Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
TeleStrat
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 27 2014
Location: Norwalk, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 9319
|
Posted: July 07 2016 at 13:10 |
A Clinton/Clinton ticket may or may not be possible. You have to consider the 12th and 22nd amendments and how they would apply. There's also something about both candidates being residents of the same state but one could easily switch their residency to Arkansas. I've also read that the interpretation of the word "eligibility" would come into play. "Interpretation" gets thrown around a lot in situations like this. If (and that's a big If) Clinton should select her husband as her running mate it would probably be challenged by the other side. So then what, the Supreme Court? This close to election day? I'm not even sure Bill would be a plus to her campaign. It's looking like she will have a hard enough time selling one Clinton to the American voters, let alone two.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 07 2016 at 13:51 |
TeleStrat wrote:
A Clinton/Clinton ticket may or may not be possible. You have to consider the 12th and 22nd amendments and how they would apply. There's also something about both candidates being residents of the same state but one could easily switch their residency to Arkansas.I've also read that the interpretation of the word "eligibility" would come into play. "Interpretation" gets thrown around a lot in situations like this. If (and that's a big If) Clinton should select her husband as her running mate it would probably be challenged by the other side. So then what, the Supreme Court? This close to election day? I'm not even sure Bill would be a plus to her campaign. It's looking like she will have a hard enough time selling one Clinton to the American voters, let alone two.
|
It is your 12 & 22 amendments that Bob & I are talking about, and if playing semantics with what I called the "legalese-gymnastics" of the wording of the 22nd amendment in particular then you have to consider the legal meaning of the word "shall" too as that is used twice in the amendment and from a legal perspective it doesn't mean what most people think it means.
But a Clinton/Clinton ticket is somewhat immaterial to the point I was making - which is if Hillary Clinton is successful you will have two President Clintons residing at the White House at the same even though only one of them will actually be President of the Untied States. So I guess my question is more of protocol than the idea of B-J Clinton running for any public office other than the one he already has.
Presumably an ex-president has some formal or official status within your country, both social and civic (considering that ex-presidents have a state-funded office and staff, and can claim up to $1million in travel expenses incurred while performing his ex-presidential duties) and there would also be a hierarchy in the White House so the office of ex-President-in-residence must slot in there somewhere.
|
What?
|
|
ClemofNazareth
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk Researcher
Joined: August 17 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4659
|
Posted: July 07 2016 at 14:20 |
Dean wrote:
TeleStrat wrote:
A Clinton/Clinton ticket may or may not be possible. You have to consider the 12th and 22nd amendments and how they would apply. There's also something about both candidates being residents of the same state but one could easily switch their residency to Arkansas.I've also read that the interpretation of the word "eligibility" would come into play. "Interpretation" gets thrown around a lot in situations like this. If (and that's a big If) Clinton should select her husband as her running mate it would probably be challenged by the other side. So then what, the Supreme Court? This close to election day? I'm not even sure Bill would be a plus to her campaign. It's looking like she will have a hard enough time selling one Clinton to the American voters, let alone two.
|
It is your 12 & 22 amendments that Bob & I are talking about, and if playing semantics with what I called the "legalese-gymnastics" of the wording of the 22nd amendment in particular then you have to consider the legal meaning of the word "shall" too as that is used twice in the amendment and from a legal perspective it doesn't mean what most people think it means.
But a Clinton/Clinton ticket is somewhat immaterial to the point I was making - which is if Hillary Clinton is successful you will have two President Clintons residing at the White House at the same even though only one of them will actually be President of the Untied States. So I guess my question is more of protocol than the idea of B-J Clinton running for any public office other than the one he already has.
Presumably an ex-president has some formal or official status within your country, both social and civic (considering that ex-presidents have a state-funded office and staff, and can claim up to $1million in travel expenses incurred while performing his ex-presidential duties) and there would also be a hierarchy in the White House so the office of ex-President-in-residence must slot in there somewhere. |
Frankly I find the constitutional question more interesting than the one about what role Bill Clinton would play in the White House as spouse to a president. And as far as I know there is no official role for former presidents, the tradition of referring to them as president after their term is a convention of courtesy, not recognition they have a formal standing in the government.
The 12th/22nd amendments question about whether former presidents can become vice presidents is a legitimate concern, and IMHO the interpretation of the 22nd to mean former presidents are ineligible because the intent was to ensure they did not serve more than two terms, ignores precedent. There is a line of succession that extends beyond the vice president to the speaker of the house, pro-temp of the Senate, Attorney General, and numerous cabinet secretaries. If we take the narrow view of the 22nd then a former president could not serve in Congress or in a cabinet post, nor as an undersecretary since they can be appointed as acting secretaries and thereby gain standing in the line of succession. But we've had former presidents serve in some of those roles in the past so we have in fact established precedent that a former president can be eligible to succeed to the presidency, even if they cannot be reelected as president.
|
"Peace is the only battle worth waging."
Albert Camus
|
|
TeleStrat
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 27 2014
Location: Norwalk, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 9319
|
Posted: July 07 2016 at 16:16 |
I agree that the constitutional aspect would be very interesting. I only read a little here and there but there were pages and pages on that subject. Regardless of what his actual role would be (VP or other) he would still be involved in everything to some extent because they would be closer than most presidents and vice presidents. But that brings up another question. Generally, for security reasons, the president and vice president are seldom in the same place at the same time. How would they handle the living arrangements?
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65266
|
Posted: July 07 2016 at 20:56 |
Are they sleeping together? If not, it would probably look more like the JFK/RFK relationship of close confidence and deep advisement. Besides there are no real secrets left in government.
|
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
|
TeleStrat
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 27 2014
Location: Norwalk, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 9319
|
Posted: July 07 2016 at 23:20 |
Atavachron wrote:
Are they sleeping together?
|
Whoa, there's a mental image no one should have to see.
The VP has an office in the West Wing (and at the EEOB) and a residence at the Naval Observatory so if HRC is elected and Bill was the VP where would he stay? Would it be a security risk having the Pres and the V-Pres both living in the White House residence? If she selects a different running mate (and I'm sure she will) then none of this will matter.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 08 2016 at 00:55 |
ClemofNazareth wrote:
Frankly I find the constitutional question more interesting than the one about what role Bill Clinton would play in the White House as spouse to a president. And as far as I know there is no official role for former presidents, the tradition of referring to them as president after their term is a convention of courtesy, not recognition they have a formal standing in the government.
The 12th/22nd amendments question about whether former presidents can become vice presidents is a legitimate concern, and IMHO the interpretation of the 22nd to mean former presidents are ineligible because the intent was to ensure they did not serve more than two terms, ignores precedent. There is a line of succession that extends beyond the vice president to the speaker of the house, pro-temp of the Senate, Attorney General, and numerous cabinet secretaries. If we take the narrow view of the 22nd then a former president could not serve in Congress or in a cabinet post, nor as an undersecretary since they can be appointed as acting secretaries and thereby gain standing in the line of succession. But we've had former presidents serve in some of those roles in the past so we have in fact established precedent that a former president can be eligible to succeed to the presidency, even if they cannot be reelected as president.
|
Unfortunately law and politics isn't maths and science so the logic of Article 2, the 12th & 22nd amendments and the Presidential Succession Act isn't perfect. The 12th states the VP cannot be someone who is constitutionally ineligible to be president and that does not specifically mention any other role the line of succession (because they are not elected to their roles by public ballot). Therefore a 2-times president is not ineligible to hold any of those governmental roles in the line of succession other than VP - he just cannot become president from those roles so the succession passes to the next in line. You are doing this already with the Secretary of the Interior, who should be 8th in line but is constitutionally ineligible to be president because she was born in London. Of course if the point were reached where looking at the 8th in line to be president was the next step then I doubt there would be much of anything left to govern so picking any surviving ex-President as a figurehead regardless of how many terms he'd served would probably be the wisest choice anyway... I would imagine by then even President 'aisle be bach' Arnie would seem like a good idea.
|
What?
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: July 10 2016 at 22:38 |
TeleStrat wrote:
A Clinton/Clinton ticket may or may not be possible. You have to consider the 12th and 22nd amendments and how they would apply.
|
I made my thesis about the Presidential eligibility but can't assure you it's impossible
Logically should be impossible because the spirit of the Constitution is to avoid a person holding the Presidential office more than two terms, plus two years.
But legally is another issue, being that even when one of the obligations of the Vice-President is to replace the President according to the XXV Amendment, he would bea Vice-President not elected as President, and even if replacing the President permanently, he would only be fulfilling the duties of the Vice-President
Thinking in wider terms, in the moment he's elected as Vice-President, he's also being elected as President in case the President is incapable to fulfill his duties.
In my dissertation I said that I believed it was unconstitutional, but one of the juries had doubts.
This would be a hard job for the Supreme Court.
Dean wrote:
he just cannot become president from those roles so the succession passes to the next in line. |
I'm not so sure about this, being that the XXII Amendment literally says:
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 the Vice President would hold the office without ever been elected for President.
I agree with you, but the other position is also possible.
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 10 2016 at 23:07
|
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65266
|
Posted: July 11 2016 at 00:18 |
Looks like LBJ was almost disqualified from running for a second regular term (which he bowed-out, of course). More spooky serendipity in the Kennedy years.
|
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 11 2016 at 02:42 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
he just cannot become president from those roles so the succession passes to the next in line. |
I'm not so sure about this, being that the XXII Amendment literally says:
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 the Vice President would hold the office without ever been elected for President.
I agree with you, but the other position is also possible.
|
I agree with you entirely Iván, and I have said the wording of both amendments is not perfect (they look like they were written by a couple of 2nd year law students during a coffee break - no legally binding document should be ambiguous or open to interpretation). The 22nd amendments shows that an un-elected term counts as an elected term and are therefore equivalent - while there is nothing to say that the logic is commutative, there is nothing to say that it isn't either, which is why I said:
Dean wrote:
... he should step-down after 1 year 364 days if he assumed the presidency from the VP chair...
|
However, my post was merely pointing out (to Bob) that the VP role is the only role in the line of succession that someone ineligible to be President was excluded from holding. A 2-times ex-President can be Secretary of State just as Sally Jewell can be Secretary of the Interior even though she cannot be VP or President.
Edited by Dean - July 11 2016 at 02:42
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 11 2016 at 03:01 |
...anyway, all of this is rather a silly and archaic way of avoiding a presidency from becoming a pseudo-monarchy.
|
What?
|
|
ClemofNazareth
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk Researcher
Joined: August 17 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4659
|
Posted: July 11 2016 at 09:42 |
Dean wrote:
...anyway, all of this is rather a silly and archaic way of avoiding a presidency from becoming a pseudo-monarchy. |
Given the current mood of our electorate, a monarchy might be cathartic. At least we'd have something to storm and someone to banish.
|
"Peace is the only battle worth waging."
Albert Camus
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: July 11 2016 at 11:15 |
Atavachron wrote:
Looks like LBJ was almost disqualified from running for a second regular term (which he bowed-out, of course). More spooky serendipity in the Kennedy years.
|
Well, he wasn't:
- He asumes the President's office on November 1963 until November 1964
- After ONE YEAR of serving as President, he is elected in November 1964
- He only served one period and one year.
The XXII Amendment clearly says:
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.
He only served one year of the term for which Kennedy was elected.
He was perfectly able to be elected.
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: July 11 2016 at 11:32 |
Dean wrote:
I agree with you entirely Iván, and I have said the wording of both amendments is not perfect (they look like they were written by a couple of 2nd year law students during a coffee break - no legally binding document should be ambiguous or open to interpretation). The 22nd amendments shows that an un-elected term counts as an elected term and are therefore equivalent - while there is nothing to say that the logic is commutative, there is nothing to say that it isn't either, which is why I said:
|
That's the problem with Amendments, they are created as patches to solve problems. But they are written decades or even centuries after the original Constitution and by people from another Congress with different perspective and in some cases almost a different language.
So at the end you have a Constitution from the XVIII century with amendments wrote in the XX century co-existing...This IMHO is absurd.
Washington rejected to be elected three times and this was almost a rule (moral of course, because Grant almost broke the rule), but after Roosevelt was re-elected three times, they only created a patch to avoid this.
In our first Constitutional Congress, somebody proposed the Amendment system, but it was rejected, choosing the total modification of the Constitution (Or partial in an emergency case), in order to keep the coherence...The whole Constitution is written by the same Congress or Constitutional Assembly of the same year in order to keep the coherence between all articles.
But this doesn't work all times, the dictator Bolivar created a Constitution on 1826 in which he was allowed to be President for all his life, luckily he left to Colombia the same 1826 and the Constitution was officially repealed in 1827.
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 11 2016 at 11:43
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 11 2016 at 12:30 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
I agree with you entirely Iván, and I have said the wording of both amendments is not perfect (they look like they were written by a couple of 2nd year law students during a coffee break - no legally binding document should be ambiguous or open to interpretation). The 22nd amendments shows that an un-elected term counts as an elected term and are therefore equivalent - while there is nothing to say that the logic is commutative, there is nothing to say that it isn't either, which is why I said:
|
That's the problem with Amendments, they are created as patches to solve problems. But they are written decades or even centuries after the original Constitution and by people from another Congress with different perspective and in some cases almost a different language.
So at the end you have a Constitution from the XVIII century with amendments wrote in the XX century co-existing...This IMHO is absurd.
Washington rejected to be elected three times and this was almost a rule (moral of course, because Grant almost broke the rule), but after Roosevelt was re-elected three times, they only created a patch to avoid this.
In our first Constitutional Congress, somebody proposed the Amendment system, but it was rejected, choosing the total modification of the Constitution (Or partial in an emergency case), in order to keep the coherence...The whole Constitution is written by the same Congress or Constitutional Assembly of the same year in order to keep the coherence between all articles.
But this doesn't work all times, the dictator Bolivar created a Constitution on 1826 in which he was allowed to be President for all his life, luckily he left to Colombia the same 1826 and the Constitution was officially repealed in 1827.
|
The only constitution we have is the ability to eat bland, stodgy food without getting constipated...
The advantage of not having a formal constitution is you can change it without having, or causing, a revolution, which has worked alright up until now.
|
What?
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: July 11 2016 at 13:41 |
Now of course there are countries like the one I come from (Ecuador) that has had TWENTY constitutions in its relatively short history (averaging at one every 9 years). This is even worse than having the type of mix of old and new that Ivan was talking about with the amendment system. Basically every now and then a popular movement sets to "re-found" the country based on its electoral interests, with usually nefarious results.
The US Constitution is remarkably general and not rigid enough to have survived for so long only with the addition of amendments. That idiots tend to interpret certain parts in completely anachronistic ways (like the 2nd amendment) is another matter.
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: July 11 2016 at 13:44 |
Dean wrote:
The only constitution we have is the ability to eat bland, stodgy food without getting constipated...
The advantage of not having a formal constitution is you can change it without having, or causing, a revolution, which has worked alright up until now. |
That can work in the UK.
But I assure you, it wouldn't work in Latin America.
I always liked the UK system, things work, because they have to work, but here if a i doesn't have a dot on the top, I assure you that a dictator as Fujimori would say it's an l and for that reason a mistake in the text so he may dissolve the congress.
The new Constitution (By Fujimori) says a President can only serve two consecutive periods, and for a re-election he has to wait a 5 years period.
Fujimori said he was able to serve three consecutive periods, because his first election didn't counted being that the Constitution was proclaimed after he was elected, despite the fact that the text didn't made an exception.
So he was re-elected (Cheating of course) and had to escape from Perú to Japan and resign by fax, because we were at the border of a revolution....In Japan he said he was Japanese and he was allowed to stay, he only was captured when he went to Chile for tourism, and deported to Perú.
So we had a Japanese President despite the fact that the Constitution says only a native born Peruvian can be President.
We need a formal Constitution.
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 11 2016 at 14:14
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: July 11 2016 at 14:15 |
The T wrote:
anachronistic ways (like the 2nd amendment) is another matte |
That's the problem the Congressman of 1791 didn't believe it was necessary to explain that you can use arms, to avoid and invasion, and that in the XXIst century a handgun would make no difference if USA is invaded.
That's why I believe in formal constitutions, clear and specific.
If you need a Constitution, then do it well.
|
|
|
Upbeat Tango Monday
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 10 2015
Location: Buenos Aires
Status: Offline
Points: 1189
|
Posted: September 12 2016 at 10:10 |
I'd vote Gary Johnson for sure. Americans are real big govt. supporters nowadays, so Sanders and Clinton being the main choices don't surprise me at all. I don't think you'll reach the level of poverty we had after more than a decade of left winged govts. (I'm argentinian), since you need at least thirty of fourty years of socialism in order to become a bankrupt nation. Heavy taxes and printing fiat money like crazy will f*uck your savings real hard and you'll end up being equally poor. If most people want that, I'm cool with it. It's your life after all. That's democracy, the rule of the mob against individual freedom. May your shackles be bearable
|
Two random guys agreed to shake hands. Just Because. They felt like it, you know. It was an agreement of sorts...a random agreement.
|
|
Upbeat Tango Monday
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 10 2015
Location: Buenos Aires
Status: Offline
Points: 1189
|
Posted: September 12 2016 at 10:22 |
I'll add this: we are still doing poorly and real jobs are scarce and your only way of living is becoming a teacher, policeman or doctor (or a bigger cog in the machine). There are so many regulations and costs in order to open a small business that it's not viable, and since the private sector (you and me) can't open a store and hire people, we all end up being leeches (I'm a high school teacher, btw) of those who barely can.
|
Two random guys agreed to shake hands. Just Because. They felt like it, you know. It was an agreement of sorts...a random agreement.
|
|