Shouldnt the 22nd Amendment ban Hillary & Bill from the White House again?


PDA






JLStorm
March 14, 2007, 07:14 PM
I have been thinking, and I am pretty darn sure that if those who wrote the 22nd amendment had any idea that a woman could one day run for president, or that a two time president could get into the white house for a third term but being the first husband, they would have worded the amendment to include the first lady/husband so that someone with THAT much political influence couldnt be in the white house for more than two terms throughout his or her life.

The first lady may not be the president but it has been widely acknowledged that the first lady has a wealth of political power at her fingertips. Shouldnt she (Hillary in this case) then be banned from serving more than two terms in any capacity in the White House? The same should go with the President reversing roles as the first husband! I refuse to believe that ANYONE wouldnt think that Bill will have MAJOR influence if in the white house AGAIN.

I dont understand why people dont seem very conerned by this, it may not be violating the 22nd amendment, but it sure is a loophole that should be close IMO :cuss:


U.S. Constitution: Twenty-Second Amendment

Twenty-Second Amendment - Presidential Tenure


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 this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by 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.

Section 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.

If you enjoyed reading about "Shouldnt the 22nd Amendment ban Hillary & Bill from the White House again?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
57Coastie
March 14, 2007, 08:05 PM
JLStorm,

With respect, you may have done a little role reversal here.

Don't forget the old one about the Clintons --

Over coffee in the White House shortly after Bill's election to his first term, he recalled to Hillary: "Do you remember the first time I asked you to marry me and you declined, saying that I would probably become a janitor? Well, I became the President, didn't I?"

Hillary replied, "If I had not accepted your proposal of marriage the second time you asked I have no doubt but that you would indeed have become a janitor."

:)

Jim

Werewolf
March 14, 2007, 08:07 PM
Shouldnt the 22nd Amendment ban Hillary & Bill from the White House again?As much as I dislike Hillary I am forced to answer your question with a NO.

wooderson
March 14, 2007, 08:13 PM
Does the 22nd state that anyone who held 'lots and lots of political power' is ineligible to serve?

It lays out clear restrictions on who may hold the office of President, none of which apply to any First Lady, be it Hillary, Laura, Barbara, Nancy, etc.

1911austin
March 14, 2007, 08:24 PM
As much as I dislike the Clintons, I cannot twist the Constitution to say something it does not.

JLStorm
March 14, 2007, 08:26 PM
Does the 22nd state that anyone who held 'lots and lots of political power' is ineligible to serve?

It lays out clear restrictions on who may hold the office of President, none of which apply to any First Lady, be it Hillary, Laura, Barbara, Nancy, etc.


I am fairly sure that it was written like this because the men writing it would have laughed at the thought of a woman ever being president, or a president ever being the first husband. That is my point, that the 22nd should be updated to reflect its initial intentions. Women had only been allowed to vote for 30 years prior to this amendment, so I just highly doubt a woman president was ever a thought or worry, therefor their two term limit rule was not in jeopardy.

Jorg Nysgerrig
March 14, 2007, 08:34 PM
That is my point, that the 22nd should be updated to reflect its initial intentions

I'm sure there are lots of people who would like to see the 2nd updated to reflect what they believe the initial intentions are. Chances are, they don't all agree with you.

This is the most wild straw-grasping I've seen in quite a long time.

crazed_ss
March 14, 2007, 08:36 PM
Ummm... you're reaching here dude. Did you feel the same about the two George Bush's? I mean who is to say that Jorge I isnt influencing Jr?

Bottom line.. Hillary has just as much right as anyone to run for President.

ConstitutionCowboy
March 14, 2007, 10:37 PM
...that Hillery most likely had much more influence over Bill than the other way around. Hillery getting elected would be just like her serving a third term.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

Juna
March 14, 2007, 10:45 PM
I dont understand why people dont seem very conerned by this, but it sure is a loophole that should be close IMO

I agree, and I've had this discussion with people before. Hillary was co-President at the very least when Bill was in office. She's the one who slaughtered our health care system even further. She's done many other bad things as first lady, as well. I totally agree that the couple should be ineligible for the Presidency after either one of them has been in office. It's the same two people running the country whether it's the husband or wife. To think otherwise is naive, IMO.

Even if one argues that it's not fair to the spouse, I say it's even less fair to the American people (whom the government & President are supposed to SERVE, not lead). Whether a spouse is President or first husband/lady, he/she has significant influence over the nation and every American within it during their stay in the White House. So I support the OP's opinion that it should not be allowed. Sixteen years of the same "ruling regime" is WAY too much.

The Reality Is...that Hillery most likely had much more influence over Bill than the other way around. Hillery getting elected would be just like her serving a third term.

Totally agreed. Bill doesn't wear the pants (pun intended). :neener:

jlbraun
March 14, 2007, 10:48 PM
IBTL! :neener:

.cheese.
March 14, 2007, 10:53 PM
wow.... what an interesting thought.

While I want to say "No it doesn't" despite the fact I don't love Hillary, at the same time I can't help but be reminded by what it would probably say on a table placement card for a formal party/event - "Mr. and Mrs. Bill Clinton"

interesting... interesting... interesting!

Stoney
March 14, 2007, 11:00 PM
Hillary will never be elected, so it won't be a problem. At least not in her case.

If you enjoyed reading about "Shouldnt the 22nd Amendment ban Hillary & Bill from the White House again?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!