Term limits were put in place to avoid popular presidents being in the White house too long. When a president leaves office, he (or she) is still addressed as Mr. (or Mrs.) President. The problem is not so much with Hillary as with Bill returning to the White house but in a different role i.e., the first Gentleman (say that about Bill C. without choking.) To me, Hillary's bid for the presidency seems like circumventing the term limit law and also a major legal precident in redefining marriage as something other than one unit. Of coarse, I expect an onslaught of Hillary supporters to bash me and not consider the issue, but I'll find a way to go on.
2007-06-19 14:19:57 · 20 answers · asked by shrugger 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I am against Hillary, but not on the grounds of this question. To the person that asked if I thought Elizabeth Dole's campaign was illegal, do you think that Bob Dole was at sometime the President of the US? To the person that put me to the test that I didn't provide any legal precedent......of coarse there is not legal precedent for a spouse running for the presidency and what is the judicial understanding of that phenomenom, because this is the first time it has happened. The precedents are being set now.......and that is the point of this question. People argue vehemently about what is a marriage as they debate same sex marriages and unions but have a completely different deck of cards when it comes to the presidency. Why?
By the way, I'm not a W fan. Actually, to tell the truth, I am not a politician fan at all. I don't vote party lines. I am not a democrat or republican. I believe that our country is great not because of politicians, but the rule of constitional law.
2007-06-19 14:51:43 · update #1
I don't like W, but there is a noteworthy difference between him being elected and Hillary potentially being elected. (G-d forbid, may it never be) George Bush Sr. isn't living in the White House. He may come over for lawn Jarts and fuseball tournaments, but he doesn't live there. Granted many of his people have jobs again, but that seems more political nepotism than a legitimate argument debunking the notion that marriage needs a solidified legal definition especially when it is an issue of the highest office in the land.
2007-06-19 15:09:08 · update #2
To assert that the election of Hillary Clinton as president of the United States would be a violation of the constitutional limit on presidential terms to two because of the fact that she is the wife of an ex-president is to me a stretch.
I will concede, however, that the proper answer could be influenced by how she conducted her presidency. I could see potential grounds for impeachment, for example, if she were to delegate to a term-limited ex-president such an extensive array of non-delegable presidential power as to create a persuasive inference that the ex-president was effectively serving a de facto, unconstitutional, third term as president.
It would need to be that egregious in order to rise to the level of impeachable "high crimes and misdemeanors." But in my opinion it could happen. In theory.
2007-06-19 14:55:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. We are concerned about who is President not who has access to the big White House on Pennsylvania Ave. Husbands and wives are not interchangeable. There is a BIG difference between being President and being First Spouse. By this same logic we should eliminate Parent/Child pairs or VPs who say they plan to carry on the policies of their predecessors.
2007-06-19 14:26:56 · answer #2 · answered by katydid13 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Interesting. When I saw the headline to the question, I thought you were going to argue that Hilary has already had two terms.
In any case, novel though your idea is, I do not think it is going to work. After all, how many of George Bush Senior's friends are helping to run the country for Junior? Where does one draw the line? It seems to me that what's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander
2007-06-19 14:25:39 · answer #3 · answered by skip 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am not going to bash you - just point out that if this is the best you can come up with then Hillary is a shoe in!
How is this any different to allowing Bush Sr back in by electing his son?
2007-06-19 14:24:36 · answer #4 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm a Republican and don't find her election bid illegal...
I have NEVER seen a legal precedent stating that a married couple are to be considered as ONE PERSON !! Therefore I don't see HOW the 22nd Amendment is being violated.
I certainly won't vote for her... but your query is lost
2007-06-19 14:40:48 · answer #5 · answered by mariner31 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
While I do not support Hillary Clinton, will not vote for her and think electing her would be the greatest mistake the American public could ever make.... There is nothing illegal in her candidacy for president.
2007-06-19 14:52:14 · answer #6 · answered by lawagoneer 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No it isn't illegal, but it should be. should have been with Bush jr, as well.
I don't think any immediate family should be able to hold the highest office in the land after a family member has.
But i'll overlook the little problem if it means making sure none of the other canidates get into office.
2007-06-19 14:23:35 · answer #7 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Pretty much every campaign in the 2008 election has borrowed money from somewhere. There is nothing illegal about it, from my understanding.
2016-04-01 06:23:09 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can't stand Hillary Clinton, but it's not against the law. The two are individuals and one cannot consider them both to be one. I don't agree with your logic.
2007-06-19 14:53:31 · answer #9 · answered by LaissezFaire 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm not a Hillary supporter, but I see no legal reason that Hillary can't run.
Think of it this way, you wouldn't go to prison if your signifigant other commited a crime because you are not considered one unit under the law.
2007-06-19 14:23:24 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋