Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

quick I need a smarting reply based on fact on why Clinton can't be

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
greenbriar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 06:23 PM
Original message
quick I need a smarting reply based on fact on why Clinton can't be
Edited on Tue Jun-22-04 06:35 PM by schoolteacherpam
vice pres.

I know its the qualifications/two term limit

but I get mixed up in wording..

I want a smart ass accurate reply
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NMDemDist2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
1. cuz he's glad his clenis is out of the wringer and plans to keep it that
way

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greenbriar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. but
no he can't be because a VP has to have the same qualifications to be Pres as in Age, residency and the two term thing.


but I want a smarting reply and I am not as good as some here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Qutzupalotl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
2. Because he can't be president again
should Kerry resign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dookus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. not necessarily
the amendment says no one shall be ELECTED more than twice. If a vice-President assumes the presidency on the death or resignation the President, he's not elected to it.

That being said, the amendment was clearly intended to prevent someone from serving more than two terms as President, despite the wording, and I doubt any court would allow an interpretation that violates the intent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Dig up some old Freeper arguments or Rush Limbaugh quotes
as to them lamenting that Reagan couldn't be nominated for a third term.

I remember how one person construed it (years ago) about how candidate X could run with Reagan as the VP slot, then resign, leaving RR to be moved into a third term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WLKjr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
5. Well
I suppose I would say, "Can you read doofus, he can't! The Constitution says he is ineligable because he has already served his terms. He's done. Ah hell, my feeble minded republican friend. It's the Constitution dummy! but what would you and your GOP buddies know about that?"

Clinton is ineligable because he has served his terms and cannot run ever ever ever again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snippy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
6. Because, unlike republicans, he respects the Constitution. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patricia92243 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. good answer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
7. sorry, the wording of the constitution allows it
Edited on Tue Jun-22-04 06:33 PM by wyldwolf
However, I'm certain the courts would rule against it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snippy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. I think the wording of the 12th amendment prohibits it.
. . . But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greenbriar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. yes, that is what I said, but I wanted a scathing reply
as anytime I try to say something all I hear is


yada yada flip flop

yada yada blue dress

yada yada....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. actually, no it doesn't
The Twelfth Amendment would allow a Clinton Vice-Presidency. Its language only bars from the vice-presidency those persons who are "ineligible to the office" of President. Clinton is not ineligible to the office of President, however. He is only disqualified (by the Twenty-Second Amendment) from being elected to that office.

This is no mere semantic distinction. Article II of the Constitution carefully defines exactly who is "eligible to the Office of President": anyone who is a natural born citizen, at least 35 years old, and has been a U.S. resident for at least 14 years. For example, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is ineligible for the office of President because she is a naturalized, rather than a natural born, citizen. Accordingly, the Twelfth Amendment renders her ineligible to the office of Vice President as well.

But Bill Clinton can serve as Vice President, because the Twenty-Second Amendment's prohibition on running for a third Presidential term is not a condition of the office of President. The Twenty-Second Amendment states: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than once." The language is quite clear. It places no limits whatsoever on how many terms someone may serve as President -- only how many times he can be elected.



http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20000731.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snippy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. I have read that before. He is wrong. Interesting, but wrong.
You can not ignore amendments when interpreting an amended law. Both the original provision and the amendment must be read together.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. He's wrong?
Michael C. Dorf is vice dean and professor of law at Columbia University, where he teaches civil procedure and constitutional law. He is the co-author, with Laurence H. Tribe, of the book "On Reading the Constitution."

But snippy says he's wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neuvocat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
8. He's already had to clear up one mess a Bush left behind
so he ain't coming back to do it again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comsymp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. ANNNND we have a winner!
To fine tune it just a little, he already cleaned up one Bush's mess and look at the thanks he got~

Also, see Bartcop's "Kiss My Ass"- it's brilliant!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 02:59 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC