Clinton on Letterman

[applenut]

Is it possible for him to run again?

[BRussell]

Nope, but he could take the Gerry Ford route I guess. ;)

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by BRussell
Nope, but he could take the Gerry Ford route I guess. ;) Hillary/Bill in 2008 - an all-Clinton ticket! And then Hillary does a Vince Foster - yep!:lol:

[tonton]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Constitution prevents Bill from running for President -or- VP. If that's true the only way he'll ever take the reins again (barring a constitutional amendment) would be for him to become Speaker of the House and if the POTUS and VP were both to bite the dust.

[Paul]

he could be VP
and could only be president after a death and then only for a certain number of days...

[Anders]

Wow he looks tired/old

A blast from the past. (rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04072904_clinton92.rm) You would think they accumulated knowledge and only got better. But no...

[Paul]

wow, the crowd was much more together this year...

the crowd in that stream remind me of drones, albeit ones with no rhythm...

every time they chant something they get out of sync and do two slogans at once...

a LOT of the themes are similar to this years tho, especially the deficit and balancing the budget.

[curiousuburb]

IIRC, he can't be President again, though I think he could serve in Cabinet.
Not sure if the line of succession (if Prez, Veep, Speaker, etc all died while he was in Cabinet) would be required to skip him in such a case. In the event of such a catastrophe, people might want a familiar hand on the tiller (a lá Churchill), but it's doubtful.

I'd lay odds he might be 'First Lady' to the 2nd President Clinton, though.

edit: not that I'm not reading posts above, but had this half composed and got an hour long consulting call from a client until I got back to the send reply button :\

[applenut]

is the rule actually in the consitution or is it a "traditional unwritten but understood" rule?

[ShawnJ]

Originally posted by applenut
is the rule actually in the consitution or is it a "traditional unwritten but understood" rule?

22nd Amendment.

[tonton]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
22nd Amendment.

Primarily as a result of the court packing done by FDR.

[Paul]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
22nd Amendment.

that just prevents a former president from running for a 3rd term...
Bill could run for VP and take office if necessary for less then something like 100-200 days...

[Scott]

Originally posted by tonton
Primarily as a result of the court packing done by FDR.

Huh?

[Scott]

Of course Clinton did such a great job dealing with terrorism that we have to elect him again.


I guess if you want to read the 22nd with a hyper technical accuracy it would mean that the Electoral College could not elect Clinton again to both president or vice president. So the door is still open a bit.

[Paul]

Originally posted by Scott
the Electoral College could not elect Clinton again to both president or vice president. So the door is still open a bit.

Amendment XXII - Presidential term limits. Ratified 2/27/1951. History


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.


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. 22nd Amendment (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am22)

I don't see any VP talk in there... but I could be blind...

[tonton]

Originally posted by Scott
Huh?

Roosovelt always planned to exert the power of the Executive over the Judiciary. While his 1937 plan for adding six seats to the Supreme Court failed, through his long tenure alone he was nevertheless able to make sure that he had personally nominated the great majority of the Court's members, giving him an implicit influence over the Court's decisions. Separation of powers had clearly been eroded, and Congress did not want that to happen again. Ergo: 22.

[k squared]

From my understanding, and I'll research this some more, a president who has served can't hold an office that puts him/her in the line of succession. Taken to its logical outcome, any electable or appointable (with congressional approval) office is off limits.

[psgamer0921]

Here's what I've understood about being able to run again.

George W Bush is the 42 president, but the 41st PERSON to be president. One president ran for his one or two terms, left or one term, and then got re-elected. You can do that

[Scott]

Originally posted by Paul
22nd Amendment (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am22)

I don't see any VP talk in there... but I could be blind...

You may or may not be blind but I would think that electing someone to VP implicitly implies that you are electing them to take over for the P.

[Scott]

Originally posted by tonton
Roosovelt always planned to exert the power of the Executive over the Judiciary. While his 1937 plan for adding six seats to the Supreme Court failed, through his long tenure alone he was nevertheless able to make sure that he had personally nominated the great majority of the Court's members, giving him an implicit influence over the Court's decisions. Separation of powers had clearly been eroded, and Congress did not want that to happen again. Ergo: 22.

And the Senate is either part of the Executive branch or not included in the equation?

[cooop]

Originally posted by psgamer0921
One president ran for his one or two terms, left or one term, and then got re-elected. You can do that Right. Grover Cleveland did this in the late 19th century.

Now who would vote to put George H. in office for a second term? :) Although I do think he would be a much better choice than his son... but I digress.

[giant]

Originally posted by Scott
You may or may not be blind but I would think that electing someone to VP implicitly implies that you are electing them to take over for the P.
The 22 ammendment puts no limits on the number of terms someone can serve as president, only how many times a person can be elected to the office of president. It is very explicit.

[Towel]

Originally posted by applenut
is the rule actually in the consitution or is it a "traditional unwritten but understood" rule? It had been a "traditional unwritten but understood" rule from George Washington up to FDR. GW bowed out after two terms, which was understood to be a precedent that all subsequent Presidents ought to respect. And all did, until 1940. You can't really fault FDR for feeling that he still had some serious work to finish. But after he died (during his fourth term), lawmakers decided it might not be such a bad idea to codify that two-term tradition into law. I am not a Constitutional scholar, but I suspect it had less to do with any specific worries about court packing, than with a general unease about Presidents-for-life and a desire to return to GW's precedent.

(Grover Cleveland served non-consecutive terms, but only one at a time; so he still respected the two-term limit)

[BuonRotto]

Towel and tonton are obth right re: FDR.

The idea of skirting underneath the letter of the Constitution is rather suspect IMO. I would never vote for someone if they tried it, whoever they are. The long term costs are too great.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
Hillary/Bill in 2008 - an all-Clinton ticket! And then Hillary does a Vince Foster - yep!:lol:

Not allowed.

Let me clear this up:

Twenty Second 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 here's the kicker:


Twelfth Amendment:

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

Bill Clinton cannot run for VP.

[giant]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Not allowed.
Wrong. Not to mention way, way, way behind.
Constitution permits a Clinton vice-presidency

But these naysayers would be wrong. The Constitution permits Clinton to be elected vice-president, and if necessary to ascend for a third time to the presidency as careful attention to the language of the 12th and 22nd Amendments shows.

The 12th 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 22nd 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 12th Amendment renders her ineligible to the office of vice-president as well.

But Bill Clinton can serve as vice president, because the 22nd Amendment's prohibition on running for a third presidential term is not a condition of the office of president.

The 22nd Amendment states: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person [who has served more than half a term] 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.

In other words, the 22nd Amendment does not set conditions on what the 12th Amendment calls eligibility to the office of president. Anyone who is born here and has lived here for 14 years becomes eligible to be president on his or her 35th birthday and is then so eligible forever.

Thus, if. Clinton were to be elected vice president and ascend to the presidency based on, for example, Gore's resignation, then nothing unconstitutional would have occurred. Clinton would have been elected to the presidency only twice though he would serve as president thrice. Under the 22nd Amendment, that is perfectly permissible.

Michael C. Dorf is vice dean and professor of law at Columbia University, where he teaches civil procedure and constitutional law.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/08/columns/fl.dorf.goreclinton.08.01/

[SDW2001]

Hmmm.

That's one I have not heard. I don't appreciate your condescending tone, though. But that's typical.

I think this would spark quite the legal case. Technically, the 22nd amendment is PART of the Constitution. That's why it's called an amendment. Then again, there are other means of assuming the Presidency. Clinton could run for office and wind up President through the order of succession, so you'd have a point there. There would be much discussion on the intent of 22nd amendment. It's obviously intended to limit a person's ability to serve in the office. So, while Clinton is not technically ineligible to serve in the role of President, he is ineligible to be elected.

There could be a case made that he could not run, because of the wording of the 12th Amendment. It says, again:

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

Now what does that mean? It doesn' say elected OR "to serve". It says "to the office". That could, possibly, be interpreted in manner that would prevent him from running.

[giant]

Next time try reading the post. The 12th ammendment clearly does not apply.

[Scott]

Originally posted by giant
The 22 ammendment puts no limits on the number of terms someone can serve as president, only how many times a person can be elected to the office of president. It is very explicit.


Are you reading this thread or just trolling me? Go back and read my first reply wrt the 22nd. And then STFU.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Scott
Are you reading this thread or just trolling me? Go back and read my first reply wrt the 22nd. And then STFU.

Your reading was dealt with, and it was explained that the 12th amendment only applies to those ineligible for the office of President: that is, they're not 35, come from the same state as the President (this was the case with Cheney in 2000...he had to transfer residency really quickly), or any of a range of qualifications for the office.

I see your point, though, and while I disagree, I can see where you're coming from. Clinton's having previously held the office for the maximum-allowed number of terms would seem to make him ineligible for the office, and therefore the 12th would seem to apply. But the earlier post on this clarifies things: Clinton can serve as many terms as is possible, because he's not ineligible (he's "disqualified" by the 22nd), so long as he is not elected to the office again (i.e. he comes to office through the presidential line of succession).

Anyway.

[dmz]

Oh, dammit!!

Now we have citizens reading the friggin U.S. Constitution!!!

:wow:

[giant]

Originally posted by Scott
Are you reading this thread or just trolling me? Go back and read my first reply wrt the 22nd. And then STFU.
You'd think with a technical degree you'd know that "hyper technical accuracy" means disregarding the little people you apparently are seeing between the letters there.

Since you apparently still haven't grasped it, I'll put it all in one post:
Amendment XXII - Presidential term limits. Ratified 2/27/1951. History

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.

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
22nd Amendment (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am22)

As is crystal clear, it only prohibits him from being "elected to the office of the President."
Constitution permits a Clinton vice-presidency

But these naysayers would be wrong. The Constitution permits Clinton to be elected vice-president, and if necessary to ascend for a third time to the presidency as careful attention to the language of the 12th and 22nd Amendments shows.

The 12th 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 22nd 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 12th Amendment renders her ineligible to the office of vice-president as well.

But Bill Clinton can serve as vice president, because the 22nd Amendment's prohibition on running for a third presidential term is not a condition of the office of president.

The 22nd Amendment states: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person [who has served more than half a term] 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.

In other words, the 22nd Amendment does not set conditions on what the 12th Amendment calls eligibility to the office of president. Anyone who is born here and has lived here for 14 years becomes eligible to be president on his or her 35th birthday and is then so eligible forever.

Thus, if. Clinton were to be elected vice president and ascend to the presidency based on, for example, Gore's resignation, then nothing unconstitutional would have occurred. Clinton would have been elected to the presidency only twice though he would serve as president thrice. Under the 22nd Amendment, that is perfectly permissible.

Michael C. Dorf is vice dean and professor of law at Columbia University, where he teaches civil procedure and constitutional law.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/08/columns/fl.dorf.goreclinton.08.01/

Welcome to the real world, scott. Enjoy your stay, brief as it inevitably will be.

[Scott]

Look mister troll. That's why I said "the door is still open". You still haven't read my post have you? Just trolling?

You have to read the the thread giant. Just don't reply.

[iPoster]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
Hillary/Bill in 2008 - an all-Clinton ticket! And then Hillary does a Vince Foster - yep!:lol:

God no, please no! No offense Lurker, but what are people smoking when they think Hillary would make a good president?? The only way she got elected to the Senate was by moving to NY, where they vote Democrat 99% of the time.....:no: :rolleyes:

[giant]

Originally posted by Scott
I guess if you want to read the 22nd with a hyper technical accuracy it would mean that the Electoral College could not elect Clinton again to both president or vice president
This, your beloved first post on the 22nd amendment, is wrong. It has nothing to do with him being VP.

[Scott]

Originally posted by giant
This, your beloved first post on the 22nd amendment, is wrong. It has nothing to do with him being VP.


GIANT! READ THE THEAD AND THEN REPLY. FIRST READ THE THREAD AND THEN REPLY. STOP BEING A TROLL. IN A REPLY TO Paul I WROTE.


Quoting myself because giant is a troll that can't read a thread he's replying in.
You may or may not be blind but I would think that electing someone to VP implicitly implies that you are electing them to take over for the P.

[giant]

Scott, the correct answer would have been, "You are right, Paul. It says nothing about VP."

What would be relevant would be if you put forward the "spirit" argument like every other real lawyer did. Instead, you are talking about line of succession, which has no bearing here. According to your argument, Clinton also could not be speaker of the house. The 22nd amendment, however, explicitly states, "elected to the office of President."

[giant]

Oh, and before you move from "STFU" and "tR0LL!!!!!!!!" to crapping your pants, even though it's not explicitly prohibited in the constitution, I would hope that the supreme court would rule against a former two-term president coming in as vice president.

[Scott]

Originally posted by giant
Scott, the correct answer would have been, "You are right, Paul. It says nothing about VP."

What would be relevant would be if you put forward the "spirit" argument like every other real lawyer did. Instead, you are talking about line of succession, which has no bearing here. According to your argument, Clinton also could not be speaker of the house. The 22nd amendment, however, explicitly states, "elected to the office of President."


Still trolling after all these replies? Speaker of the House is a different branch of the government not elected by the Electoral College. What? Do I have to write a fucking PhD dissertation (another one that is) to reply to a thread here? I guess only of you are trolling for me I do.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by iPoster
God no, please no! No offense Lurker, but what are people smoking when they think Hillary would make a good president?? The only way she got elected to the Senate was by moving to NY, where they vote Democrat 99% of the time.....:no: :rolleyes: Well Republican Al D'Amato was senator from NY for many years.

[giant]

scott, you are pedaling the wrong way, since the issue of succession is far more relevant than the electoral college.

Stephen W. Stathis, “The Twenty-Second Amendment: A Practical Remedy or Partisan Maneuver?” Constitutional Commentary, vol. 7, winter 1990, pp. 76-77.

[Scott]

Far more relevant than the body that actually elects the president?

[giant]

Originally posted by Scott
Far more relevant than the body that actually elects the president?
Regarding the issue of the 22nd amendment, absolutely.

[Scott]

Whatever troll. You saw my post. Tried to troll me. Didn't bother to read the thread and all my comments. So now you're trying to spin spin spin about something that will basically never come up in the history of our country. Better trolling next time.

[giant]

http://www.theoldetouch.com/items/190444/catphoto.jpg

And learn to handle being wrong a little more maturely than "STFU" and "TROL!!" It's just a discussion about some obscure constitutional issue. It's not worth those tears.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by giant
Next time try reading the post. The 12th ammendment clearly does not apply.

Next time try being civil. It doesn't apply in your opinion. Last time I checked, your opinion did not comprise that of a independent Contitutional lawyer or court of law.

[giant]

Originally posted by SDW2001
It doesn't apply in your opinion.
No, it doesn't apply period. The real debate, centered around the "spirit" argument, is whether the 22nd should be read to exclude non-elected terms. Try reading up on it, I've already provided you with two sources, one detailing the history of the amendment and one from...
your opinion did not comprise that of a independent Contitutional lawyer
um... one source I cited was Michael C. Dorf: Michael I. Sovern Professor of Law (2004-present); Professor of Law (1997-2004); Vice-Dean (1998-2002);_ Associate Professor (1995-1997). Courses and Seminars in Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Interpretation, Comparative Constitutional Law,_Pragmatism, and_Problem-Solving Courts.

I find it interesting to no end that you guys so blatantly make stuff up when the argument turns against your favor.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Next time try being civil. It doesn't apply in your opinion. Last time I checked, your opinion did not comprise that of a independent Contitutional lawyer or court of law.


You're telling someone else to be civil?:lol:

You're the only one on this forum to ever use a four letter explitive or body part description for a response to me.:rolleyes:

[applenut]

Originally posted by jimmac
You're telling someone else to be civil?:lol:

You're the only one on this forum to ever use a four letter explitive or body part description for a response to me.:rolleyes:

hey, im pretty sure ive used a four letter explitive in response to you!
;)

[jimmac]

Originally posted by applenut
hey, im pretty sure ive used a four letter explitive in response to you!
;)


It must have been privately.;)

[JimDreamworx]

Notwithstanding the technical details of these amendments, and out of curiosity, would the impeachment of Cliinton have any bearing on running for office in the future?

[PBG4 Dude]

Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Notwithstanding the technical details of these amendments, and out of curiosity, would the impeachment of Cliinton have any bearing on running for office in the future?


I don't think so. I mean, Marion Berry (sp?) was re-elected to mayor of Washington DC after being arrested and convicted on crack charges.

Heck, you should see what we have to put up with just with local representatives in CT. A town selectman got nailed playing with children, got convicted, and the town ended up paying the guy $75K to quit because for some reason, they couldn't fire him.

Maybe you've seen the names Joe Ganim, Phil Giordanno and John Rowland in the news over the past couple of years? All CT scum.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Notwithstanding the technical details of these amendments, and out of curiosity, would the impeachment of Cliinton have any bearing on running for office in the future?

No, especially considering the Senate didn't convict him.

[JimDreamworx]

Originally posted by midwinter
No, especially considering the Senate didn't convict him.
Maybe that's the key word: "convict". Is an impeachment really a conviction? Or is it something special that makes a true blemish on a politician - kind of like that censure thing they were originally going to do to Clinton?

[BuonRotto]

Politically, the impeachment is an albatross, whether it was silly or not.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Maybe that's the key word: "convict". Is an impeachment really a conviction? Or is it something special that makes a true blemish on a politician - kind of like that censure thing they were originally going to do to Clinton?

My understanding (and I'm by no means anywhere near an expert on all of this) is that impeachment is not unlike a grand jury. It's just a formal accusation that an impeachable offense has been committed. The Senate is where the actual trial takes place.

Here's CNN's primer on all of this (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/09/14/impeachment.primer/)

Cheers
Scott

[tonton]

Originally posted by Scott
And the Senate is either part of the Executive branch or not included in the equation?

Huh? I don't understand your point. Two out of three is a majority. The third would be politically threatened by an influence of the first over the second. And the Senate is part of Congress, last I checked.

[Scott]

Originally posted by tonton
Huh? I don't understand your point. Two out of three is a majority. The third would be politically threatened by an influence of the first over the second. And the Senate is part of Congress, last I checked.

Sigh. Why do I bother?


Point being that the 22nd amendment does not apply to the Senate because it's not part of the executive branch. Unless you think it is.

Thank god there are only three branches of government.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by giant
No, it doesn't apply period. The real debate, centered around the "spirit" argument, is whether the 22nd should be read to exclude non-elected terms. Try reading up on it, I've already provided you with two sources, one detailing the history of the amendment and one from...

um... one source I cited was Michael C. Dorf: Michael I. Sovern Professor of Law (2004-present); Professor of Law (1997-2004); Vice-Dean (1998-2002);_ Associate Professor (1995-1997). Courses and Seminars in Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Interpretation, Comparative Constitutional Law,_Pragmatism, and_Problem-Solving Courts.

I find it interesting to no end that you guys so blatantly make stuff up when the argument turns against your favor.

You cited ONE source! ONE! This particular source is associated with none other than the very liberal Lawrence Tribe. And, he's addressing the issue of a Clinton-Gore (read: Democratic) ticket. Hmmm.

If Clinton tried this, it would spark a major constitutional debate. It could go his way, but there IS an argument to be made that the courts could rule against him. It's all about he phrase "constitutionally inelegible" in the 12th amendment whether or not this would apply. In other words, does Clinton's being disqalified to run for POTUS again make him "constitionally ineligible?". There's at least a case that it does.

But this won't stop you from hurling another insult. Once you have spoken, the debate is over. You are the unltimate authority on EVERYTHING. You cannot even fathom the possibility that a court of law could rule that Clinton couldn't run. Typical.

[tonton]

Originally posted by Scott
Sigh. Why do I bother?


Point being that the 22nd amendment does not apply to the Senate because it's not part of the executive branch. Unless you think it is.

Thank god there are only three branches of government.

Jeezus! Who ever said the 22nd Amendment applies to the Senate? I sure as hell didn't. READ CAREFULLY:

Congress (the Senate and the House -- branch 1) didn't want the Executive (the President -- branch 2) to have too much influence over the Judiciary (The Supreme Court -- branch 3). So they passed the 22nd amendment (that's one of the powers of Congress).

WHY IS THAT SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND????

[giant]

Originally posted by SDW2001
You cited ONE source! ONE!
What number lie are you on for this thread? For future reference, next time you feel the impulse to lie, try not to make it so obvious or about things so small (especially considering you've now lied at least twice, possibly more, wrt to these sources). Afterall, the very first post on this page exposes you ... Again. And again. and again... I understand it's hard for you to stick to the facts when defending indefensible beliefs, but at least try being at least slightly clever when introducing deceit.

We really need something in the posting guidlines against blatant lying. Certain posters do it far too often and make it near impossible to have anything close to a normal discussion.

[tonton]

Why shouldn't blind Bush worship extend to adopting the administration's very tactics?

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
You cited ONE source! ONE! This particular source is associated with none other than the very liberal Lawrence Tribe. And, he's addressing the issue of a Clinton-Gore (read: Democratic) ticket. Hmmm.

If Clinton tried this, it would spark a major constitutional debate. It could go his way, but there IS an argument to be made that the courts could rule against him. It's all about he phrase "constitutionally inelegible" in the 12th amendment whether or not this would apply. In other words, does Clinton's being disqalified to run for POTUS again make him "constitionally ineligible?". There's at least a case that it does.

But this won't stop you from hurling another insult. Once you have spoken, the debate is over. You are the unltimate authority on EVERYTHING. You cannot even fathom the possibility that a court of law could rule that Clinton couldn't run. Typical.


Man you're getting all wound up over something that probably would never happen!

Do I sense an ego here?

And yes Giant has proven time and again that he's very intelligent and well informed.

While he might not be the ultimate authority on everything he really knows how to research and he's closer to that than either one of us.;)

[giant]

Thanks, jimmac, but I know I'm not very smart since not only did I post in FC and AO, but now I'm even posting in PO. As for researching, I find it fun and I work in the dead center of a major warehouse of information. I get paid to know how to orgainze, access, analyze and disseminate information.

BTW, I just noticed this:
Originally posted by SDW2001
You cannot even fathom the possibility that a court of law could rule that Clinton couldn't run. Typical.
Is that so?
Originally posted by giant
...even though it's not explicitly prohibited in the constitution, I would hope that the supreme court would rule against a former two-term president coming in as vice president.
SDW, I don't know what planet expelled you, but I feel their pain.

[PBG4 Dude]

Ooooooh, feel the burn! :devil:

giant: 1

SDW2001: 0

[NittanyLionTosh]

Originally posted by applenut
Is it possible for him to run again? He was so self obsessed, jesus.

[InactionMan]

For people that don't soon tire of listening to Clinton can watch the interview he did last night for the CBC. Go to http://www.cbc.ca/national/ and click the link for the Real stram. Interview starts about 20 minutes into the broadcast.