thought! Makes as much sense as saying she is his puppet.

[jcrew2001]

398. So the 8 years were not good enough for her, she needs 8 more years

that sounds like a dictatorship to me; but we live in a "democracy" where we can vote for our "dictators" so we'll have to see.

[MonkeyFunk]

403. How is it a dictatorship?

Will she disband congress? Eliminate the courts? Overthrow constitutional rule?

[jcrew2001]

407. As an American, why do you want executive power consolidated

by one couple? Don't you want to give someone else a chance, at least make it appear that anyone is capable of being president, not just those married to ex-presidents or blood relatives.

[MonkeyFunk]

412. Anybody

constitutionally able to run is free to do so. There are plenty of other people taking that chance right now. She's not being given the position - she's running for it just like all the other candidates. The voters will decide.

[jcrew2001]

421. But she should know better about the role of "Ex-presidents"

and their responsibility after leaving office. She's spent 8 years in the white house already, and plain and simple she wants to return.

[MonkeyFunk]

427. yes

she spent 8 years as first lady. Now she wants to be President.

The constitution has absolutely no prohibition on that.

[jcrew2001]

430. But what did she accomplish in those 8 years

and what did she fail to accomplish - requiring her to return now.

[MonkeyFunk]

439. She wants to serve as President

she's never done that before, you know. Her powers as first lady were non-existent.

She now wants to be President, which is perfectly within her rights to try to attain.

[jcrew2001]

447. But its improper for an ex-President to return to the white house

and participate in the day-to-day activities.

[MonkeyFunk]

453. says you

the constitution says no such thing, and not a single person here agrees with you.

[jcrew2001]

461. I'm saying that people should see the conflict that this creates

in our Executive Branch in this scenario. You're entitled to disagree.

Do you prefer Pres. Bill or Pres. Hillary, or Both?

[IndianaGreen]

108. Why is Hillary even running if the Presidency is too big a job for her to handle by herself?

I wonder if some of you realize what you sound like everytime you talk about a 2-for-1 co-Presidency. I don't like Hillary, but I think some of her supporters sell her short everytime you mention Big Dog on the same breadth as her name.

[William769]

119. The op if this thread is proof postitive why we need a law for...

TUI

[jcrew2001]

135. Bill Clinton has said that he disagreed with the 2-term limit

but said that it should be allowed for an ex-president to serve "Non-consecutively" after an 8 year term, which is an irrational policy because it would prevent a president from using his incumbency to serve a 3rd term; but allow for a future scenario that requires an ex-president to run Again for office.

While at the time, the example of Teddy Roosevelt was cited in his failed attempt to win a non-consecutive 3rd term.

But Bill was really thinking about the Constitutional Implications if Hillary were to run for President, would he be allowed back to the White House? Why would Bill damage his legacy and risk losing a future 3rd term election. He won't risk that and it would humiliate other Americans to imply that no one else was capable of serving as president but Bill.

Bill knew that Hillary would run for President and was planning on modifying the 22nd Amendment to provide him the wiggle room to return to the White House, with the least Consitutional implications.

[peaches2003]

121. What was the 22nd Amndt issue with GWB?

Why would the 22nd Amendment have been an 'issue' for GWB if GHWB had served 2 terms??? GWB is one person and GHWB is another. Father/son has nothing to do with the 22nd Amendment. (And GWB is not a Jr., btw.)

Do you have any idea of anything you are posting? :freak:

[jcrew2001]

129. The 22nd Amendment is to prevent the power that a two-term

president can have for extending his term beyond the two terms. The perception of a power grab by an ex-president is of greater consideration if GHWB had served 2 terms and used GWB as a proxy for his agenda/power.

The creators of the Constitution and George Washington were scared of creating a Monarchy and that an individual would seek the Presidency for life. They despised the Royal British rule and did not want the USA to replicate that structure.

[onenote]

132. If the "creators" of the Constitution had such a problem as this

Why wasn't there any concern about John Adams and John Quincy Adams. And please, please, please, don't tell me its because they didn't "live together".

[jcrew2001]

136. John Adams served one term as president

and so did JQ Adams.

[onenote]

142. and nothing in the constitution would've stopped each of them serving 3 terms would it?

[jcrew2001]

144. but they served one term each

nt

[onenote]

You seem to think that the founding fathers would've been troubled had they served longer

Yet, you are unable to point to anything that the founders put in the Constitution to prevent it.

[jcrew2001]

165. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I'm sure they did not want a monarchy

But I will research to see what their intentions were, besides establishing a democratic election process. Alex Hamilton favored a strong exec branch, but others did not like Jefferson.

[onenote]

166. are you some other kind of lawyer? I surely hope not

[jcrew2001]

170. Are you a lawyer? because precedent and intention of the law

are always open to interpretation.

[onenote]

174. Yep. And admitted to practice before the Supreme Court, in fact.

Not that I've ever argued a case there. Just worked on written briefs.

[jcrew2001]

184. Then what would be the intention of the 22nd Amendment?

and why would it be necessary to have the 22nd Amendment?

[onenote]

190. The intention of the 22nd Amendment is to establish a term limit on an individual serving as pres

And it was necessary because without it there would be no limit on the number of terms a person can serve as president. A person. Not to restrict what a married couple can do. Not to restrict what members of a single family can do. No to restrict anything but the number of terms that individual person can serve.

That's the intent and that's what the amendment says. No room for interpretation.

[jcrew2001]

195. Can Laura Bush run for President in 2008?

and if she did, would the Supreme Court step in to prevent her from running?

[onenote]

198. Yes she can. and no the supreme court couldn't/wouldn't stop it

I keep wondering why you seem to think that when two people get married that they somehow merge into a single "person". Are you married? When you post something is it you or your wife that's posting? This is getting so confusing...

[jcrew2001]

202. I'm concerned that the role of the presidency will be

corrupted if future presidents will be allowed to extend their 8 years terms via their spouses for another 8 years.

Does this issue not concern you, as a law-abiding American?

[onenote]

210. Nope. I believe that the electorate can figure things out just fine

Frankly, I've never been a big fan of term limits of any kind. Ask me if I think the nation suffered from having FDR elected president four times.

[jcrew2001]

215. well diebold will have to disagree with you on that

and unfortunately term limits was ratified by the constitution.

[IA_Seth]

133. I hope you aren't serious.

Your entire premise is bunk. The 22nd lays out rules that state ONE PERSON can not serve more than 2 terms...it does not affect sons/daughters/cousins/unlces/or even ex-roomates.

Following your logic we shouldn't allow party-politics, after all the Democrats and the Republican candidates are only trying to extend their party's power beyond 2 terms.

[jcrew2001]

138. On Nov 7, 2008 there will be a ruling preventing Bill Clinton

from re-entering any role in the Executive Branch. If Hillary is still married to Bill, it will make her ineligible to serve as President.

Her electoral votes will be nullified and the next President will be the person with the 2nd amount of electoral votes, or the Congress decides.

Political Parties are not required by the Constitution. In fact, we can have many many more political parties.

The Constitution limits the role of 1 individual serving in the Executive Branch.

[onenote]

143. In case you haven't noticed, Bill and Hillary are separate individuals

You really have a problem with that. I have to ask, how many individuals are you?

[jcrew2001]

146. She's at liberty to divorce him

but he cannot return to the white house.

[onenote]

151. and they only will be separate individuals if she divorces him?

What planet are you from?

[jcrew2001]

155. Bill cannot return to the white house IMO

based on my interpretation of the 22nd amendment.

[onenote]

156. Well, you certainly are entitled to your interpretation of 22nd Amendment

And you're entitled to say that moon is made of green cheese. THey are equally valid viewpoints.

[ElizabethDC]

157. To quote the actual 22nd amendment

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice." He can hang around the White House as much as he wants, but he can't be elected to the presidency. The amendment says nothing about serving in the executive branch or living in the White House, etc.

[jcrew2001]

172. or elected more than once

if serving as VP for a dead president.

[ElizabethDC]

178. Only if they've held the office of president for more than two years. n/t

[IA_Seth]

147. You are still wrong.

You can repeat your meme all you want, it's not happening. Bill and Hillary are two individuals. Bill has served as President. Hillary is eligible for President.

That's really all there is to it.

And I realize we can have many more political parties, what the hell does that have to do with anything?

[jcrew2001]

153. Hillary can divorce Bill

but my interpretation is that Bill cannot have anything to do with the executive branch and the presidency.

[IA_Seth]

177. Which would solve what?

Bill isn't running for President. Being "First Mate" or whatever the hell they'd call him has no constitutional power.

Give. It. Up.

[jcrew2001]

181. Exactly, the courts will need to decide about the First Mate

and if previous ex-presidents can assume that role.

[onenote]

193. I suppose if someone brought the suit, the courts would have to decide it

It would take about ten minutes and if there is any justice at all, would result in the imposition of costs or other sanctions on the clown who brought such a frivolous case.

[jcrew2001]

197. Would you want Laura Bush running in 2008 to extend

GWB's term? This is a serious issue despite your opinion.

[onenote]

199. Would I want her to run? No. But I wouldn't want that even if chimpy had never been pres

So I'm not sure what your point is.

[jcrew2001]

201. But CAN Laura Bush run in 2008 and would the

supreme court step in to prevent her from doing so?

[IA_Seth]

204. Yes she could, no they wouldnt.

What language, if any, are you actually interpreting to make your "point". Show us the exact language that would prevent a spouse (you know, ANTOHER PERSON) from running for President.

[jcrew2001]

225. This is a loophole that must be stopped

otherwise we will see 16 year presidential terms instead of 8. What's to stop someone from divorcing his wife and marrying a 2nd wife to extend the term to 24 years.

[onenote]

231. the only that thing that would "stop" it would be the electorate

or a constitutional amendment. I suggest you start your campaign for the constitutional amendment as soon as possible.

[IA_Seth]

233. Or I guess you could just repeat yourself? n/t

[jcrew2001]

238. Are you aware of the ramifications of husband/wife

presidencies that will undermine our democracy?

Will you be happy if our country is taken over by 16 year presidencies?

[IA_Seth]

258. Are you aware that your theory is ridiculous?

Work on changing the consitution if you feel the urge, but as it stands right now there is nothing illegal/unconstitutional about Hillary being elected President, or with Bill living in the Whitehouse.

Enough already.

[jcrew2001]

275. Will you be happy when we have 16 year presidencies?

You don't think the right wing will just use this same tactic - or will we just be subjected to Bush offspring and their spouses.

[MonkeyFunk]

284. And Bush offspring

and spouses are quite eligible to run for President.

Getting elected is a different story.

[onenote]

285. We will be subjected to whomever the electorate votes for

As it always has been.

ANd now you're expanding this to offspring? Is there a generation skipping rule hidden in the 22nd amendment so that Chelsea can't run, but if she has a child, he/she could?

[jcrew2001]

290. Again, Diebold will determine who are president is

elections are for suckers.

We'll be subject to the presidencies of Bush offspring and their spouses for eternity.

[onenote]

297. is Jenna running in 2008? Or is it Laura? I missed that.

[onenote]

206. As I stated elsewhere: Yes she can and no the SCOTUS won't/can't stop her

[IA_Seth]

194. Only if someone was foolish enough to bring the suit

It would take all of an hour to decide the case.

[jcrew2001]

205. I don't want Bush and co trying to extend their

power by having their wives elected after them.

[onenote]

207. Then vote against them

[jcrew2001]

211. well it didn't work for gore or kerry

but i'm sure debold will let laura win the election.

[Marnieworld]

168. On November 8, 2008- Monkeys will fly out my butt.

Seriously how many times do you have to be told that you don't know what you are talking about?

:eyes:

[jcrew2001]

173. thanks for the personal attack

nt

[peaches2003]

137. You are showing your total ignorance

The 22nd Amendment written by George Washington and the creators of the Constitution??? Do you even know what an Amendment is? Obviously not. It is an addition to the Constitution. #22 was written to avoid another FDR situation where he was elected 4 times. It was written in 1947 and became part of the Constitution when ratified by the states in 1951! GWashington had been dead almost 150 years!

You really need to stop posting and at least try to finish the 3rd grade.

[jcrew2001]

139. So the writers of the Constitution wanted a monarchy?

While Alex Hamilton and others wanted a strong Fed govt, others like Jefferson were wary of a strong exec branch. They did not want or expect a lifetime president.

The 22nd amendment was ratified by all of the states, so we have to live by those rules. Do you deny that if Bill Clinton returns to the White House he will not exert the same power and influence as he previously had?

I actually like Bill, but this is a constitutional issue limiting the power of an ex-president on the Exec Branch.

[onenote]

145. I have no idea what influence Bill Clinton will exercise, but as a legal matter, its irrelevant

The Constitution makes no assumptions about the influence that will be wielded by the spouse of a president. And if its a question of influence, then I take it you would stretch the 22nd amendment to bar the same individual, even if not related to anyone who has ever served as president, as serving in a position of power and influence with respect to any president?

[jcrew2001]

148. Certainly Reagan won a 3rd term via GHWB

but I believe his influence was limited partly due to Alzheimer's.

This is Naked Power Grab by Bill Clinton to extend his role as president. I'm not making this up, what else is he going to do?

[onenote]

150. I really wish you'd stop saying you're not making this up.

This is only enjoyable to the extent its a silly game. If you're serious, its just sad and pathetic.

[jcrew2001]

200. what do you think Bill Clinton will do in the white house

meet with maids? no he'll work on policy.

[onenote]

208. He'll do whatever he chooses. He won't have an official, salaried position

And he won't have any specific duties. He can whisper in Hillary's ear all he wants. But if tried to sign a piece of legislation it would be a meaningless, ineffective act. See, not only are husbands and wives separate individuals, but as a legal matter there is only one president and, as a legal matter, which is the only matter that matters, Bill wouldn't have any power.

[jcrew2001]

241. He can sit in on cabinet meetings, create legislation

he'll just be like a more public karl rove

[onenote]

274. So what.

Let me ask you something. Playing it your way, let's say Bill and Hillary get divorced. And then she still invites him to attend a cabinet meeting or advise her on legislation. Is there a problem with that? If not, what exactly is the difference.

Or let me put it another way. You seem to think that Bill Clinton getting involved in executive branch activities would violate the 22nd amendment. Does that mean that if someone other than Hillary got elected and officially or unofficially sought out Bill Clinton's advice, assistance, whatever, that Bill would be serving a third term in violation of the constitution?

[jcrew2001]

280. Bill is still officially Hillary's husband

Thats the problem I have. If they are divorced, legally he will have no connection to the Hillary administration; and there will be no violation of the 22nd amendment.

[onenote]

282. Nothing in the 22nd amendment turns Bill into Hillary or Hillary into Bill because they're married

You keep flopping around on this like fish out of water. Is it because they're married or because he will act as a co-president. Doesn't have to married to act as a co-president and doesn't have to act as a co-president just because he's married to the president.

As pointed out elsewhere, if its simply that they're married, then the fact that Hillary lived in the White House, while married to Bill, means that she's already had her two terms and can't run now even if Bill was out of the picture.

If its not about their being married, then your notion that divorcing Bill would make a difference makes no sense.

[jcrew2001]

311. My opinion of the 22nd amendment is that it prevents an ex-president

from assuming the responsibilities of the presidency after 2 terms.

Bill Clinton is the ex-president - he should not be allowed to serve as president, co-president, or first spouse, IMO.

He's done, he should retire - do anything but participate in the day-to-day operations of the presidency.

Its a slight to the American people and the Constitution and the meaning of the 22nd Amendment if he is allowed to serve as 'co-president' by begin first husband. I personally think this action would not be legal.

[onenote]

318. being first spouse or unofficial "co-president" isn't "assuming the responsibilities

of the presidency." How hard is that to understand. Do you think that as "unofficial co-president" or first spouse Bill could assume the legal duties of the presidency if Hillary, for whatever reason, could not finish her term? Do you think the order of succession would be: Hillary, Bill, VP?

And what exactly do you mean by not participate in the day-to-day operations of the presidency? Could he attend state dinners? Ribbon cutting ceremonies. Sit in the gallery during the state of the union? Could he help write the state of the union or would that be participating in the day to day operations of the presidency? If so,does that mean that all of the other speech writers also are "participating in the day to day operations of the presidency" in some way that implicates the 22nd amendment.

Are we having fun or what!

[jcrew2001]

322. You and I both agree their is a relationship between

Hillary and Bill. When that relationship involves an ex-president and a current president, then that is the right to know what exactly Bill is doing, when and where. This is to prevent a monarchy, something you want, but I don't.

The day-to-day operations and decision making. If Bill is really making the decisions for or with Hillary, how is that different than when he was serving as president? Just because legally she is president, doesn't hide the fact that Bill is resuming the actions that he took when he served from 92-00.

[onenote]

327. Yep, there is a relationship. ANd the 22nd Amendment doesn't prohibit relationships

It prohibits the same person from being "elected" more than two times (or more than once if they "held the office"for more than two years without being elected). Bill was elected to two terms. Hillary has never been elected. If she is elected, then the score will be: Bill Clinton, elected twice. Hillary Clinton, elected once. No violation the 22nd Amendment.

And, no, I don't want a monarchy. And, by the way, are monarchs elected on your planet?

[jcrew2001]

337. huh? wasn't saddam, adolf, etc. elected? Democracies

can easily be overrided by corrupt individuals who break the constitution.

[onenote]

341. Okay, I'll bite. What does this have to do with anything?

I'd say this post jumped the shark, but that actually happened over 340 posts ago.

[jcrew2001]

363. when individuals are allowed to regain the most presidency

through loopholes, it creates the perception of dictatorship, and makes it easier to consolidate power.

this is why Bill argued that the rule should only be for 8 year terms, but allow for re-entering the presidency as long as it was non-consecutive of the 8 year term. Given longer lifespans - we can have 8 years of Clinton, 4 year wait, another 8 years of clinton, 4 year wait, etc.

Do you think this undermines our democracy and the purpose of elections and the peaceful changing of heads of govt.

[onenote]

377. Since we're still talking about elections, no I don't think it would undermine our Democracy

Now, tell me again how Diebold would ensure Bill Clinton was re-elected if he ran again.

[DemSoccerMom]

415. OK. I HAVE to ask.

Are you in love w/ Hillary? You just seem so dead-set on Hillary divorcing Bill.

Do you love her? Do you want her for yourself? Ohhhhh. You DO love her. I knew it.

Hillary and jcrew, sittin' in a tree . . .

See how much sense that made? OK. Well, your argument makes about as much sense.


EDIT for typo.

[Marnieworld]

159. By that logic Hillary would be inelligible since she also served 2 terms with him as spouse

So, even though the Constitution doesn't mention spouses it does mention actually being elected to the office which is the standard that everyone is mentioning. There is a line of succession for the presidency and First Spouse is not in it. I doubt anyone would have a problem with this at all.

[jcrew2001]

161. Hillary was never elected

so she is eligible IMO, but that is up to interpretation.

[ElizabethDC]

164. And Bill won't be elected, either

if/when Hillary wins the presidency in '08.

[Marnieworld]

171. and Bill would not be re-elected just as Hillary was never elected

Literally it's the same situation reversed. And it is not up to interpretation. He was President for 2 terms she is running for her first term. I don't have any links for you. This is pretty much understood fact.

Tempted to break a DU rule so I will end our specific discourse.

[jcrew2001]

186. Whether Bill is eligible to return to the white house is up

to interpretation by the courts.

[DemSoccerMom]

266. In what world

is Bill's eligibility to return to the WH AS THE SPOUSE OF A PRESIDENT up to the Supreme Court? Would you have the Supreme Court tell Joe Q. Public who HE is allowed to marry? That's essentially what your post amounts to.

I really don't mean any disrespect, and I try to be as polite as possible to fellow DUers, but WOW, you have just a few screws loose, don'tcha?

[jcrew2001]

283. I believe the 22nd amendment is to prevent one individual

from obtaining and keeping power in the presidency. It should bar the spouse of the ex-president from being elected to the Presidency because it allows a back-door way for Bill Clinton to regain the white house. Its the intent of the Amendment to protect citizens. Legally, she can divorce him and run for president, but otherwise, there is a constitutonal gray area.

[MonkeyFunk]

299. There's no constitutional gray area whatsoever..

nowhere in the history of Western jurisprudence have a husband and wife been held to be one person.

[jcrew2001]

323. I don't support a monarchy and I won't let the US become a monarchy

or a pseudo-monarchy.

[onenote]

331. Hey, we agree on something!! Anyone here in favor of letting the US become a monarchy?

[MonkeyFunk]

353. This is a very funny thread

thanks for the laughs.

[MonkeyFunk]

357. Do you know what a monarchy is?

Evidently you do not.

[jcrew2001]

368. monarchy, dictatorship - semantics

nt

[onenote]

376. Queen Elizabeth: Dictator

:rofl:

[jcrew2001]

382. so thats what you want to happen here

great

[DemSoccerMom]

418. You JUST proved my point, while discrediting your own.

Right there. Did you see it? Let me show you:

"It SHOULD bar the spouse of the ex-president . . . "

Ah. So you're telling us what the 22nd Amendment SHOULD mean? You're not telling us what it ACTUALLY means.

If I THINK the 1st amendment means I'm free to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater, does that mean it does?

[jcrew2001]

434. There is a potential for conflict with Bill as an Ex-President

returning to the White House to serve as the spouse to another President. I've explained that I believe it is the duty of all ex-presidents ineligible for office, to retire and stay out of the day-to-day activities of the executive office - which would be violated if Hillary is elected. My conflict isn't with Hillary directly, but the role that Bill has as an "Ex-President" and his duty to preserve a democracy, but his returning to 1600 will create an illusion of a Monarchy, which I am solely against - presidents get 8 years max at 1600 and they shouldn't be allowed back, per the 22nd Amendment. I believe that rules are rules, and he's using a loophole to regain his former power; and back-door his way into the white house. I just think its an improper action.

If Hillary becomes president should Bill retain his title as "President" or should he be required to become "First Husband", because in action, you can't have 2 people called "President" in the white house, it would be self-defeating.

Is this the first of 16 years presidential rules? We had 8 years of Team Clinton. What did Hillary fail to accomplish then, that she needs to do now? If the Clintons were actually co-presidents, what will Bill's role actually be as First Husband/Ex-President - I think the govt and american people need to understand and have oversight of the president's activities. Who is the final decision maker, will Bill defer to Hillary on all decisions, or will he feel the need to exert the influence and power he once had. IMO this is peculuar Constitutional Crisis of the restrictions on ex-2 term presidents.

Just because Bill can return to the White House through the Back Door, doesn't mean he should. Just because Hillary served 8 years as First Lady, does it mean she should return or needs to return?

[MonkeyFunk]

440. again

you really ought to look up the definition of "monarchy".

[jcrew2001]

446. How about a pseudo-dictatorship then

nt

[MonkeyFunk]

454. Nope

not unless you can demonstrate how her election would dissolve Congress and the Courts and confer extraordinary power on the executive.

[jcrew2001]

457. Its something to think about

I'll have to see how other dictatorships and dictators handled their govts. I'm sure its possible, for instance Julius Caesar was the dictator of Rome but they had a legislature. So to say that dictators have to dissolve congress and the courts isn't true. Saddam also had "courts" and a legislative govt comprised of party officials.

[MonkeyFunk]

464. It's a truly stupid theory

that she becomes "dictator" because she's married?

It makes no sense whatsoever.

[jcrew2001]

467. No, my issue is with Ex-presidents

so in theory Bill would be the dictator - but that is only in theory, since the 'election' has not yet taken place.

[peaches2003]

176. Interpretation of what?

Certainly not of the 22nd Amendment. Spouses, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, parents, or pets are not mentioned, so they all would be eligible to be President or advise the President. Hopefully no future President will be nominating you for the Supreme Court with your extensive legal knowledge. :rofl:

[jcrew2001]

187. Why would the supreme court allow for an ex-president

to return to the white house? and increase the power of the exec branch?

[onenote]

192. Because nothing in the Constitution prevents it.

Pretty simple actually. See, unlike you, the SCOTUS generally doesn't make shit up.

[jcrew2001]

223. Exactly, this is Loophole that will be exploited

by many future presidents.

[onenote]

227. Its not a loophole. Its the meaning and intent of the provision

If there is a felt need to impose further restrictions -- and I personally don't see that there is one -- then the same process that brought us the 22nd Amendment can be employed to add a new amendment to constitution addressing the issue.

Until then, I have no doubt whatsoever that the courts will "interpret" the 22nd Amendment to mean what it says, not what you wish it says.

[jcrew2001]

229. Finally, we agree that the courts should intepret if further

restrictions are needed for the 22nd amendment.

[onenote]

234. No, that's not what I said.

The court isn't going to interpert "if further restictions are needed for the 22nd Amendment." They are going to interpret what the 22nd Amendment says. And what it says is clear on its face. Now, in the exceedingly unlikely case that someone actually brings the case you seem to think exists to be brought and the courts decide that it means what it says (and says what it means), which is what they will decide, then you can start your campaign for a new constitutional amendment to expand the restrictions on who can serve as president to include spouses of presidents who have already served two terms. Until then, you got nothing.

[jcrew2001]

289. It seems like we can legislate anything, so I want to know

what the parameters are for ex-presidents who serve as First-spouse. How much power can they have?

[LanternWaste]

304. I would imagine...

I would imagine no more nor no less power than the First Wives in contemporary politics have. What evidence do we have to convince us of anything else...?

:shrug:

[jcrew2001]

383. Bill clinton will always be "President" and never hold the title

of "first husband" - the president is above first husband. He will have more power than first ladies. He will have more power than ex-presidents living elsewhere. He will have the same exact power as his wife through his actions.

[onenote]

389. Let's see. President Hillary Clinton signs bill: it becomes law.

"President" Bill Clinton signs law: it becomes an autograph on an otherwise legally meaningless piece of paper.

No, he will not "have the same exact power as his wife".

And he will have no more power than any ex-president living elsewhere. He may have more influence, but that could just as easily be the case if he and Hillary were divorced or he was living in Tahiti.

[jcrew2001]

397. You seem to be comfortable having President Bill Clinton

back in the White House where his influence will purely be "advisory" yet "deferential" to Hillary. I guess we will wait and see what happens.

[onenote]

399. Quite comfortable

In fact, I guess you could say I'd be more comfortable with Bill in the WH than with Hillary. As mentioned, I'm still on the fence as to whether Hillary is the right candidate for the Democratic Party at this time.

[jcrew2001]

410. Most voters would be more comfortable with Bill in the WH than Hillary

but that would be illegal. So most voters will knowingly circumvent the 22nd amendment to place Hillary/Bill back into the White House. Do you agree with this statement?

[onenote]

306. We can try to legislate things that are consistent with the constitution

Thus, for example, you couldn't just legislate your no hubbies and wives in the White House for more than two terms restriction. It would be inconsistent with the constitution. You could try to amend the constitution. Good luck on that.

As for your question: today, an ex-president can be a first spouse and have as much "power" as the president wants to give them, short of actually having any legal power. Just as the president could give as much "power" to any other former president that he/she wanted to give to them.

And what new limits do I think there should be going forward: here's a surprise -- none.

[foo_bar]

185. I think you're confusing "interpretation" with "hallucination"

To interpret something requires the ability to read or comprehend it; what you're doing is called "making shit up", namely referencing a clause in the 22nd amendment that doesn't exist except in your mind.

I would have sworn this was satire (of the Colbertian bent), given a Klinton Konspiracy to rule the world a la General Zod, but the shape of the hole you're digging suggests you plan to move in.

[jcrew2001]

188. My belief is the Bill cannot return to the white house in any

capacity. Hillary can divorce Bill.

[onenote]

191. I'm afraid to ask what other "beliefs" you adhere to.

[LanternWaste]

260. What is the precise, official and relevant position

What is the precise, official and relevant position he would hold as her husband that you believe would prevent HRC from assuming office?

[jcrew2001]

385. His exact title is "President" Bill Clinton

His position is Ex-President of USA

[bamacrat]

163. Well we all know that Hillary was influential in some decisions when Bill whas pres.

So its logical to assume that Bill would be influential as well. The first First Man, or what would he be called?

[William769]

213. Here is the actual 22 amendment.

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.


Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.

I HOPE YOU SEE THIS, IT BLOWS YOUR STUPID ASS ARGUMENT RIGHT OUT OF THE WATER, I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THE YOU GO BACK TO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL!

[Forkboy]

216. What are you trying to say?

:)

I can't believe this whole thread.Slow news cycle or something. :crazy:

[onenote]

220. Actually this thread is sort of like watching Sanjaye on American Idol

Mindless, stupid fun.


(not that I have ever watched American Idol -- just know what I read and hear from others!)

[jcrew2001]

228. I'm right on this - It will be an issue that will be brought up

by the courts.

I don't want 16 year presidential reigns.

[onenote]

235. I'm hardly in a position to deny that a stupid lawsuit might be brought.

But it doesn't make it a meritorious suit and it doesn't make your interpretation remotely plausible or reasonable. Any such lawuit, like the interpretation itself, would simply be frivolous.

[jcrew2001]

292. I don't think the role of the president or his spouse is frivalous

I think as a republic and a democracy - we demand more oversight of our leaders, not less.

[onenote]

303. And if you want to demand oversight by seeking an amendment to the constitution

that is absolutlely your right.

But it doesn't make your argument about the meaning of the Constitution as written and currently amended any less frivolous.

[LanternWaste]

305. Which you seem to imply includes marriage restrictions on the Office?

"we demand more oversight of our leaders, not less..."

Which you seem to imply includes marriage restrictions on the Office?

[jcrew2001]

307. If there is no marriage rules

we'll need to restrict the actions of Bill Clinton with oversight.

[LanternWaste]

312. Yay! You finally answered me!

Yay! You finally answered me!

O-k. Here's what I want to know (with precise, direct and relevant answers, please...)

1. What evidence do you have (other than vague rumors) that the Clinton's are attempting to subvert the 22nd Amendment?

2. What research have you done on this, and could you cite (if not the authors, at least the names of) the books regarding this topic you've read?

3. Are you seeking to enact marriage limitations on the office of the President? Will this apply only to spouses, or to all family members? If all family members, how distantly related may they be to muster your confidence that they are indeed not attempting to circumvent the 22 Amendment?

Thanks in advance. We await with baited breath your responses and will shower upon them, all due consideration.

:hi:

[jcrew2001]

314. i'll try my best

(1) The perception of illegality is an important issue. If Bill Clinton returns to the white house, is he really an ex-president who just happens to be living in the white house, or is he really a returning ex-president who is using Hillary as a proxy to regain his former stature - which would in nature and in action circumvent the meaning of the 22nd amendment. If there is suspicion of these actions, there should be oversight and parameters on his role and access. This would ensure that the American people truly elected Hillary as president; and not Bill; and prevent future ex-presidents from using this same scenario to return to power - and I believe that the founding fathers never intended for the president to be a lifetime rule, and abhorred any aspects of monarchy.
(2) Unfortunately, this idea just came to me yesterday - in addition, never in American history has a spouse of an ex-president ran for president. We've had offspring of past presidents, but the span of time difference was 8 years or longer. I feel that it is every American's interest to protect the Presidency from monarchy - its just something I disagree with. The fathers - JAdams, and GHWB never exerted the direct physical influence that Bill will have, when he returns to live in the White House. The conspiracy is just to blatent and transparent for my tastes.
(3)My concern is solely on preventing past 2 term ex-presidents from returning to power. I don't feel this should prevent offspring from pursuing the presidency.

[LanternWaste]

332. So for all intents and purposes

So for all intents and purposes, your only current, non-imaginary target of this amendment to an amendment is Bill Clinton. Correct?


You keep referring to your fear of a monarchy, but this nagging question persists in my mind-- how many monarchs have been elected by the American Electoral College? And should you cry "Diebold!" again, then we can only assume the monarchs have already come home to roost with or without your amendment to an amendment and it's already too late.


Sure. Someone could bring this up before the courts should it happen, because *everyone* in this country has an absolute right to sue *anyone* else in this country for *anything* they want to (though the case *would* get dismissed prior to reaching even a state supreme court and that's assuming that there's a lawyer out there desperate enough to take the case).

So, if I'm inferring this correctly, you don't want *any* ex-President to have *anything* to do with the Executive branch in *any* capacity? Is that correct? And how do you define the Executive Branch-- because to be honest, you're most direct answer to this question has been "living at the White House"

[jcrew2001]

335. This would apply to all ex-presidents but this is a new case

that has never been brought up to the supreme court. Isn't it disingenous for Bill Clinton to attempt to return to the white house in any capacity and isn't it undermining are democracy and constitution by flaunting candidate Hillary as her pseudo-co-president candidate. The law states that no 2 term president can return to the presidency, why doesn't Bill understand the meaning and just not return to the WH. He's found a loophole through his wife and its ingenius yet disturbing. As an American,as every American should be gravely alarmed that the sanctity of the 22nd Amendment is being treaded upon.

Bill Clinton is in a legally-binding relationship with Hillary. I believe that no 2 terms ex-president should be in a Legally-binding relationship with future presential-candidates or presidents.

[jcrew2001]

217. William your vulgar personal attacks are unsavory

nt

[William769]

218. Unsavory but necessary.

[jcrew2001]

222. Wow, your presence here is unwanted and disgusting

imo

[William769]

232. To bad.

[jcrew2001]

243. Maybe you should follow the rules of behavior

in this forum.

[rinsd]

244. "Maybe you should follow the rules of behavior"

Advice you would be advised to follow yourself.

[ronnykmarshall]

250. I'm not sure talking out ones ass is against the rules.

Just annoying.

[Vickers]

237. I can't determine if this is some elaborate joke, or if it's simply

the stupidest fucking thread ever on DU.

[jcrew2001]

239. i really brought out the vulgarities!

nt

[Vickers]

240. The vulgarity is that you are confusing living in the White House with

being President.

Open a window, get some fresh air.

[jcrew2001]

242. Are you certain Bill will not have any power or influence

in a Hillary administration - he will not be muzzled.

[Vickers]

245. Your reasoning powers are certainly unconventional. I'd go so far

as to say "diminished."

I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make at this point. Your interpretation of the 22nd Amendment is laughable. Your delusion that this will somehow be an issue for the Supreme Court is making you look like an addled old man (or woman).

I would check around the house and make sure there are no open paint containers or gas leaks, because I truly believe you have gone simple.

[Orangepeel]

263. sure he'll have influence. probably more than most husbands would.

but that's not unconstitutional. The 22nd amendment specifically says that he can't be elected to the office of president. It doesn't say that he can't live in the White House. Not that he would, but if, say, a President Obama wanted Jimmy Carter to come live in the White House, he could invite him (and could, even if Carter had served two terms). There just isn't any reasonable way to interpret the amendment otherwise.

In fact, there is debate as to whether or not a former president could be elected vice president and then become president, since he or she wouldn't be elected. My opinion is "no", but there is disagreement there. There is no legitimate disagreement on whether the spouse of a two term president can be elected. Those who think that this smacks of monarchy should vote against the spouse.

[jcrew2001]

269. I trust Diebold more than I trust voting

An ex-president serving as VP and then rising to Prez is a legitimate and serious debate.

The question is extending an ex-president's power beyond the allotted 2 terms. If I agree that there should be a strict interpretation of an ex-president's future, then I would agree with the term limits and with preventing him from running as VP. I have strong feelings against a monarchy/dictatorship.

But isn't this just another loophole by using his spouse as a puppet. Many other politicians wives have been elected following their husbands. But unlike those cases, this is the Presidency and cornerstone of our democracy. I just feel that it will be compromised if ex-presidents are allowed to serve as spouses in a future administration. It completely defeats the purpose of term limits.

[onenote]

271. there are many states/localities with term limits. Let me know if any apply to a spouse

[jcrew2001]

279. I just think it unecessary for spouses to run for office only

because their husbands are barred by law not to. It just defeats the purpose of term limits, and the prevention of one person obtaining too much power.

[Orangepeel]

273. so the spouse of an ex-president should be barred because diebold might give them the election?

If we can't fix the diebold problem (no pun intended), then having an ex-president exert influence on his/her spouse is the least of our problems.

Holding aside the constitutional question (about which I believe you are seriously overreaching), I don't buy your premise that Hillary Clinton would be a puppet. I submit that you underestimate Hillary Clinton (and I'm supporting Edwards).

[jcrew2001]

278. I question the legality of Bill's role in the white house

Everyone knows he will act as "co-president" in an un-official capacity. He should be elected to a 3rd term, but the law simply does not allow this, everyone knows that this will be even more blatent and shadier than the GHWB/GWB influence.

Maybe, the fine print doesn't prevent Bill from being First Husband, but everyone knows he really will act as "co-president" in an informal/shady capacity.

[onenote]

281. So what.

An unofficial co-president is no more than that -- an unofficial co-president. Nothing Bill says or does as "unofficial co-president" has any legal signficance. Only actions taken by the president have legal signficance. The situation wouldn't be any different if Hillary divorced Bill and then relied on his advice. Or if any other president relied on another former president's advice. Nothing in the constitution bars it. If the voters don't like it, they can vote Hillary out of office after one term. (Of course, you -- and I assume its only you -- think that Hillary and Bill have a magic Diebold key that will keep this from happening).

[jcrew2001]

286. Do you think there is a Conspiracy for Bill to influence

Hillary's decision making? and reclaim portions of power of the presidency - granted these powers are loosely comprised of issuing executive orders and legislative agenda, etc.

[onenote]

295. I don't think its a "conspiracy" I think its a natural part of their relationship

I have no doubt that they consult with one another and discuss policy issues. Probably always have. If they got divorced tomorrow, they might still do the same thing. And I have no doubt that a number of the staffers that advised and consulted with Bill Clinton during his 8 years in the White House would end up advising and consulting with Hillary if she is elected, even if Bill vanished off the face of the earth tomorrow. So am I to take it that you think that by virtue of her 8 years as First Lady, Hillary is disqualified to run whether or not Bill is in the picture going forward? If not, exactly what the heck is your position because it hasn't made sense since post number one.

[jcrew2001]

308. The duties of the President are fluid, but if they conspire

to break the law - break the law of the 22nd amendment and its restrictions of Bill assuming the role/power of the presidency, then that would be illegal. It is illegal for Bill to assume the presidency in any form whatsoever. Its about what will Bill do, what power will he have, what restrictions need to be placed on him. How can we ensure that are democratic process is protected for future generations.

I just want a ruling on the "legality of an ex-president serving as a first spouse" and what parameters that involves; to protect future generations from power plays of corrupt politicians.

[onenote]

315. Invasion of the Body Snatchers!!!

The only way that Bill and Hillary could conspire to violate the 22nd Amendment would be if they could figure out a way to elect Hillary and then have Bill physically take over her body.

The 22nd Amendment doesn't prevent former presidents from talking to, influencing, wielding power over current presidents, whether or not they are married to the current president. It would prevent Bill from actually exercising the legal authority of President, but since he wasn't elected any attempt by him to do that would be null and void anyway.

[jcrew2001]

317. We still need oversight on Bill

and to prevent him from doing nefarious things.

But isn't the purpose of elections to change leaders, to prevent a monarchy. You might be pro-monarchy, but I'm not. I believe in a strong democracy and a strong democracy cannot let one individual obtain or perceive to obtain the powers of the presidency for longer than 8 years.

[onenote]

320. Pro-monarchy? Hardly. Pro-common sense? Yep.

Assuming that the purpose of elections is to "change leaders" how would electing Hillary (and for the record let me state here that I am unconvinced that Hillary would be the best candidate for the Democrats in 2008, but haven't yet thrown my support to any of the candidates) not be "changing leaders"? Even if she was succeeding Bill, not chimpy, she and Bill actually are two separate human beings, not Siamese Twins.

And you've never answered my question: if your concern is that Bill might obtain the powers of the presidency by advising, influencing, consulting with etc. Hillary, how would divorcing him solve the problem since he could still do all those things for her. Heck, he could do it for anyone who was elected president.

I have an idea for your new version of the 22nd Amendment: After serving 8 years, presidents are barred from communicating with any successor president or publishing any written material that might be read by and influence the current president.

[jcrew2001]

325. In the past ex-presidents have never taken an active role

in the day-to-day operations of there future successors. However, if Bill is 'co-president' he will have the day-to-day activities of the first spouse, which are made up - and he may or may not, but he will participate in the day-to-day decisions of the presidency. Don't you think this is MORE dangerous for an ex-president to exert influence, power, and control in such a blatent yet pseudo-legal way.

[onenote]

329. To answer your question in a word: No.

I"m not troubled by the fact that a former president might be advising a current president, whether or not that current president is their spouse, parent, sibling, old friend, mentor, whatever.

[jcrew2001]

336. A marriage is a legally-binding relationship and not an advising

role. Legally Bill is in a legal relationship with the rules set by the govt for marriages and the responsibilities of expected upon married couples; if no legal relationship existed, a divorce would create this.

[onenote]

340. and do you think one of the rules set by the govt for marriages is that a husband control his wife?

Are visiting from another century?

[jcrew2001]

362. Isn't it usually a wife who actually controls the husband?

which makes me wonder why Hillary needs another 8 years.

[onenote]

378. Y'know, after nearly 400 posts in this thread, you still have the capacity to surprise

And, no, I don't think it is "the wife who actually controls the husband". BUt if it was true (can't believe I'm saying this), how come earlier in this thread you thought it would be find for Hillary to run if she divorced Bill. But now your position is that Hillary already has had her two terms.

Which is it?

[jcrew2001]

386. It puzzles me why she wants another 8 years, but she is allowed

to. I have a problem with Bill trying to re-capture the white house even though he is officially retired by the Constitution from presidential elections. His official title will always be "President" so how he holds the title of president and returns to the white house, but supposedly will not have any power that a real President would have. I just don't like it, and I think its irresponsible for him to pursue this course, and undermines our elections by using a loophole to regain his power and influence in a direct way to the Executive Branch.

[Vickers]

448. "I just don't like it" Ahhhhh, now I get it. All of this feigned brain damage

is simply a front to express (in a theatrical manner?) your dislike of the Clintons.

Now it all makes sense!

Why didn't you just say so, instead of making yourself look like a drunken oxygen-deprived oaf in front of an international audience? It would've been so much easier and understandable (albeit less entertaining).

At any rate: thanks for the laugh!

[jcrew2001]

475. The intent of the 22nd is to mandate retirement of the ex-Presidents

if Bill is allowed to pursue a 3rd term, I would support him, and he should be elected to a 3rd term.

If Americans prefer Bill back, lets make it official instead of "electing" Hillary, when we just want Bill to make the final decisions.

There's nothing wrong with wanting Bill to serve a 3rd term, but we should make it LEGAL for him to serve a 3rd term.

[DemSoccerMom]

426. So is one to assume that means you will not be voting

in the upcoming election? If you distrust voting, one would assume you wouldn't partake of it.

Well, if that's the case, and you will not be voting, let me just offer these words of wisdom: "Put up, or shut up."

Basically, if you don't vote, you don't have the right to bitch.

[Forkboy]

259. You brought out something.

[doggyboy]

267. I brought out the peace pipe

I couldn't let this thread go by without it

[Richardo]

252. I think the latter

I'm in response vapor-lock because there's too much idiocy to respond to in the OP.

[Vickers]

255. Hey, I dig your little beagle dog in your sig line.

I still have one left, she turned 15 on the 15th of this month.

[Richardo]

256. Mazel tov!

Give that old girl a scratch behind the ear for me.

[LanternWaste]

262. I'll vote for the latter.

I'll vote for the latter.

Seems since the recent congressional elections, we've been getting some really, really weird stuff.

[ronnykmarshall]

261. This thread is too much ..... I think I'll read a nice book.

[peaches2003]

265. What about Cheney?

Here's another problem for our scholar to ponder. Something was said above that the 22nd Amendment was needed to prevent a "puppet government". What if Cheney decides now to run for President? Can he? He has been pulling the strings on the little puppet in the White House for 8 years already and has been acting as President for 2 terms. Could Cheney run for what would really be his 3rd term in 2008?

[Marnieworld]

276. I imagine that that is "open to interpretation"

:rofl:

[peaches2003]

302. And to you-

:toast:

[semillama]

268. Boy, someone sure wasn't paying attention in their high school civics class.

This thread = Possibly one of the greatest trainwrecks of pure stubborn delusion I have ever seen that doesn't involve aliens, 9/11, JFK, or the Hollow Earh.

[jcrew2001]

309. thanks for your 2 cents

nt

[Zuiderelle]

277. For help, call 1-800-IMANIDIOT

[MonkeyFunk]

287. Iman

is married to David Bowie.

Are you calling Bowie an idiot?!

[Zuiderelle]

291. By proxy, yes.

I suppose.

[MonkeyFunk]

294. well

I guess she is the co-Bowie...

[ElizabethDC]

293. I'm so glad that this thread is still going strong

I've been away from my computer for most fo these days and was afraid that this thread would become inactive. Not only is it still going strong, but I have lots of posts to catch up on. Now I know what my evening entertainment's gonna be! (Better cancel my dinner plans).

[onenote]

296. Me too. Its a great way to build up your post count, have some fun

I worry that when we hit some magic number of posts, the OP will finally say April Fool!

[doggyboy]

300. Even better

little chance of this ever being locked.

[onenote]

298. A big shout out of thanks to the mods

for letting this thread run on and on. Seriously, do not ever stop it. With any luck it will still be going on inauguration day 2009.

[AtomicKitten]

301. *

[jcrew2001]

319. I got 3 recs

I'm trying to discuss the ramifications of ex-president returning to the white house in any capacity, or pseudo-capacity.

[Vickers]

449. I wonder who the other two were....

:rofl:

[BootinUp]

310. I can't believe this thread is still going. Its like the Energizer bunny.

Hey jcrew, get a life dude!

[jcrew2001]

313. i'm trying ,but trying to respond to every post

nt

[onenote]

321. Hey lets keep this going: New question - How does the 22nd Amendment apply to Siamese Twins?

Can they serve for two terms or four?

Discuss.

[jcrew2001]

326. when the situation arises, the courts will have to decide

nt

[Marnieworld]

344. But will the country then be in jeopardy of an onslaught a dynastic Siamese Twins?

I mean- what about precedent?

[Marnieworld]

338. It depends on the twins.

It's funny you say that- Because it's almost like the OP considered the Clintons Siamese Twins. I wonder what Hillary would say to someone that implied that her campaign was just an elaborate hoax to mask a sinister plot by Bill to circumvent the 22nd ammendment? As if once in office she'd just meekly step aside, honored to serve the role of puppet?

My husband and I are both in IT but with different expertise. Occassionally I ask him for some guidance but once I get what I need I make it clear that my job is my job and I will be taking it from there. A woman like Hillary, who is not my choice of candidate BTW, was exceptional her entire life. She worked and acheived and it was the equality that made them a pair. I have zero doubt that in a Hillary White House that she would be the one and only president as Bill was when he was president. I think that they both respect eachother and the presidency and the Constitution too much to not behave that way. He may not be a faithful husband but I never got an iota of an indication that he doesn't respect her enormously and would feel comfortable usurping anything from her.

If anyone would be a "First Gentleman" well it would be him though. First, as a former president he'd have no reason to be intimidated or feel emasculated by it. Anyone being the first in that role might feel odd being a groundbreaker but Bill would handle it with grace and humor. I think however that he would be different from prior "Firsts" because he already has a foundation and an entire life created to serve globally with extrordinary reach. He wouldn't stop any of that to decorate a Christmas tree or have a literacy campaign.

Which leads us to today's reality. Bill and Hillary are generally apart now no? She is in Washington and he is global but based in NY. They already have separate lives and agendas. If she got elected it wouldn't be a rollback to 1992- everything's changed. Bill may choose not to give up the NY pad and live in the WH anyway. Bush is barely there now with Crawford and Camp David, and there are rumors of Laura staying in a hotel. He isn't sitting in her Senate office writing legislation. He's actually quite comfortable as a citizen now and already steps aside and let's her bask in the spotlight. So even the premise of how these people would behave I think is off.

But of course we've been instructed to discuss precedent here, and yet disregard it all simultaneously as an ammendment can just be endlessly "interpreted" without ever responding to precedent or established legal opinion. Amazing that I have heard none of this theory anywhere else. You would think that at least one RW shill would be screeching it all over the airwaves thrilled to have an excuse to lambast both Hillary and BIll and possibly block her candidacy no? Why would they wait at all and not use it now? If any political party needed to change a subject before more than the GOP I am not aware of it.

What I can't figure out is- what campaign slogans would the twins have? Not him, it's me this time?

[onenote]

342. Campaign slogan: Two heads are better than one

[Marnieworld]

343. Bravo

:rofl:

[tammywammy]

339. This is one of the silliest threads I've ever seen

Seriously, I want some of whatever you have.

[jcrew2001]

366. thanks for your 2 cents

nt

[doggyboy]

384. it's better than nonsense

.

[The Count]

347. Oh, Wow! To think Edwards people accuse everyone of spouting RW talking points

even when trying to discuss their candidate's record, words...Dlad they wouldn't do that to other candidates!
This thread is a beaut as far as blindness to irony....
I have no problem with attacking Hillary's stands on war (although not by IWR sponsors supporters0 but the 22 amendment fantasy? Is this straight from the freepers or jusr heading there?

[jcrew2001]

365. Why should the 22nd concern just RW but not all Americans

Isn't it strange how an Ex-President can regain the presidency through nefarious means? Why should we allow this as Americans - who want democracy.

[The Count]

442. The 22 is Republican BS - and you are "concerned" because you want Hillary out

Spare me the hypocrisy....I am outside of this particular rivalry so I can see through everyone.

[jcrew2001]

473. If Americans prefer Bill Clinton to serve a 3rd term

then lets changed the 22nd amendment and make him eligible.

Otherwise, I think it is wrong for Americans to vote for Hillary, as a symbolic gesture to the female population, when in fact most Americans really want Bill to make the final decisions.

Bill has said that "he thinks presidents should be allowed to serve non-consecutive 8 year terms" - which if it is the will of the people, then lets allow it, and vote President Bill in for a real 3rd term and not a pseudo-3rd term.

[childslibrarian]

349. No

NO

[Tom Joad]

350. god, let's be more optimistic. Hillary ain't gettin into the white house.

[jcrew2001]

375. All ex-presidents need to do the right thing - RETIRE

from political life and elections. It undermines our democracy and republic when an ex-president tries to re-enter the presidential branch when he is constitutionally barred from serving.

If Bill Clinton pursues this, he is undermining the intention of the Constitution and the American people.

[MonkeyFunk]

392. Did Bill announce he was running for First Gentleman?

No.

His wife is running for President, though. Bill isn't running for anything.

[jcrew2001]

408. Why do you think Bill is passive in this decision?

He can say no, its not a good idea for an ex-President to return to washington.

[MonkeyFunk]

413. I'm sure he's encouraging her

but it's her decision. It's rather sexist to think she's only doing this at his bidding. She has her own ambitions, you know.

[jcrew2001]

419. Its about the role as an "Ex-President" and the unwritten rules

that you leave govt for good, at least the executive branch. That's my point, Ex-Presidents should not be allowed any daily influence on the presidency. It doesn't make sense that they would want to or even should.

Any woman can assume the presidency on her own, without having to be married to an ex-president.

[oldhippie]

352. Yes. He is even eligible to serve again as President...........

Jeeezzzz. Read the fucking amendment. It says what it says, not what you want it to say. It says Bill can't be ELECTED president again. He could run as Hillary's running mate and become Vice-President. Then, if Hillary died, resigned, or became incapacitated, Bill would legally and Constitutionally become President by SUCCESSION, not ELECTION. And you can't find one single phrase in the 22nd amandment to prevent this. You can come up with all the lame coulda', woulda', shoulda' theories of what you want it to mean that you like. But the language is not ambiguous. There is nothing THERE to prevent Bill from serving again as President under certain circumstances, much less living in the White House.

I just wanted to see how long we can keep this going. :-)

[jcrew2001]

364. But do you think that undermines the purpose of the 22nd

and undermines our democracy?

[oldhippie]

396. No......

But it doesn't really matter what I think about it. It says what it says until somebody changes it. You can't change its meaning just because you don't like it.

[jcrew2001]

462. Well IMO it should be changed

but your opinion is that it should not be changed.

[Imagevision]

354. get a load of this> Legally Bill Clinton can accept the VP. slot,however he cannot run for prez

again should Hillary make it thru two terms.

[jcrew2001]

371. why is that good for our democracy?

nt

[Orangepeel]

390. whether or not it is good for democracy for the spouse to run is debatable

whether or not it is constitutional is not. Husbands and wives are legally two people, even if they are in a legal partnership.

There are a lot of things that I think are bad for democracy that are in the constitution -- some of them have been changed through amendments like slavery and women's suffrage -- and some have not, like the electoral college. It is undemocratic that DC residents don't have representation in congress. I think term limits themselves are undemocratic, because they take away choice from the people, even though I don't oppose term limits.

If you think it is bad for democracy for the spouse of a two term ex-President to assume the office, you have two choices. You can work to get another amendment that actually prohibits this or you can use it as an argument against voting for the spouse. You can't make a justifiable argument that it violates the 22nd amendment because it just doesn't.

[jcrew2001]

474. Then lets get rid of the 22nd Amendment and vote Bill for a real 3rd term

instead of a pseudo-3rd term, where Americans prefer he makes the final decisions, and Hillary just signs off on them.

I have no problem with Bill, but I think that if the will of the people is to install Bill for a 3rd term, lets not dance around the subject, but make it Constitutionally Legal for him to return to office.

I kinda like the Electoral college because it gives power to the states, which I think was the intention of the founding fathers when they created the Republic. Because the US is such a large country, its a viable way for all americans from every state to have some power, instead of just one region with the most population.

[NobleCynic]

356. There are plenty of defensible reasons to oppose Hillary

This is not one of them.

[jcrew2001]

372. what if Bush tried to pull this stunt?

Its a matter of principle regarding the role of Ex-presidents in elections and govt.

[MonkeyFunk]

394. If Bush did what?

Are you saying if Laura ran? Good - let her run! She wouldn't win, but it's her right to run if she wants to.

And why are you assuming Bill is making Hillary do this? I think Hillary's running on her own. She's not secretly doing Bill's bidding.

[jcrew2001]

400. Bill wants this just as much as Hillary

I think its irresponsible for an Ex-president to return to the white house executive branch in any capacity, shape or form.

[MonkeyFunk]

404. Then you don't have to worry

Bill will not be in the executive branch. His wife will head it, though.

[jcrew2001]

405. Well, as I've been trying to say, that's too close for me

but not for you. But then again, I didn't want GWBush elected either.

[MonkeyFunk]

414. GWBush

cannot run for President again. But Hillary certainly can.

[jcrew2001]

424. But didn't she do everything she wanted to do in 92-2000?

or did she not do anything then.

[MonkeyFunk]

438. She wasn't president then

her husband was.

[jcrew2001]

459. Didnt she say "Two for One" or was that made up

Because this Hillary administration will be another "Two for One" deal. But you seem to approve of these 16 administrations, which is legal.

[MonkeyFunk]

465. and you think that little

motto had legal authority? That she was, in fact, constitutionally president? How dumb.

[jcrew2001]

468. Not in motto - but in 'practice'

I'm saying that "The First Couple" had 8 years from 1992-2000 and now "The First Couple" wants another 8 years from "2008-2016"

So do American's care who the actual "president is" but will they just vote for "The First Couple" as a team, but in reality most people just like Bill better and want Bill there to make sure nothing gets out of control.

[MonkeyFunk]

469. and

as has been pointed out to you again and again... the first couple was NOT President for 8 years. Bill Clinton was.

We do not have co-presidents, nor does the spouse of a President have any constitutional authority.

Not a single person has even come close to agreeing with you - doesn't that give you pause at all?

[jcrew2001]

472. But does any voter really want Hillary by her self

even if she wasn't married to Bill, but married to someone else. Would she have the popularity or high polling she receives.

My point is that most voters are voting for Bill because they want him to serve a "3rd Term"

Do you think Hillary can win this election is it wasn't for Bill?

[MonkeyFunk]

476. Yes

obviously, I do.

I've tried to be as polite as possible, but you're making it very difficult. You can't possibly be as thick as you pretend to be... you wouldn't be able to sit upright and type.

[jcrew2001]

478. Well, I believe that her popularity is mostly due to Bill's presence

and that voters actually want Bill to make the final decisions and prevent things from getting out of control. If this is the case, then we should just get rid of the 22nd and vote Bill in for a 3rd term, since that is what the majority of Americans want anyways.

other than the symbolic nature of having a female president, what is the point if Bill will actually be making all the decisions, which I would prefer. Lets just make it legit and re-elect Bill.

[Lord Helmet]

358. dude, what are you smoking?

[jcrew2001]

387. i don't inhale, only imbibe

nt

[The Count]

443. Edwards brand - very intoxicating, makes one oblivious to truth, reality

Their own candidate's record on war, poverty is not for debate, but shit like this is.

[tammywammy]

458. hahaha

:rofl:

I get that jcrew is obviously a die-hard supporter, but seriously is this all he/she can come up with to not vote Hillary???

I'm not a Hillary or Edwards supporter, but I wouldn't sink to this level to promote the person I want.

[jcrew2001]

460. I'm just debating the constitution and the limits that should be forced on Ex-Prez

Can't we discuss the constitution and our govt rules, or what should be the rules?

[The Count]

463. "Ex Prez" - equivalent of "democrat party". We say here "Former President"

I am sure you are not aware of the nuances - but they do betray the places where you went to dig this s*.
Again, 22nd amendment - invented by Republicans scared of FDR.

[jcrew2001]

470. Ex prez is what i wrote because it was the shortened spelling to fit on the line

i actually like Bill, and if he were allowed to serve a 3rd term i would vote for him, but he can't. The 22nd amendment established term limits and while whether this is a good or bad thing - hey at least it prevents GWB from running again. But it was ratified by all 50 states, so i'm going to conclude that it is the law and has the support of the people. i do agree that the repubs were scared of FDR serving 4 terms, but even if he was a good/great president, in practice I think presidents should serve just 2 terms, unless something major happens like ww2 for FDR. I think its too easy for any govt to be beholden to one individual leader or president. I think our democracy demands a changing presidency and not recycled leaders, it just seems like the most common sense way to promise a democracy that allows everyone an equal shot at the presidency.

[Catherine Vincent]

428. No. But I wish he were.

I miss Bill.

[jcrew2001]

432. He puts Hillary to shame for sure. I bet that more Americans

would rather elect Bill to a 3rd term than Hillary for one term.

That, if given a choice, most of Hillary's supporters would prefer Bill as president instead of Hillary;

and that the primary reason for Hillary's support is that she is married to Bill Clinton and 'served' as his first lady.

[pitohui]

437. he wouldn't be co-prez, he would be first lady, and he would do it w. style and grace

he would be a terrific first spouse or whatever the heck we want to call him, he has done an admirable job of not telling everybody else how to run the world since he left office

terrific guy, lots of brain, lots of heart, and an AMAZING ability to be fair and let others have their day in the sun

he will make dolly madison look like a wanna-be

he will be a terrific first spouse

and there is nothing that says the president can't be married to an ex president, that would be silly

if you think president hillary is going to take orders from bill, you're insane, she will have her day, and he will play fair and let her have her day, i have been truly impressed at his ability to be non partisan despite what must be OVERWHELMING temptations

[jcrew2001]

452. IMO I would prefer Bill to be in charge instead of Hillary but that would be illegal

I think thats what most americans want - they want Bill's 3rd term, they want President Bill Clinton back because he was a good president, they don't want Bill v.2 they want the original Bill Clinton.

[Stargazer99]

441. Are you a closet rightie? Your post smells

[The Count]

444. Certainly the supporter of one.

[jcrew2001]

455. I think the RW is going to throw everything at Hillary/Bill

IMO this is a ethical issue about an Ex-president's role, but not an illegal one.

[MonkeyFunk]

466. wait...

so after all this time, you now admit it's not a legal or constitutional issue, but just an "ethical" one? You're a quick study, ain'tcha?

[jcrew2001]

471. Its an ethical issue based on the constitutional amendment and

the intentions of the 22nd amendment preventing an Ex-president from retaining the presidency after 8 years. I think its improper, disingenuous, and unethical for any ex-president to 'return' to the presidency in any manner, that directly affects the day-to-day decisions.

[MonkeyFunk]

477. Goddammit, you're thick...

Bill is not running for President!!!!!!!

We do not have co-Presidents!!!!!!!!!

how do you manage to not drown in drool?

[jcrew2001]

479. Thanks for the personal attack

if you don't have anything of substance to say, just don't type anything.

[jcrew2001]

480. The majority of Americans prefer Bill to serve a 3rd term

so we need to just get rid of the 22nd and let him serve a 3rd term legitamately.

Voters may elect Hillary as a symbolic measure to appease the female population, but they really want Bill to make the final decisions, while Hillary just signs off on them. of course this will be exactly what will happen when Hillary is elected president, I think we should just put it out in the open and just elect Bill for a 3rd term so its legit.

[KoKo]

481. Of COURSE! the "Unitary President's Rules" will follow through to Dem President!

We are very lucky that Bush II has made it possible for ANY President to do WHATEVER THEY WANT!

So...good on US if we get a Dem in. WE WILL RULE IT ALL ...the EMPIRE in it's DECLINE! But, many folks will be happy that we can do to THEM what they DID TO US! But, remember that Dems NEVER do to Repugs what THEY DO TO US...because Dems are part of keeping the "system orderly." So, they do a little crap stuff for the Middle Class...nothing for the poor and resist a little bit for the Very Rich in not giving them EVERYTHING.

BUT...the VERY RICH have it ALL these days...so expect to see some scraps thrown at the Middle Class and a few crumbs to the Poor and then the Repugs will regain power in four years and pull the table cloth off the table and banish us Dem Dogs to the outhouse or the forest...and there really won't be either scraps or crumbs left for either group. :-( We will have to START OVER from the bottom ...the very dark deep bottom. If we are lucky...but many won't be so lucky or even be able to think about anything in terms of "luck."

[jcrew2001]

482. In the debate, Hillary said Bill will be a roaming ambassador

so he can stay out of her business in washington and not meddle in the day-to-day activities in the white house. But what if most americans prefer that Bill make all the final decisions?

However, if Bill roams the world, he might get himself into trouble again, hopefully there's no international scandal - possible black mail material or 'neil bush-like' situations.

[ddeclue]

483. No such office exists.

You are either the President or the Vice President. There IS no "co President"...sorry.

Clinton can reside in the White House as the First Gentleman IF Hillary is elected.

Doug D.

[jcrew2001]

484. I meant "co-president" in reality but not officially a title however

Bill does have the formal title of "President" but what title should he have - because from a day-to-day you can't call both of them President Clinton, perhaps Hillary will be called Madame President, or President Rodham-Clinton? Or Bill will relinquish the title of President and just go by "First Husband/Spouse"

But most American voter who are supporting Hillary are doing so because they want Bill Clinton to serve a 3rd term via proxy, where he makes all the final decisions, and Hillary just signs off on them to make it official. Most Americans trust Bill because he's served 2 terms already and they want him there so things don't get too out of control.

I say that if the majority of Americans in fact want Bill to make the final decisions and work as a "co-president" then lets not dance around the situation, and delete the 22nd Amendment and allow for Bill to serve an official 3rd term.