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.