O'bama's latest rant...

[centerhill condor]

NEW YORK - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama told Wall Street investors Monday that several of them have been too focused on their own gain at the expense of struggling Americans and echoed Franklin Delano Roosevelt's call for a "reappraisal of values".
Obama prides himself on delivering tough messages directly to the source, and his address at the NASDAQ Marketsite was another example. He said a "what's good for me is good enough" mentality has crept into parts of the business world while working men and women toil longer hours and still struggle to pay for health care, tuition and taxes.
"If we are honest, I think we must admit that those who have benefited from the new global marketplace — and that includes almost everyone in this room — have not always concerned themselves with the losers in this new economy," the Illinois senator said.
"The danger with this mentality isn't just that it offends our morals, it's that it endangers our markets," Obama said.
Economic experts including former Commerce secretary Bill Daley, former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson and University of Chicago economist Austan D. Goolsbee helped Obama with the speech, which risks alienating some Wall Street supporters. But Obama said in a recent interview with The Associated Press that he is determined not just to campaign by telling people what they want to hear, but to win support for an agenda for change.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
this stuff writes itself...so we should pay losers for playing the game? Can we give them a trophy too? Maybe a bust of Walter Mondale!
This kind of outcome based free market will lead to more problems than he can fix...much less pay for.
CC

[never_fast_enuf]

This guy makes Bush look like a Rhodes Scholar.
The "losers" of this economy? People like blown who is sponging off the gubment and proud of it. Screw people like that who refuse to help themselves. Someone should remind the magic negro that socialism doesn't work.

[Old Texan]

Obama and Hildabeast both are so "anti-business" as to be comical. They want to be all things to all people in their struggle to gain votes.
Who in their right mind would hire a broker that didn't take financial gains as his No. 1 objective? Whose benefit is Obama championing this latest "campaign" chastisement of buisness towards anyway? He difinitely isn't helping the small investor trying to get the highest return possible on their money.
Leave the stock exchange and securities commission do their jobs and police Wall Street rather than stand before the people and blow his pompous horn with his lame attempts at being the moral voice of America......
Someone tell me again how this turd surfaced with such "high credentials" as to think he is qualified to be President??????????:confused:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

This guy makes Bush look like a Rhodes Scholar.
The "losers" of this economy? People like blown who is sponging off the gubment and proud of it. Screw people like that who refuse to help themselves. Someone should remind the magic negro that socialism doesn't work.
Are you talking about the same Bush who stated to the Nation?
"We have to deny them the tools and recruitements"
The magic negro???
Obama and Hildabeast both are so "anti-business" as to be comical. They want to be all things to all people in their struggle to gain votes.
Who in their right mind would hire a broker that didn't take financial gains as his No. 1 objective? Whose benefit is Obama championing this latest "campaign" chastisement of buisness towards anyway? He difinitely isn't helping the small investor trying to get the highest return possible on their money.
Leave the stock exchange and securities commission do their jobs and police Wall Street rather than stand before the people and blow his pompous horn with his lame attempts at being the moral voice of America......
Someone tell me again how this turd surfaced with such "high credentials" as to think he is qualified to be President??????????:confused:
The same quesstion could be raised about W. Obama probably doesn't matter as Team Clinton seems to be coming on strong on the Dem side. Thompson needs to get to work

[never_fast_enuf]

Yes, that same W. Obama makes him look like a genius when he makes these stupid comments. At least when W makes a stupid comment, it is an accident. Obama actually means to say this crap.
Obama is the magic negro.

[Old Texan]

Are you talking about the same Bush who stated to the Nation?
"We have to deny them the tools and recruitements"
The magic negro???
The same quesstion could be raised about W. Obama probably doesn't matter as Team Clinton seems to be coming on strong on the Dem side. Thompson needs to get to work
I believe an extensive business background and a Governorship hold far more in the way of experience than a greenhorn Sen from nowhere in the business world. Thompson will make his mark at the appropriate time. Traditionally the race doesn't start untill the primaries, but the Dems feel the need to push aside their current duties and begin "bashing" each other AND the Republicans.
The "Clinton Machine" could self destruct if they can't keep the campaign contribution problems swept under the rug. The media "surprisingly" doesn't push this issue. Hmmmm, I wonder why.....:confused:
Hillary's "new" Health Plan should open some eyes if viewed for what it is, Socialized Medicine. The ignorant at the bottom of her voting pool will view it as "Manna" from the high towers and think it will actually help them. What it will do is add more tax burder to the working man and more overhead to business pushing more jobs offshore. Hillary nor Obama seem to pick up on this point in their quest for power.
By the way, I actually "hate" Hillary. She is evil and conniving with a self centered agenda contrary to what this country is about. No contempt, just "hate". Plus she sounds like a complete fool when she screams......And those pulling guard ugly asse legs, damn what was Bill looking at anyway??????????:devil:

[eliminatedsprinter]

I believe an extensive business background and a Governorship hold far more in the way of experience than a greenhorn Sen from nowhere in the business world. Thompson will make his mark at the appropriate time. Traditionally the race doesn't start untill the primaries, but the Dems feel the need to push aside their current duties and begin "bashing" each other AND the Republicans.
The "Clinton Machine" could self destruct if they can't keep the campaign contribution problems swept under the rug. The media "surprisingly" doesn't push this issue. Hmmmm, I wonder why.....:confused:
Hillary's "new" Health Plan should open some eyes if viewed for what it is, Socialized Medicine. The ignorant at the bottom of her voting pool will view it as "Manna" from the high towers and think it will actually help them. What it will do is add more tax burder to the working man and more overhead to business pushing more jobs offshore. Hillary nor Obama seem to pick up on this point in their quest for power.
By the way, I actually "hate" Hillary. She is evil and conniving with a self centered agenda contrary to what this country is about. No contempt, just "hate". Plus she sounds like a complete fool when she screams......And those pulling guard ugly asse legs, damn what was Bill looking at anyway??????????:devil:
Don't forget the horse she rode in on...:D ;)

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I believe an extensive business background and a Governorship hold far more in the way of experience than a greenhorn Sen from nowhere in the business world. Thompson will make his mark at the appropriate time. Traditionally the race doesn't start untill the primaries, but the Dems feel the need to push aside their current duties and begin "bashing" each other AND the Republicans.
The "Clinton Machine" could self destruct if they can't keep the campaign contribution problems swept under the rug. The media "surprisingly" doesn't push this issue. Hmmmm, I wonder why.....:confused:
Hillary's "new" Health Plan should open some eyes if viewed for what it is, Socialized Medicine. The ignorant at the bottom of her voting pool will view it as "Manna" from the high towers and think it will actually help them. What it will do is add more tax burder to the working man and more overhead to business pushing more jobs offshore. Hillary nor Obama seem to pick up on this point in their quest for power.
By the way, I actually "hate" Hillary. She is evil and conniving with a self centered agenda contrary to what this country is about. No contempt, just "hate". Plus she sounds like a complete fool when she screams......And those pulling guard ugly asse legs, damn what was Bill looking at anyway??????????:devil:
Just curious if you believe any Republican could win against a Clinton/Clinton ticket?

[Old Texan]

Just curious if you believe any Republican could win against a Clinton/Clinton ticket?
We can count on Fred is all we can do.:D
I quite frankly don't believe anyone could beat Bill, and trust me if Hill was to get elected it would be because many in this country are actually voting for Bill not the Mrs.
Despite his faults, he is that charismatic.
And I'm kind of thinking in his mind he knows this and is actually feeling it will be "his" 3rd term. Maybe the Hildabeast's ego will blow and she'll have the "Arkansas Hilbilly Mafia" snuff old Bill for stealing her rightful place in history. Then she'll be caught in scandal and down she'll fall......:devil:
I can dream can't I????? Of course I'm sharing this dream with Obama and Edwards......:D

[eliminatedsprinter]

Just curious if you believe any Republican could win against a Clinton/Clinton ticket?
Since President Clinton is not eligible to serve as VP, (the first requirement to be eligible to be VP is that the person must be eligible to be President) I'll assume you mean Hillary Clinton and George Clinton. While George might bring her much of the Funketeer vote, I'm not sure they could beat a Fred Thompson/Bootsy Collins campaign.:idea:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Since President Clinton is not eligible to serve as VP, (the first requirement to be eligible to be VP is that the person must be eligible to be President) I'll assume you mean Hillary Clinton and George Clinton. While George might bring her much of the Funketeer vote, I'm not sure they could beat a Fred Thompson/Bootsy Collins campaign.:idea:
ES, no doubt I will be called some names for this, but I will have to live with them.
The Twenty-Second Amendment to the United States Constitution says that no person can be elected President of the United States more than twice. Term limits are a particularly important issue in the United States.
Stephen Gillers's ingenious proposal that Senator John Kerry choose former President Bill Clinton as his running mate (Op-Ed, March 3) raises more constitutional problems than Mr. Gillers suggests. Although the 22nd Amendment seems to preclude Mr. Clinton from being elected president again, it alone does not disqualify him from being elected vice president, Mr. Gillers argues.
The 12th Amendment, however, provides that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." Since Mr. Clinton is ineligible to be elected president, he is also ineligible to be elected vice president.
Of course, one might argue that Mr. Clinton is not constitutionally ineligible to be president but simply cannot be elected again as president. Since the 22nd does not disqualify him to be president, the 12th Amendment would not disqualify him to be, or to be elected as, vice president.
But it makes little sense to construe the Constitution to bar Mr. Clinton from running again for president but to allow him to succeed to the presidency after having been elected vice president. The location of the sentence regarding vice-presidential eligibility in the 12th Amendment seems to equate qualifications to serve with those to be elected.
Wik
The Twelfth Amendment explicitly precluded from being Vice President those ineligible to be President: people under thirty-five years of age, those who have not inhabited the United States for at least fourteen years, and those who are not natural-born citizens. It is unclear if the Twenty-second Amendment's term-limiting provisions prevent two-term Presidents from becoming Vice Presidents (see that article for a fuller discussion).
IMO, the issue of a eligiblity Clinton/Clinton ticket seems up in the air.

[eliminatedsprinter]

ES, no doubt I will be called some names for this, but I will have to live with them.
The Twenty-Second Amendment to the United States Constitution says that no person can be elected President of the United States more than twice. Term limits are a particularly important issue in the United States.
Stephen Gillers's ingenious proposal that Senator John Kerry choose former President Bill Clinton as his running mate (Op-Ed, March 3) raises more constitutional problems than Mr. Gillers suggests. Although the 22nd Amendment seems to preclude Mr. Clinton from being elected president again, it alone does not disqualify him from being elected vice president, Mr. Gillers argues.
The 12th Amendment, however, provides that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." Since Mr. Clinton is ineligible to be elected president, he is also ineligible to be elected vice president.
Of course, one might argue that Mr. Clinton is not constitutionally ineligible to be president but simply cannot be elected again as president. Since the 22nd does not disqualify him to be president, the 12th Amendment would not disqualify him to be, or to be elected as, vice president.
But it makes little sense to construe the Constitution to bar Mr. Clinton from running again for president but to allow him to succeed to the presidency after having been elected vice president. The location of the sentence regarding vice-presidential eligibility in the 12th Amendment seems to equate qualifications to serve with those to be elected.
Wik
The Twelfth Amendment explicitly precluded from being Vice President those ineligible to be President: people under thirty-five years of age, those who have not inhabited the United States for at least fourteen years, and those who are not natural-born citizens. It is unclear if the Twenty-second Amendment's term-limiting provisions prevent two-term Presidents from becoming Vice Presidents (see that article for a fuller discussion).
IMO, the issue of a eligiblity Clinton/Clinton ticket seems up in the air.
Tortured logic aside, he is clearly not eligible. If the Clintons were to try this stunt they would be shot down by the Supreme Court just as bad as they were when President Clinton attempted to claim "Protectors Confidentiality" and turn the Secret Service into the president's personal palace guard (9 to 0 after approx 15 minutes of discussion, a Supreme Court record, if I remember correctly).

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Tortured logic aside, he is not eligible. If the Clintons were to try this stunt they would be shot down by the Supreme Court just as bad as they were when President Clinton attempted to claim "Protectors Confidentiality" and turn the Secret Service into the president's personal palace guard (9 to 0 after approx 15 minutes of discussion, a Supreme Court record, if I remember correctly).
If the Clintons were to try this stunt they would be shot down by the Supreme Court
Based on exactly what law. For this to be shot down by the Supreme Court, there would have to be a legal basis for any such decision.
I am unable to find any language to preclude this from happening. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm trying to understand.

[eliminatedsprinter]

If the Clintons were to try this stunt they would be shot down by the Supreme
Based on exactly what law. For this to be shot down by the Supreme Court, there would have to be a legal basis for any such decision.
I am unable to find any language to preclude this from happening. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm trying to understand.
The Constitution is the law that the Supreme Court goes by. Simply read the text of the 12th amendment and then read the 22nd.
The 22nd amendment makes him ineligible to be president again thus making him ineligible under the 12th amendment. The argument that, becuse the wording of the 22nd states that he may not be elected President again somehow allows him to serve if he gets in some other way isn't even good circular logic...:rolleyes: I don't think even a disbarred Arkansas attorney would seriously attempt to argue it before the highest court in the land. It would be just too much of an embarrassment.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

The Constitution is the law that the Supreme Court goes by. Simply read the text of the 12th amendment and then read the 22nd.
The 22nd amendment makes him ineligible to be president again thus making him ineligible under the 12th amendment. The argument that, becuse the wording of the 22nd states that he may not be elected President again somehow allows him to serve if he gets in some other way isn't even good circular logic...:rolleyes: I don't think even a disbarred Arkansas attorney would seriously attempt to argue it before the highest court in the land. It would be just too much of an embarrassment.
ES,
I wouldn't be asking if I hadn't read the 12th and the 22nd. I have read them both and didn't find anything that makes him ineligible.
The argument that, becuse the wording of the 22nd states that he may not be elected President again somehow allows him to serve if he gets in some other way isn't even good circular logic
I don't agree. Your interpretation is adding unwritten law to the 22nd amendment.
The 25th Amendment affords Clinton another route to the vice presidency: In the event the vice presidency is vacated, the president appoints a new veep, subject to confirmation by Congress. (This is how Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller became vice president.)
Nothing in the Constitution would prevent Vice President Clinton from becoming president via succession. Finally, another scenario could return Clinton to the White House without a pit stop at the vice presidency. If both the presidency and the vice presidency were vacated and Bill Clinton were the speaker of the House, he would become president under the 1948 presidential succession act. (Next in line, the president pro tempore of the Senate and then the cabinet officers in the order specified by the act.)

[Blown 472]

This guy makes Bush look like a Rhodes Scholar.
The "losers" of this economy? People like blown who is sponging off the gubment and proud of it. Screw people like that who refuse to help themselves. Someone should remind the magic negro that socialism doesn't work.
Yup, getting back what I paid in and loving it, nothing better then sleeping till noon everyday.:)

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Obama proposes U.S. middle-class tax relief plan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama proposed up to $85 billion in tax cuts for about 150 million Americans on Tuesday, paid for by raising capital gains and dividend taxes on wealthy investors.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070918/pl_nm/usa_politics_obama_dc_1;_ylt=Ag2dpyIoBNfkV0QLbVkZZ GME1vAI

[QuickJet]

Obama proposes U.S. middle-class tax relief plan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama proposed up to $85 billion in tax cuts for about 150 million Americans on Tuesday, paid for by raising capital gains and dividend taxes on wealthy investors.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070918/pl_nm/usa_politics_obama_dc_1;_ylt=Ag2dpyIoBNfkV0QLbVkZZ GME1vAI
Won't the raise of the Capitol Gains tax kinda keep people in the same economic situation that they are in now. Higher Capitol Gains tax affects all of us. The higher the tax, the harder it is for the common man to buy and sell a couple homes every year and make a decent living. This cuts down on the workforce involved. Been there done that. We were paying 28% in the late 90's under Clinton. That's a big chunk on a million dollar plus home. Between the Government and the Real estate there isn't much left for the actual owners and builders (us)
Being that there are 300 million people in America I'm guessing the tax cuts are going to those who don't pay that much anyways whereas the hard working individuals get to take it up the ass one more time.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Won't the raise of the Capitol Gains tax kinda keep people in the same economic situation that they are in now. Higher Capitol Gains tax affects all of us. The higher the tax, the harder it is for the common man to buy and sell a couple homes every year and make a decent living. This cuts down on the workforce involved. Been there done that. We were paying 28% in the late 90's under Clinton. That's a big chunk on a million dollar plus home. Between the Government and the Real estate there isn't much left for the actual owners and builders (us)
Being that there are 300 million people in America I'm guessing the tax cuts are going to those who don't pay that much anyways whereas the hard working individuals get to take it up the ass one more time.
Higher Capitol Gains tax affects all of us
Not sure this is accurate. I don't buy and sell houses for a living and have never paid a dime in Capitol Gains tax. I guess I am not a common man who buys and sells a couple of houses a year.
I'm curious what a decent living from buying and selling a couple of homes per year, might be?
Bush's tax cut shifted the tax burden off the top 1% and the lowest income earners in this country to the middle and upper middle classes. Those who make $65,000 to $150,000 share the largest portion of the tax burden.
Obama's tax cuts, while a tax cut always sounds good, I believe would cost me.
I have always favored a flat tax over the current system. The FAIR TAX system is also interesting
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/taxes/taxbook/taxbook10.html

[eliminatedsprinter]

ES,
I wouldn't be asking if I hadn't read the 12th and the 22nd. I have read them both and didn't find anything that makes him ineligible.
The argument that, becuse the wording of the 22nd states that he may not be elected President again somehow allows him to serve if he gets in some other way isn't even good circular logic
I don't agree. Your interpretation is adding unwritten law to the 22nd amendment.
The 25th Amendment affords Clinton another route to the vice presidency: In the event the vice presidency is vacated, the president appoints a new veep, subject to confirmation by Congress. (This is how Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller became vice president.)
Nothing in the Constitution would prevent Vice President Clinton from becoming president via succession. Finally, another scenario could return Clinton to the White House without a pit stop at the vice presidency. If both the presidency and the vice presidency were vacated and Bill Clinton were the speaker of the House, he would become president under the 1948 presidential succession act. (Next in line, the president pro tempore of the Senate and then the cabinet officers in the order specified by the act.)
I read it much differently than you do and I believe the court would also.
P.S. Madiline Albright was Sec of state and she was ineligibel to serve as President, if her turn in succession was to come up (after Senate President Pro tem), they would have simply skipped her. Sec of State and Speaker of the House etc do not have Constitutional ammendments that state a person must be eligible to serve as President in order to hold those posts, the VP does.

[QuickJet]

Higher Capitol Gains tax affects all of us
Not sure this is accurate. I don't buy and sell houses for a living and have never paid a dime in Capitol Gains tax. I guess I am not a common man who buys and sells a couple of houses a year.
A higher Capitol Gains tax is an added expense when flipping houses. The lower the tax, the lower the cost of doing business. This can work towards more profit for the owner or a lower price on the house. Either way it aids the economy. If you raise the tax it makes it harder for the common man to enter into the business of flipping homes.
I'm curious what a decent living from buying and selling a couple of homes per year, might be?
It varies. Some years it has added an extra $100,000 or more. It all depends. I've never done it as my only source of income.
Bush's tax cut shifted the tax burden off the top 1% and the lowest income earners in this country to the middle and upper middle classes. Those who make $65,000 to $150,000 share the largest portion of the tax burden.
The rich pay way more taxes than those in the middle class. They pay in the millions as the middle class pay in the thousands.
The majority of the taxes are payed by the rich.
I believe they should eliminate the income tax all together. Pay at the register. This would uproot the underground economy.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I read it much differently than you do and I believe the court would also.
P.S. Madiline Albright was Sec of state and she was ineligibel to serve as President, if her turn in succession was to come up (after Senate President Pro tem), they would have simply skipped her. Sec of State and Speaker of the House etc do not have Constitutional ammendments that state a person must be eligible to serve as President in order to hold those posts, the VP does.
There are Federal judges as well as many quality legal minds that have a different view just as there are those who agree with you. The language of the law and it's intent may not be the same. I have always been of the opinion that it is the duty of the Courts to uphold the language of the law. If the intent is different than the language, the language must be changed. Nonetheless, an interesting situation, should it arise.

[QuickJet]

Bill Clinton cannot run as VP...... period!!!

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Bill Clinton cannot run as VP...... period!!!
There are many who are no doubt legally more qualified than you or I who disagree.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

A well written article from the Washington Post
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 20, 2006; A19
The prospective presidential candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton has given rise to plenty of speculation about the notion of Bill Clinton as the nation's first gentleman. But what about another role? How about, say, vice president?
Politically, of course, the idea is a non-starter for all sorts of reasons. But that doesn't stop the parlor games, especially on the Internet. The issue came up last week during a chat on washingtonpost.com: What if Hillary picked Bill as her running mate? A Post reporter rashly dismissed the idea as unconstitutional. But that only proved the dangers of unedited journalism. The answer, it turns out, is not so simple.
A subsequent sampling of opinion from professors of constitutional law, former White House lawyers and even a couple of federal judges reveals a simmering disagreement on whether a president who has already served two terms can be vice president. Some agree with the conclusion that the presidential term limit embedded in the Constitution bars someone such as Clinton from returning to the White House even in the No. 2 slot. Others, though, call that a misreading of the literal language of the law.
As the former president might say, it all depends on the meaning of the word "elected." Under Article II of the Constitution, a person is "eligible to the Office of President" as long as he or she is a natural-born U.S. citizen, at least 35 years old and a resident of the United States for 14 years. The 12th Amendment says "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President."
Okay, so that means if you're not eligible to be president, you're not eligible to be vice president. Makes sense. What would be the point of electing a vice president who can't succeed the president in case of death, incapacity or vacancy?
But then Congress and the states added the 22nd Amendment in 1951 to prevent anyone from following the example of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who won four terms. That's where things get dicey. "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice," the 22nd Amendment says.
On its face, that seems to suggest that Clinton could be vice president because he is only barred from being elected president a third time, not from serving as president. That's the argument of Scott E. Gant, a partner at Boies, Schiller & Flexner in Washington, and Bruce G. Peabody, an assistant professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey. The two wrote a law review article in 1999 called "The Twice and Future President" and reprised the argument this summer in the Christian Science Monitor.
"In preventing individuals from being elected to the presidency more than twice, the amendment does not preclude a former president from again assuming the presidency by means other than election, including succession from the vice presidency," they wrote. "If this view is correct, then Clinton is not 'constitutionally ineligible to the office of president,' and is not barred by the 12th Amendment from being elected vice president."
Others share that opinion. Three former White House lawyers consulted by The Washington Post (two who served President Bush and one who served Clinton) agreed that the amendment would not bar Clinton from the vice presidency. A federal judge, who noted that he has "no views on the matter," said the plain language of the amendment would seem to allow Clinton to "become president through succession."
Kathleen M. Sullivan, director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center, said the 22nd Amendment, "as I read it, does not preclude a Clinton-Clinton ticket." She added: "Bill, if elected VP, could become president in the event that President Hillary became incapacitated; he just could not run for reelection from that successor post."
Still, that view is not universal. Judge Richard A. Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit said by e-mail that "read literally, the 22nd Amendment does not apply" and therefore Clinton could be vice president. "But one could argue that since the vice president is elected . . . should he take office he would be in effect elected president. Electing a vice president means electing a vice president and contingently electing him as president. That interpretation, though a little bold, would honor the intention behind the 22nd Amendment."
Bruce Ackerman, a constitutional scholar at Yale Law School, also pointed to original intent in addressing the issue in his book this year, "Before the Next Attack: Preserving Civil Liberties in the Age of Terrorism." The amendment, he wrote, "represents a considered judgment by the American People, after Franklin Roosevelt's lengthy stay in the White House, which deserves continuing respect" and "should not be eroded" by a narrow interpretation allowing someone to manipulate his way to a third term.
Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who was a clerk for Sandra Day O'Connor when she was on the Supreme Court, focused on the broader meaning of the language in the amendment in reaching the same conclusion. "My tentative answer is that 'eligible' roughly means 'elected,' " he wrote on his Web site, the Volokh Conspiracy, this summer, meaning that if Clinton cannot be elected president, he is no longer eligible at all.

[redneckcharlie]

There are Federal judges as well as many quality legal minds that have a different view just as there are those who agree with you. The language of the law and it's intent may not be the same. I have always been of the opinion that it is the duty of the Courts to uphold the language of the law. If the intent is different than the language, the language must be changed. Nonetheless, an interesting situation, should it arise.
I'm curious, are you supporting an arguement to attempt to circumvent the constitution? This is about as assanine as Clintons deal on the defenition of "is". Do you think its appropriate to manipulate and circumvent the constitution for political gain? I've read some absolutely ridiculious stuff on here before, but this whole thing is right at the top of the list! This type of thing is at the core of the problem with the lack of morality in this country. Theres an old saying, that speck on top of the pile of chicken shit, its chicken shit to.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I'm curious, are you supporting an arguement to attempt to circumvent the constitution? This is about as assanine as Clintons deal on the defenition of "is". Do you think its appropriate to manipulate and circumvent the constitution for political gain? I've read some absolutely ridiculious stuff on here before, but this whole thing is right at the top of the list! This type of thing is at the core of the problem with the lack of morality in this country. Theres an old saying, that speck on top of the pile of chicken shit, its chicken shit to.
Read the 12th and the 22nd amendments to the Constitution. Circumvent in what way? The language is what it is. This issue first came up with Barry Goldwater, then with Gerald Ford, John Kerry and now Clinton. The Constitution is vague and ambiguous. The text in the 22nd amendment should be updated if it's intent is different than it's text.
This has nothing to do with morality.
BTW this all came from a hypothetical question.

[redneckcharlie]

Read the 12th and the 22nd amendments to the Constitution. Circumvent in what way? The language is what it is. This issue first came up with Barry Goldwater, then with Gerald Ford, John Kerry and now Clinton. The Constitution is vague and ambiguous. The text in the 22nd amendment should be updated if it's intent is different than it's text.
This has nothing to do with morality.
BTW this all came from a hypothetical question.
First off, I know this is a "hypothetical question". The reality is that someone put that question out in the public arena to test the reaction. Secondly, it is absolutely about morals and morality. The text is not ambiguous. I can twist and turn any type of text to support a position. There is no misunderstanding on what the intent of the constitution is. Do you honestly think when they wrote it they could have possibly fathomed a situation such as an Ex Presidents wife running for President? You didn't answer my question, do you think its ok for President Clinton to run as an Vice President? This is just another situation of someone trying to change the rules to get to a desired result. It doesn't matter which side of the political fence your on, changing the rules, because you fear you can't win a straight up contest, is still wrong. ;)

[eliminatedsprinter]

There are Federal judges as well as many quality legal minds that have a different view just as there are those who agree with you. The language of the law and it's intent may not be the same. I have always been of the opinion that it is the duty of the Courts to uphold the language of the law. If the intent is different than the language, the language must be changed. Nonetheless, an interesting situation, should it arise.
I find both the intent and the letter pretty clear. I think the distinction between "may not be elected" and "may not serve" is non existent, given the context and the history of the 22nd amendment.
The fact that you disagree with me only proves that you are a no good dirty rotten !@#$ and a %^&*. ;)
P.S. What if Ronald Reagan had run as George H.W. Bush's VP choice and then Bush promptly resigned and President Reagan re appointed him as VP. Do you think the S Court would have allowed that?? Under your interpretation that should be ok, right??

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I find both the intent and the letter pretty clear. I think the distinction between "may not be elected" and "may not serve" is non existent given the context and the history of the 22nd amendment.
The fact that you disagree with me only proves that you are a no good dirty rotten !@#$ and a %^&*. ;)
P.S. What if Ronald Reagan had run as George H.W. Bush's VP choice and then Bush promptly resigned and President Reagan re appointed him as VP. Do you think the S Court would have allowed that?? Under your interpretation that should be ok, right??
ES,
No doubt I LMFAO.

[eliminatedsprinter]

ES,
No doubt I LMFAO.
I'm glad you recognised my intent.;) :D

[ULTRA26 # 1]

First off, I know this is a "hypothetical question". The reality is that someone put that question out in the public arena to test the reaction. Secondly, it is absolutely about morals and morality. The text is not ambiguous. I can twist and turn any type of text to support a position. There is no misunderstanding on what the intent of the constitution is. Do you honestly think when they wrote it they could have possibly fathomed a situation such as an Ex Presidents wife running for President? You didn't answer my question, do you think its ok for President Clinton to run as an Vice President? This is just another situation of someone trying to change the rules to get to a desired result. It doesn't matter which side of the political fence your on, changing the rules, because you fear you can't win a straight up contest, is still wrong. ;)
I suggest you do something to change the text of the law to follow your opinion. As it stands, it does not. Language and in intent are not one in the same. Your suggestion that you can twist any law to fit your needs is untrue. If this were the case, the State would never get a conviction.
This is about the law and not about morals.
I believe that someone should test this to at least establish case law, if not a rewrite of the 22nd amendment.
Elected and serve are very different, regardless of the intent.
And to answer your question, yes I think that is OK for Bill Clinton to attempt to run for VP. If the Supreme says it's OK then it's OK. If not, then it isn't. I would feel the same way if it were Ronald Regan trying to run as VP with Geo. H W Bush.

[redneckcharlie]

I suggest you do something to change the text of the law to follow your opinion. As it stands, it does not. Language and in intent are not one in the same. Your suggestion that you can twist any law to fit your needs is untrue. If this were the case, the State would never get a conviction.
This is about the law and not about morals.
I believe that someone should test this to at least establish case law, if not a rewrite of the 22nd amendment.
Elected and serve are very different, regardless of the intent.
And to answer your question, yes I think that is OK for Bill Clinton to attempt to run for VP. If the Supreme says it's OK then it's OK. If not, then it isn't. I would feel the same way if it were Ronald Regan trying to run as VP with Geo. H W Bush.
You just proved my point. Why do you think they would attempt to put Bill Clinton on the ticket, hypothetically of course? My dog could call that situation. Its simple, because Hillary is not electable on her own merits. Law and morality are absolutely in the same category. Where do you think laws originate? They're established when society deems something as wrong. Laws are written with intent in mind. Its no different than the context of someones statement. This is no different than President Bush using the Patriot Act to circumvent peoples Constitutional Rights. Oh, and how many prosecutions have been lost due to attorneys playing with the law and how it was worded? There isn't enough time to list them all.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

You just proved my point. Why do you think they would attempt to put Bill Clinton on the ticket, hypothetically of course? My dog could call that situation. Its simple, because Hillary is not electable on her own merits. Law and morality are absolutely in the same category. Where do you think laws originate? They're established when society deems something as wrong. Laws are written with intent in mind. Its no different than the context of someones statement. This is no different than President Bush using the Patriot Act to circumvent peoples Constitutional Rights. Oh, and how many prosecutions have been lost due to attorneys playing with the law and how it was worded? There isn't enough time to list them all.
I don't think that Bill Clinton will run for VP. BTW, I wish I and many others were as sure as you seem to be that Hilary is not electable. If the Republicans proceed on this premise, they are liable to get fooled.
I absolutely don't agree that it would be morallly wrong for Bill Clinton to try and run for VP or anyone else for that matter.

[redneckcharlie]

I don't think that Bill Clinton will run for VP. BTW, I wish I and many others were as sure as you seem to be that Hilary is not electable. If the Republicans proceed on this premise, they are liable to get fooled.
I absolutely don't agree that it would be morallly wrong for Bill Clinton to try and run for VP or anyone else for that matter.
I wouldn't expect you to object to him running as VP, it would help accomplish your desired affect. That being Hillary in office. Stating it would be ok with you, even if it was Bush, or whoever, trying to do this same thing(hypothetically)is nothing more than lip service. One of the most troubling things with our current political system, is the win at whatever cost mentality. It still amazes me what people can justify to accomplish there goals!

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I wouldn't expect you to object to him running as VP, it would help accomplish your desired affect. That being Hillary in office. Stating it would be ok with you, even if it was Bush, or whoever, trying to do this same thing(hypothetically)is nothing more than lip service. One of the most troubling things with our current political system, is the win at whatever cost mentality. It still amazes me what people can justify to accomplish there goals!
Sorry Charlie, I'm not a Hilary fan at all. But I guess you had no way of knowing that. Not lip service, I meant what I said.

[redneckcharlie]

Sorry Charlie, I'm not a Hilary fan at all. But I guess you had no way of knowing that. Not lip service, I meant what I said.
Well theres one thing you and I can agree on, not a big fan of that woman either! And it has nothing to do with her being a democrat. I think the dems will be doing the repubs a huge favor by nominating her. Time will tell.

[eliminatedsprinter]

I believe that someone should test this to at least establish case law, if not a rewrite of the 22nd amendment.
Elected and serve are very different, regardless of the intent.
And to answer your question, yes I think that is OK for Bill Clinton to attempt to run for VP. If the Supreme says it's OK then it's OK. If not, then it isn't. I would feel the same way if it were Ronald Regan trying to run as VP with Geo. H W Bush.
This is a Constitutional Ammendment not a simple statute. Intent is important to the Supreme Court and they often base decisions on intent, rather than specific wording (as do all levels of Federal Court that rule on Constitutional issues). every once in a while some federal court (usually the 9th circuit) makes some decision that goes agianst the intent of the Constitution or some federal law basesd on some clever twist of the wording. However, when the volume of attempts that fail is weighed against the the tiny few that succeed (even in the 9th) you can see that Federal judges (esp in the Supreme Court) are generally well versed in the history and intent of the Constitution and they seldom allow such semantic trickery.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

This is a Constitutional Ammendment not a simple statute. Intent is important to the Supreme Court and they often base decisions on intent, rather than specific wording (as do all levels of Federal Court that rule on Constitutional issues). every once in a while some federal court (usually the 9th circuit) makes some decision that goes agianst the intent of the Constitution or some federal law basesd on some clever twist of the wording. However, when the volume of attempts that fail is weighed against the the tiny few that succeed (even in the 9th) you can see that Federal judges (esp in the Supreme Court) are generally well versed in the history and intent of the Constitution and they seldom allow such semantic trickery.
ES, I would like to see this tested and clarified. If ruled upon, the language in the 22nd would not require change, as case law would suffice. I guess we will only know if and when it gets tested.

[eliminatedsprinter]

ES, I would like to see this tested and clarified. If ruled upon, the language in the 22nd would not require change, as case law would suffice. I guess we will only know if and when it gets tested.
I don't think it ever will.
President Clinton's stated position, on this subject, has been that he feels the 22nd amendment should be changed to allow a 2 term President to run again after sitting out for a term. I don't think he is cheesy enough to try to slip into the back door of the Navel Observatory via this proposed semantic trick.
The intent of the 22nd amendment is clear. It limits one person to 2 terms, following no more than 2 years of completing another Presidents term. The fact, that it uses the word "elected" simply reflects that we choose our Presidents by election and it in no way diminishes or obfuscates the ammendments clear intent. The word "elected" was not used to provide wiggle room for popular tricksters....

[centerhill condor]

The "Clinton Machine" could self destruct if they can't keep the campaign contribution problems swept under the rug. The media "surprisingly" doesn't push this issue. Hmmmm, I wonder why.....:confused:
Hillary's "new" Health Plan should open some eyes if viewed for what it is, Socialized Medicine.
And those pulling guard ugly asse legs, damn what was Bill looking at anyway??????????:devil:
Oh, pick me...I know why. 'cause the media is a bunch of commies!
Hillary's new health plan is the same as "the president's" from '93...Cspan buddy cspan.
those aren't her legs..she's riding a chicken.
She's runnin' on her husband's record....only an intellectually dishonest double talker could manage such a feat.
CC

[SmokinLowriderSS]

I suggest you do something to change the text of the law to follow your opinion. As it stands, it does not. Language and in intent are not one in the same. Your suggestion that you can twist any law to fit your needs is untrue. If this were the case, the State would never get a conviction.
This is about the law and not about morals.
I believe that someone should test this to at least establish case law, if not a rewrite of the 22nd amendment.
Elected and serve are very different, regardless of the intent.
And to answer your question, yes I think that is OK for Bill Clinton to attempt to run for VP. If the Supreme says it's OK then it's OK. If not, then it isn't. I would feel the same way if it were Ronald Regan trying to run as VP with Geo. H W Bush.
Good god ultra.
From the law offices of Cornell Univ:
The 12th:
Last line.
no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Now, what do those words say?
The 22nd:
FIRST line.
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.
Bill Clinton CANNOT BE ELECTED LEGALLY (not that that matters with "progressives" these days), and, as such, he IS NOT LEGALLY ELIGIBLE to serve as VP.
This puts a 10-year maximum service length on the presidency.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.
8 years maximum.
No person who has held the office of President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
2 terms maximum.
No person who has 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.
Maximum of another president's full term, plus one of their own.
Less than 2 years served, maximum of 2 terms of their own.
No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
THIS IS CONFUSING???? VAGUE???????
ultra, with your trouble in understanding LAW, I would reccomend a different line of work.
"Investigating insurance fraud" is filled with legalities.
Legal items seem to give you trouble at every turn.

[centerhill condor]

Easy there Smokin'...your continued and persistent use of facts in your posts are gonna cause trouble.
CC

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Good god ultra.
From the law offices of Cornell Univ:
The 12th:
Last line.
no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Now, what do those words say?
The 22nd:
FIRST line.
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.
Bill Clinton CANNOT BE ELECTED LEGALLY (not that that matters with "progressives" these days), and, as such, he IS NOT LEGALLY ELIGIBLE to serve as VP.
This puts a 10-year maximum service length on the presidency.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.
8 years maximum.
No person who has held the office of President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
2 terms maximum.
No person who has 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.
Maximum of another president's full term, plus one of their own.
Less than 2 years served, maximum of 2 terms of their own.
No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
THIS IS CONFUSING???? VAGUE???????
ultra, with your trouble in understanding LAW, I would reccomend a different line of work.
"Investigating insurance fraud" is filled with legalities.
Legal items seem to give you trouble at every turn.
Why am I surprised that as usual, you think you are smarter than Federal Judges and Washington attorneys about the law, TOO?
Good God Smokin, what's wrong with you? You're not able to recognize the ambiguity here? The
22nd is written poorly, period. Generally ambiguity legislates against the maker but you would have no way of knowing that in your line of work.
Have a nice weekend :devil:

[Old Texan]

No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Is this line taken from the 22nd Amendment as implied in Smokin's post?????:confused:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Is this line taken from the 22nd Amendment as implied in Smokin's post?????:confused:
No
22ND 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 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.
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.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

From Wik
The relationship between the 22nd and 12th amendments
Some have questioned the interpretation of the Twenty-second Amendment as it relates to the Twelfth Amendment, ratified in 1804, which provides that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."[8]
While it is clear that under the Twelfth Amendment the original constitutional qualifications of age, citizenship, and residency apply to both the president and vice president, it is unclear if a two-term president could later be elected—or appointed—vice president. Some argue that the Twenty-second Amendment and Twelfth Amendment bar any two-term president from later serving as vice president as well as from succeeding to the presidency from any point in the United States Presidential line of succession. Others contend that while a two-term president is ineligible to be elected or appointed to the office of Vice President, he could succeed from a lower position in the line of succession which he is not excluded from holding. Others contend that the Twelfth Amendment concerns qualification for service, while the Twenty-second Amendment concerns qualifications for election. Neither theory has ever been tested, as no former president has ever sought the vice presidency, and thus, the courts have never had an opportunity to decide the question.

[Blown 472]

And why wasn't this locked??

[ULTRA26 # 1]

A higher Capitol Gains tax is an added expense when flipping houses. The lower the tax, the lower the cost of doing business. This can work towards more profit for the owner or a lower price on the house. Either way it aids the economy. If you raise the tax it makes it harder for the common man to enter into the business of flipping homes.
It varies. Some years it has added an extra $100,000 or more. It all depends. I've never done it as my only source of income.
The rich pay way more taxes than those in the middle class. They pay in the millions as the middle class pay in the thousands.
The majority of the taxes are payed by the rich.
I believe they should eliminate the income tax all together. Pay at the register. This would uproot the underground economy.
Let's clarify a couple things.
An additional 100K per year should place you in about the top 12% of income earners, ie over 150K annually.
Hardly what most would consider just an average common income
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/images/averageincome2001.gif
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/images/incomeshare2001.gif
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/images/egtrra.gif
The website lays it out clearly.
Middle and Upper middle class have the majority of the tax burden.
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/american_income_taxation.htm

[QuickJet]

Let's clarify a couple things.
An additional 100K per year should place you in about the top 12% of income earners, ie over 150K annually.
Hardly what most would consider just an average common income
You missed the point.
If you make it harder for people to get ahead (higher taxes) they will remain stagnent at their current income level. Lowering the Capitol Gains tax attracks buyers and sellers who in turn better themselves (and the others they higher I might add). This works pretty much across the board.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Is this line taken from the 22nd Amendment as implied in Smokin's post?????:confused:
Negativge Tex. It is, as my post said directlky, the LAST LINE of the 12th amendment, which ultra ignores completely.
The ENTIRE 12th amendment:
Amendment XII
The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
The last full sentence of the 12th amendment, in it's entirety:
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Just exactly HOW IS THAT AMBIGUOUS ultra?
The FIRST LINE of the 22nd amendmnt states:No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,
After being elected twice, the same person is constitutionally NOT ELIGIBLE to run for the office again.
Since the 12th amendment reads: But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. then, your boy Bill Clinton CANNOT BE Vice President.
He COULD BE a member of congress, or a cabinet post, but, in the case of death of all people ahead of him, he STILL COULD NOT SERVE AS President. He would HAVE TO be skipped.
Good God Smokin, what's wrong with you? You're not able to recognize the ambiguity here?
WHERE IS THE AMBIGUITY IN THE 12th AMENDMENT?????????
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

[Old Texan]

Negativge Tex. It is, as my post said directlky, the LAST LINE of the 12th amendment, which ultra ignores completely.
The ENTIRE 12th amendment:
Amendment XII
The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
The last full sentence of the 12th amendment, in it's entirety:
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Just exactly HOW IS THAT AMBIGUOUS ultra?
The FIRST LINE of the 22nd amendmnt states:No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,
After being elected twice, the same person is constitutionally NOT ELIGIBLE to run for the office again.
Since the 12th amendment reads: But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. then, your boy Bill Clinton CANNOT BE Vice President.
He COULD BE a member of congress, or a cabinet post, but, in the case of death of all people ahead of him, he STILL COULD NOT SERVE AS President. He would HAVE TO be skipped.
WHERE IS THE AMBIGUITY IN THE 12th AMENDMENT?????????
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
So how does the 22nd even factor in? The 12th seems pretty cut and dried, plus I fail to see a correlation to the 22nd having anything to supercede the intent of the 12th?
If I'm missing something please clarify.
Ultra?????

[ULTRA26 # 1]

So how does the 22nd even factor in? The 12th seems pretty cut and dried, plus I fail to see a correlation to the 22nd having anything to supercede the intent of the 12th?
If I'm missing something please clarify.
Ultra?????
The 12th basically states, in pertinent part, that a Vice President must follow the same eligibility rules as the President, ie 35 years of age, natural US citizen, etc. This was written in the early 1800's
The 22nd states, in pertainent part, that a President may only be elected to office 2 times or once if in office longer than 2 years, if in office by secession. This was written in, I believe, 1947, and ratified in the early
50's,
The Constitutional legality of the issue of a former 2 term President running for Vice President is viewed differently by the legal community. There are also the issues of secession and appointment, as defined by the 25th, that must be considered.
Tex, Smokin and others interpret the Constitution as reading that a prior 2 term President can't run for VP due to Presidential term limits defined in the 22nd. I view the Constitution as vague and ambiguous in this regard.
BYW Smokin, no where in the Consitution does it state that a President may not serve more than 2 terms in office. It states that a President may not be elected to more than 2 terms, etc. The ambiguity is not in the 12th.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

So how does the 22nd even factor in? The 12th seems pretty cut and dried, plus I fail to see a correlation to the 22nd having anything to supercede the intent of the 12th?
If I'm missing something please clarify.
Ultra?????
The 22nd defines who is not able to hold the ofice of the Presidency.
The first line of the 22nd amendment, verbatim:
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.
Now, disected:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,
That seems clear. 2 terms, full and complete, 8 years, and that person cannot be president again.
The only 2 routes to the presidency involve election, and succession at the death of the President.
no person who has held the office of President, shall be elected to the office of the President more than once
Only re-electable one time. Once the ofice has been held, only re-electable ONCE.
no person who has 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.
Become President by death succession, and serve 730 days OR LESS as President, they may be elected for 2 full terms on their own.
Become President by death succession, and serve MORE THAN 730 days as President, they may be elected for 1 full term only.
Anyone affected by these statements, is not available to try to become president ever again.
The 12th amendment slams the door on their being in immediate line of succession from the Vice Presidency as well.
I fail to see ultra's faigned "ambiguity" in here as well Tex. :confused:

[SmokinLowriderSS]

BYW Smokin, no where in the Consitution does it state that a President may not serve more than 2 terms in office. It states that a President may not be elected to more than 2 terms, etc. The ambiguity is not in the 12th.
There are only 2 paths to the presidency in this country ultra, to be elected, or to have the President die ind turn power over.
That is it, all, period.
The 12th amendment states that you have to be in an ELECTABLE STATUS to be VP.
The ONLY intended path to the presidency is by election.
Thus, the only designed in, INTENDED PATH to the Presidency, is by election.
The entire purpose of the death succession, is a back-up emergency plan.
No-where in this country, is there intention, nor has there ever been the INTENT, to elect someone who is terminal, EXPECTING THEM TO DIE WHILE IN OFFICE.
Only someone legally able to run for office in an election, may serve as Vice President, so sayeth the 12th amendment to the Constitution.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

The 22nd defines who is not able to hold the ofice of the Presidency.
The first line of the 22nd amendment, verbatim:
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.
Now, disected:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,
That seems clear. 2 terms, full and complete, 8 years, and that person cannot be president again.
The only 2 routes to the presidency involve election, and succession at the death of the President.
no person who has held the office of President, shall be elected to the office of the President more than once
Only re-electable one time. Once the ofice has been held, only re-electable ONCE.
no person who has 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.
Become President by death succession, and serve 730 days OR LESS as President, they may be elected for 2 full terms on their own.
Become President by death succession, and serve MORE THAN 730 days as President, they may be elected for 1 full term only.
Anyone affected by these statements, is not available to try to become president ever again.
The 12th amendment slams the door on their being in immediate line of succession from the Vice Presidency as well.
I fail to see ultra's faigned "ambiguity" in here as well Tex. :confused:
Anyone affected by these statements, is not available to try to become president ever again.
Not stated anywhere
We are not talking about trying to become President we are tailing about Vice President As you commented the issue of succession is in place for emergencies and not for the purpose of becoming President. When a VP is elected, it is not the intent of the people to elect the VP, to the office of President, except in the case of emergency secession.
I don't see the intent of the 22nd as relating to the office of Vice President at all.
There are only 2 paths to the presidency in this country ultra, to be elected, or to have the President die ind turn power over.
That is it, all, period.
The 12th amendment states that you have to be in an ELECTABLE STATUS to be VP.
The ONLY intended path to the presidency is by election.
Thus, the only designed in, INTENDED PATH to the Presidency, is by election.
The entire purpose of the death succession, is a back-up emergency plan.
No-where in this country, is there intention, nor has there ever been the INTENT, to elect someone who is terminal, EXPECTING THEM TO DIE WHILE IN OFFICE.
Only someone legally able to run for office in an election, may serve as Vice President, so sayeth the 12th amendment to the Constitution.
Clearly the INTENT of the 12th has nothing to do with TERM LIMITS and all to do with QUALIFICATIONS. Based on only this a prior 2 term President is clearly eligible for the office. The INTENT of the 22nd relates to term limits of President and not the qualifications for said office.
You can preach your opinion until you turn blue, and it matters not until a prior 2 term President puts the legality of this issue to the test. Anyone who understands law, knows this. The 22nd needs to be amended to read "may not serve" if this is it's intent.

[OKIE-JET]

Say what you will, but it reads very clear to me.

[never_fast_enuf]

Ultra, it is an interesting theory and fun to talk about but it would never happen. Cleary it breaks the spirit and intent of the 22nd ammendment.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Ultra, it is an interesting theory and fun to talk about but it would never happen. Cleary it breaks the spirit and intent of the 22nd ammendment.
This time we don't agree. BTW, this is not my theory, it is believed to be true by some Federal Judges and very competent legal minds.
Still hoping that Tex will chime in

[redneckcharlie]

Ultra, it is an interesting theory and fun to talk about but it would never happen. Cleary it breaks the spirit and intent of the 22nd ammendment.
You know you can't use logic in this type of arguement. :D

[ULTRA26 # 1]

You know you can't use logic in this type of arguement. :D
You're right. Only facts apply.

[eliminatedsprinter]

The relationship seems pretty clear to me. The 12th amendment states basically that, nobody that is inelegible to run for president can run for vice president. The 22nd amendment created the limit on how many times one can be president. Because of the 22nd amendment President Clinton may not run for president agian, thus he also may not run for VP either. Semantic tricks with the exact language aside, it is pretty clear that when the 22nd amendment was drafted, they didn't want former presidents to run for VP as a back door method of getting back in the White House. It is also pretty obvious that they would have felt the last line of the 12th amendment would prevent that.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

The relationship seems pretty clear to me. The 12th amendment states basically that, nobody that is inelegible to run for president can run for vice president. The 22nd amendment created the limit on how many times one can be president. Because of the 22nd amendment President Clinton may not run for president agian, thus he also may not run for VP either. Semantic tricks with the exact language aside, it is pretty clear that when the 22nd amendment was drafted, they didn't want former presidents to run for VP as a back door method of getting back in the White House. It is also pretty obvious that they would have felt the last line of the 12th amendment would prevent that.
ES,
I don't believe that when the 22nd was drafted that the authors even considered the VP issue. If this were the case, the language in the 22nd would read "serve" and would specifically address the issue of Vice President. I view the intent of the 22nd as a means to stop the FDR types from being elected over and over and over again, thus the word "elected". If the intent of the 22nd was actually "can't serve" why wasn't it written "can't serve"?

[eliminatedsprinter]

ES,
I don't believe that when the 22nd was drafted that the authors even considered the VP issue. If this were the case, the language in the 22nd would read "serve" and would specifically address the issue of Vice President. I view the intent of the 22nd as a means to stop the FDR types from being elected over and over and over again, thus the word "elected". If the intent of the 22nd was actually "can't serve" why wasn't it written "can't serve"?
No doubt because they wanted to add additional emphisis on the fact that we select our Presidents by election. It is something our nation has always taken pride in and it does not suprise me one bit, esp when one recalls the times the 22nd amendment was written in (democracy had just defeted fascism).

[donzi5150]

This is brilliant...
Parable of the Ant and the Grasshopper
TRADITIONAL VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his
house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for your self!
*****MODERN VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his
house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and
demands to know why the ant should be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving. CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they s ing, "It's Not Easy Being Green." Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, "We shall overcome." Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake. Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share. Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer! The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government. Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients. The ant loses the case.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who
terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2008.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Anyone affected by these statements, is not available to try to become president ever again.
Not stated anywhere
You mean like the CAIA saying that one of the qualifications to have a covert status is" an agent must be stationed overseas within 5 years" does not state that "home station work in Virginia for 7 years ends covert status".
Anyone affected by these statements, is not available to try to become president ever again.
Not stated anywhere
Yes, it is.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,
That states that, after being elected twice, that person WILL NOT DO IT AGAIN.
no person who has held the office of President, shall be elected to the office of the President more than once
This states that, after being president once, for their full term, they WILL ONLY BE ELECTED ONE MORE TIME.
no person who has 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.
a PERSON WHO SERVES 2 YEARS OR MORE OF SOMEONE ELSES TERM, can only be elected to their own term ONCE!
It says EXACTLY THIS Anyone affected by these statements, is not available to try to become president ever again. and just uses a lot more words to do it.
English COMPREHENSION. Try some on this weekend. I advise a night class.
We are not talking about trying to become President we are tailing about Vice President
Per the 12th AMENDMENT, Nobody can be Vice President UNLESS THEY ARE ABLE TO LEGALLY BE PRESIDENT ON THEIR OWN.
The 2 are tied together, linked, ON PURPOSE.
When a VP is elected, it is not the intent of the people to elect the VP, to the office of President, except in the case of emergency secession.
The Constitution shows NOTHING to voter intent. It speaks to LEGAL ABILITY AND ELIGIBILITY.
A person who has served the limits of their time, per the law, as President of the US, CANNOT BE President AGAIN, NOR CAN THEY BE Vice President, no matter who they are, nor how many of the public desire it.
Without constitutional change, they cannot hold either office again.
I don't see the intent of the 22nd as relating to the office of Vice President at all.
Then you are again, a blinder-wearing, word-parsing idiot, intent on denying reality, even as it stares you in the face and explains itself to you.
The 22nd defines who can be President.
The 12th states that those EXACT SAME CRITERIA define who can be Vice President.
Word Parsing, not allowed here Bill, er, John.
Just like you are over the "outing" of Valerie Wilson, even tho you cannot explain to me what crime was committed. You are certain one was committed tho, even after 5 readings of the law to you, which prove that it was NOT committed.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

You mean like the CAIA saying that one of the qualifications to have a covert status is" an agent must be stationed overseas within 5 years" does not state that "home station work in Virginia for 7 years ends covert status".
Yes, it is.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,
That states that, after being elected twice, that person WILL NOT DO IT AGAIN.
no person who has held the office of President, shall be elected to the office of the President more than once
This states that, after being president once, for their full term, they WILL ONLY BE ELECTED ONE MORE TIME.
no person who has 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.
a PERSON WHO SERVES 2 YEARS OR MORE OF SOMEONE ELSES TERM, can only be elected to their own term ONCE!
It says EXACTLY THIS and just uses a lot more words to do it.
English COMPREHENSION. Try some on this weekend. I advise a night class.
Per the 12th AMENDMENT, Nobody can be Vice President UNLESS THEY ARE ABLE TO LEGALLY BE PRESIDENT ON THEIR OWN.
The 2 are tied together, linked, ON PURPOSE.
The Constitution shows NOTHING to voter intent. It speaks to LEGAL ABILITY AND ELIGIBILITY.
A person who has served the limits of their time, per the law, as President of the US, CANNOT BE President AGAIN, NOR CAN THEY BE Vice President, no matter who they are, nor how many of the public desire it.
Without constitutional change, they cannot hold either office again.
Then you are again, a blinder-wearing, word-parsing idiot, intent on denying reality, even as it stares you in the face and explains itself to you.
The 22nd defines who can be President.
The 12th states that those EXACT SAME CRITERIA define who can be Vice President.
Word Parsing, not allowed here Bill, er, John.
Just like you are over the "outing" of Valerie Wilson, even tho you cannot explain to me what crime was committed. You are certain one was committed tho, even after 5 readings of the law to you, which prove that it was NOT committed.
No point in talking to you, as you are about as narrow minded as they get. I could respond to the personal sh*t, but again there is no point. There are quite a few much more educated and legally minded folks than you who disagree.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Well, this is starting to get a bit redundant.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:;)

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Well, this is starting to get a bit redundant.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:;)
And insulting too

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Well, this is starting to get a bit redundant.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:;)
Only because some people continue to deny reality, and refuse to listen to facts.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Only because some people continue to deny reality, and refuse to listen to facts.
I agree. The literal language of the law is a fact that can't be overlooked as a reality.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Sorry ES but I would like to bring up another point and/or question for Smokin.
Ouote Smokin
It says EXACTLY THIS
Quote:
Anyone affected by these statements, is not available to try to become president ever again.
There doesn't seem to be any law that precludes a previous 2 term President from legally becoming Speaker of the House. In my opinion this creates more ambiguity in the 22nd as the Speaker is 3rd in succession and could legally serve as President.
BTW Smokin, this has nothing to do with Dems or Reps, its about flaws in the 22nd that should be correceted. Laws can not allow more than one interpration, whether accurate or not.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

There doesn't seem to be any law that precludes a previous 2 term President from legally becoming Speaker of the House. .
You actually have SOMETHING correct. Bill Clinton COULD BE Speaker of the House.
So could Arnold Swartzeneger(sp).
Or George Soros.
Or Paris Hilton.
Then, if something happened that killed both the President AND VP, the Speaker WOULD NOT BE ELIGABLE.
Clinton is barred from serving ever again as President by the 22nd ammendment of the constitution.
Arnold is barred by being foreign born, as is Soros. Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution itself.
Paris Hilton is barred by AGE. Again, Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution itself.
The Speaker of the House of Represdentatives would have to be SKIPPED, and the NEXT PERSON IN LINE is considered, and the next, and the next, and the next, UNTILL AN ELIGiBLE PERSON IS FOUND.
The Senate President Pro Tempore.
Again, a job Bill Clinton COULD HOLD, but, from which, he is STILL NOT ABLE to accend to the presidency.
In my opinion this creates more ambiguity in the 22nd as the Speaker is 3rd in succession and could legally serve as President. .
Good god you are thick-headed ultra.
Yes, UNLESS THAT PERSON WAS BARRED FROM THE OFFICE BY THE 22ND AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION!
Then you go to:
President pro tempore of the Senate
Secretary of State
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary of Commerce -- Current occupant IS INELIGIBLE. (Cuban born)
Secretary of Labor -- Current occupant IS INELIGIBLE. (Taiwanese born)
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Secretary of Homeland Security
If any of the occupants of the above ofices were tasked with the ofice of EITHER the Presidency OR the Vice Presidency, they STILL HAVE TO BE CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE.
2 of the current ones CANNOT.
People CAN BE Representatives, Senators, and Cabinet Members who CANNOT BE PRESIDENT.
its about flaws in the 22nd that should be correceted. Laws can not allow more than one interpration, whether accurate or not.
So far, the only interpretations you seem to keep inventing, are blatantly in opposition to the wording of the law itself you want "fixed".
This country ELECTS presidents.
The 22nd Amendment to the consitution states very clearly who CANNOT BE ELECTED after they have had the job.
"Serves" does not enter into the equasion, no matter how badly you want it to.
Do I have to spell it out FURTHER?????????

[SmokinLowriderSS]

I agree. The literal language of the law is a fact that can't be overlooked as a reality.
Then why do you keep doing just that?

[ULTRA26 # 1]

You actually have SOMETHING correct. Bill Clinton COULD BE Speaker of the House.
So could Arnold Swartzeneger(sp).
Or George Soros.
Or Paris Hilton.
Then, if something happened that killed both the President AND VP, the Speaker WOULD NOT BE ELIGABLE.
Clinton is barred from serving ever again as President by the 22nd ammendment of the constitution.
Arnold is barred by being foreign born, as is Soros. Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution itself.
Paris Hilton is barred by AGE. Again, Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution itself.
The Speaker of the House of Represdentatives would have to be SKIPPED, and the NEXT PERSON IN LINE is considered, and the next, and the next, and the next, UNTILL AN ELIGiBLE PERSON IS FOUND.
The Senate President Pro Tempore.
Again, a job Bill Clinton COULD HOLD, but, from which, he is STILL NOT ABLE to accend to the presidency.
Good god you are thick-headed ultra.
Yes, UNLESS THAT PERSON WAS BARRED FROM THE OFFICE BY THE 22ND AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION!
Then you go to:
President pro tempore of the Senate
Secretary of State
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary of Commerce -- Current occupant IS INELIGIBLE. (Cuban born)
Secretary of Labor -- Current occupant IS INELIGIBLE. (Taiwanese born)
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Secretary of Homeland Security
If any of the occupants of the above ofices were tasked with the ofice of EITHER the Presidency OR the Vice Presidency, they STILL HAVE TO BE CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE.
2 of the current ones CANNOT.
People CAN BE Representatives, Senators, and Cabinet Members who CANNOT BE PRESIDENT.
So far, the only interpretations you seem to keep inventing, are blatantly in opposition to the wording of the law itself you want "fixed".
This country ELECTS presidents.
The 22nd Amendment to the consitution states very clearly who CANNOT BE ELECTED after they have had the job.
"Serves" does not enter into the equasion, no matter how badly you want it to.
Do I have to spell it out FURTHER?????????
WRONG AGAIN!. There is abolutly nothing that bars the Speaker of the House, (prior 2 time elected President) from becoming President by sucession. The 22nd does bar this nor does anything else.
Clinton is barred from serving ever again as President by the 22nd ammendment of the constitution.
This is a misstatement of the written language of the 22nd amendment and you know it.
Arnold is barred by being foreign born, as is Soros. Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution itself.
This statement is accurate based on the written law.
"Serves" does not enter into the equasion, no matter how badly you want it to. Clinton is barred from serving ever again as President
Make up your mind. Is he barred from "serving" or not?
I guess I shouldn't expect someone in your profession to understand this. While you are very good at searching the internet, your comprehension of written law is weak at best.
This country ELECTS presidents.
The 22nd Amendment to the consitution states very clearly who CANNOT BE ELECTED after they have had the job.
Not in the case of secession

[ULTRA26 # 1]

You actually have SOMETHING correct. Bill Clinton COULD BE Speaker of the House.
So could Arnold Swartzeneger(sp).
Or George Soros.
Or Paris Hilton.
Then, if something happened that killed both the President AND VP, the Speaker WOULD NOT BE ELIGABLE.
Clinton is barred from serving ever again as President by the 22nd ammendment of the constitution.
Arnold is barred by being foreign born, as is Soros. Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution itself.
Paris Hilton is barred by AGE. Again, Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution itself.
The Speaker of the House of Represdentatives would have to be SKIPPED, and the NEXT PERSON IN LINE is considered, and the next, and the next, and the next, UNTILL AN ELIGiBLE PERSON IS FOUND.
The Senate President Pro Tempore.
Again, a job Bill Clinton COULD HOLD, but, from which, he is STILL NOT ABLE to accend to the presidency.
Good god you are thick-headed ultra.
Yes, UNLESS THAT PERSON WAS BARRED FROM THE OFFICE BY THE 22ND AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION!
Then you go to:
President pro tempore of the Senate
Secretary of State
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary of Commerce -- Current occupant IS INELIGIBLE. (Cuban born)
Secretary of Labor -- Current occupant IS INELIGIBLE. (Taiwanese born)
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Secretary of Homeland Security
If any of the occupants of the above ofices were tasked with the ofice of EITHER the Presidency OR the Vice Presidency, they STILL HAVE TO BE CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE.
2 of the current ones CANNOT.
People CAN BE Representatives, Senators, and Cabinet Members who CANNOT BE PRESIDENT.
So far, the only interpretations you seem to keep inventing, are blatantly in opposition to the wording of the law itself you want "fixed".
This country ELECTS presidents.
The 22nd Amendment to the consitution states very clearly who CANNOT BE ELECTED after they have had the job.
"Serves" does not enter into the equasion, no matter how badly you want it to.
Do I have to spell it out FURTHER?????????
WRONG AGAIN!. There is abolutly nothing that bars the Speaker of the House, (prior 2 time elected President) from becoming President by sucession. The 22nd does bar this nor does anything else.
Clinton is barred from serving ever again as President by the 22nd ammendment of the constitution.
This is a misstatement of the written language of the 22nd amendment and you know it.
Arnold is barred by being foreign born, as is Soros. Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution itself.
This statement is accurate based on the written law.
"Serves" does not enter into the equasion, no matter how badly you want it to. Clinton is barred from serving ever again as President
Make up your mind. Is he barred from "serving" or not?
I guess I shouldn't expect someone in your profession to understand this. While you are very good at searching the internet, your comprehension of written law is weak at best.
This country ELECTS presidents..
Not in the case of succession
The 22nd Amendment to the consitution states very clearly who CANNOT BE ELECTED after they have had the job
The 22nd deals with elected term kimits.

[centerhill condor]

a plan he said will cut taxes for millions of Americans by a total of $80B or more a year, financed partly by higher rates on capital gains and dividends. Clinton and Edwards also propose such plans.
cut taxes on the poor and hang the rich...big surprise there. By definition the poor don't pay much tax.
More of the same...interesting how Ireland, long underperformer economically, has become the "Celtic Tiger" by cutting corporate and other taxes.
I've never understood how raising taxes on anybody is "progressive". Progressive is dem/lib/commie talk for "income redistribution".
CC

[ULTRA26 # 1]

a plan he said will cut taxes for millions of Americans by a total of $80B or more a year, financed partly by higher rates on capital gains and dividends. Clinton and Edwards also propose such plans.
cut taxes on the poor and hang the rich...big surprise there. By definition the poor don't pay much tax.
More of the same...interesting how Ireland, long underperformer economically, has become the "Celtic Tiger" by cutting corporate and other taxes.
I've never understood how raising taxes on anybody is "progressive". Progressive is dem/lib/commie talk for "income redistribution".
CC
If you are in a middle class tax bracket, this might lower your taxes.
There you go with the commie talk again. :confused:

[centerhill condor]

There you go with the commie talk again. :confused:
if the shoe fits...pound the podium with it!
CC

[OutCole'd]

If you are in a middle class tax bracket, this might lower your taxes.
But if you are in a upper tax bracket, your taxes may be raised, right?? I think I pay too much in taxes now, I really don't want to pay any more.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

if the shoe fits...pound the podium with it!
CC
What makes you better than the commie/dems?
But if you are in a upper tax bracket, your taxes may be raised, right?? I think I pay too much in taxes now, I really don't want to pay any more.
I'm with you. I believe my taxes would go up as well, and I already pay too much

[SmokinLowriderSS]

WRONG AGAIN!. There is abolutly nothing that bars the Speaker of the House, (prior 2 time elected President) from becoming President by sucession. The 22nd does bar this nor does anything else. .
You ARE actually this stupid?
All Presidents MUST BE CONSTITUTIONALLY ABLE TO BE PRESIDENT. There are no such restrictions on speaker of the house.
A person born in Germany (or Mexico) could be Speaker.
They CANNOT BE PRESIDENT, per Article 2 of the constitution.
Jesus Christ you are stupid.
A Speaker, who fails to meet the eligibility requirements of Article 2, OR the 22nd amendment CANNOT be president.
Holy shi+ I thought there was a limit to your stupidity. :eek:
Clinton is barred from serving ever again as President by the 22nd ammendment of the constitution.
This is a misstatement of the written language of the 22nd amendment and you know it. .
A misstatement of "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice"?????
[Arnold is barred by being foreign born, as is Soros. Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution itself.
This statement is accurate based on the written law.
At least you can comprehend SOMETHING!
"Serves" does not enter into the equasion, no matter how badly you want it to. Clinton is barred from serving ever again as President
Make up your mind. Is he barred from "serving" or not? .
He is barred from ever HOLDING THE OFFICE, regardless of you wanting to use the term "elected" or "served".
Damn, and just when I thought there was a limit to your stupidity.
Per yopur "hypothetical", Clinton CAN hold the office of Speaker, BUT, since he is not able to ever assume the office of the presidency again, he would be SKIPPED, to the Senate President Pro Tempore.
If THAT PERSON was ineligible THEY would be SKIPPED, to the Secretary Of State.
If THAT PERSON was ineligible, they go to the Secretary of the Treasury.
And on, to the Sec. Of Defence
and on, to the Atty. General
and on, to the Sec. Of the Interior
untill reaching a person who is constitutionally able to BE ELECTED TO THE PRESIDENCY, per the 2nd article and 22nd amendment to the constitution.
Then, they keep going, untill they get to ANOTHER PERSON who is ELIGIBLE, per the 2nd article, the 22nd amendment, AND THE 12th amendment, and THEY are selected as V.P., and will accept it.
The FULL LIST goes ALL THE WAY THRU CONGRESS, BOTH HOUSES.
Concievably, THE MOST JUNIOR MEMBER OF CONGRESS, in the House of Representatives, COULD BECOME President,
IF!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They were 35 years old
Been in USA The Last 14 years
Were BORN HERE IN THE USA
HAD NOT BEEN PRESIDENT BEFORE, OR HAD BEEN WITHIN THE GUIDELINES/LIMITS OF THE 22ND AMENDMENT.
People can be representatives, WHO CANNOT BE PRESIDENT!!!!!!!
Christ what an idiot!
Do you have ANY IDEA just how stupid you look arguing that the constitution does not say what it says???? :idea:
I guess not. :jawdrop:

[SmokinLowriderSS]

If you are in a middle class tax bracket, this might lower your taxes.
The last "Tax increase on the rich" I saw happen, increased taxes all the way down to 35k a year income level.
Is 35K a year RICH ultra?
Just exactly WHAT is "Middle Income" then ultra????

[ULTRA26 # 1]

The last "Tax increase on the rich" I saw happen, increased taxes all the way down to 35k a year income level.
Is 35K a year RICH ultra?
Just exactly WHAT is "Middle Income" then ultra????
35K a year has never been considered RICH in my lifetime, and I've been around about 17 years longer than you. Through the 70's 35K was considered middle income. While there may have been a tax increase on wage earners above poverty level that included those making 35K, I am unaware of a time where 35K was ever considered rich.
From wik
Lower middle class
According to sociologists such as Dennis Gilbert of Cornell University, the middle class is divided into only two groups: the upper middle and lower middle class.[25] As mentioned above, the upper middle class, according to Gilbert as well as Thompson & Hickey, constitutes roughly 15% of the population. The lower middle class is the second most populous according to both models, constituting roughly one third of the population, the same percentage as the working class. However, according to James M. Henslin, who also divides the middle class into two sub-groups, the lower middle class is the most populous, constituting 34% of the population.[5] In all three class models the lower middle class is said to consist of "semi-professionals" and lower level white collar employees. An adaptation by sociologists Brian K. William, Stacy C. Sawyer and Carl M. Wahlstrom of Dennis Gilbert's class model gave the following description of the lower middle class:[5]
The lower middle class… these are people in technical and lower-level management positions who work for those in the upper middle class as lower managers, craftspeople, and the like. They enjoy a reasonably comfortable standard of living, although it is constantly threatened by taxes and inflation. Generally, they have a high school educational and perhaps some college or apprenticeship education.
As social classes lack clear boundaries and overlap there are no definite income thresholds as for what is considered middle class. Sociologist Leonard Beeghley identifies a male making $57,000 and a female making $40,000 with a combined households income of $97,000 as a typical middle class family.[31] Sociologists William Thompson and Joseph Hickey estimate an income range of roughly $35,000 to $75,000 for the lower middle class and $100,000 or more for the upper middle class. Many social scientists including economist Micheal Zweig and sociologist Dennis Gilbert contend that middle class persons usually have above median incomes.
You ARE actually this stupid?
All Presidents MUST BE CONSTITUTIONALLY ABLE TO BE PRESIDENT. There are no such restrictions on speaker of the house.
A person born in Germany (or Mexico) could be Speaker.
They CANNOT BE PRESIDENT, per Article 2 of the constitution.
Jesus Christ you are stupid.
A Speaker, who fails to meet the eligibility requirements of Article 2, OR the 22nd amendment CANNOT be president.
Holy shi+ I thought there was a limit to your stupidity. :eek:
A misstatement of "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice"?????
At least you can comprehend SOMETHING!
He is barred from ever HOLDING THE OFFICE, regardless of you wanting to use the term "elected" or "served".
Damn, and just when I thought there was a limit to your stupidity.
Per yopur "hypothetical", Clinton CAN hold the office of Speaker, BUT, since he is not able to ever assume the office of the presidency again, he would be SKIPPED, to the Senate President Pro Tempore.
If THAT PERSON was ineligible THEY would be SKIPPED, to the Secretary Of State.
If THAT PERSON was ineligible, they go to the Secretary of the Treasury.
And on, to the Sec. Of Defence
and on, to the Atty. General
and on, to the Sec. Of the Interior
untill reaching a person who is constitutionally able to BE ELECTED TO THE PRESIDENCY, per the 2nd article and 22nd amendment to the constitution.
Then, they keep going, untill they get to ANOTHER PERSON who is ELIGIBLE, per the 2nd article, the 22nd amendment, AND THE 12th amendment, and THEY are selected as V.P., and will accept it.
The FULL LIST goes ALL THE WAY THRU CONGRESS, BOTH HOUSES.
Concievably, THE MOST JUNIOR MEMBER OF CONGRESS, in the House of Representatives, COULD BECOME President,
IF!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They were 35 years old
Been in USA The Last 14 years
Were BORN HERE IN THE USA
HAD NOT BEEN PRESIDENT BEFORE, OR HAD BEEN WITHIN THE GUIDELINES/LIMITS OF THE 22ND AMENDMENT.
People can be representatives, WHO CANNOT BE PRESIDENT!!!!!!!
Christ what an idiot!
Do you have ANY IDEA just how stupid you look arguing that the constitution does not say what it says???? :idea:
I guess not. :jawdrop:
I'm not the one who has displayed stupidity here. By law, a prior two term President may can become President again through secession, whether you like it or not. It is a legal fact. If you don't like this, I suggest you contact your Congressman and begin a push for an amendment to the Constitution.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

I'm not the one who has displayed stupidity here. By law, a prior two term President may can become President again through secession.
No, he/she CANNOT.
The 22nd amendment denies that person the ability to hold the office.
whether you like it or not. It is a legal fact.
Back it up.
Just where is it in some legal brief, a LEGAL FACT?
It is your opinion, which happens to be wrong, again.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

President again through secession
se·ces·sion (s-sshn)
n.
1. The act of seceding.
2. often Secession The withdrawal of 11 Southern states from the Union in 1860-1861, precipitating the U.S. Civil War.
suc·ces·sion (sək-sĕsh'ən)
n.
The act or process of following in order or sequence.
A group of people or things arranged or following in order; a sequence: “A succession of one-man stalls offered soft drinks” (Alec Waugh). See synonyms at series.
The sequence in which one person after another succeeds to a title, throne, dignity, or estate.
The right of a person or line of persons to so succeed.
The person or line having such a right.
The act or process of succeeding to the rights or duties of another.
The act or process of becoming entitled as a legal beneficiary to the property of a deceased person.
You not only got the law wrong, again, you got ENGLISH wrong, Again.
I suggest you "investigate" more.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

se·ces·sion (s-sshn)
n.
1. The act of seceding.
2. often Secession The withdrawal of 11 Southern states from the Union in 1860-1861, precipitating the U.S. Civil War.
suc·ces·sion (sək-sĕsh'ən)
n.
The act or process of following in order or sequence.
A group of people or things arranged or following in order; a sequence: “A succession of one-man stalls offered soft drinks” (Alec Waugh). See synonyms at series.
The sequence in which one person after another succeeds to a title, throne, dignity, or estate.
The right of a person or line of persons to so succeed.
The person or line having such a right.
The act or process of succeeding to the rights or duties of another.
The act or process of becoming entitled as a legal beneficiary to the property of a deceased person.
You not only got the law wrong, again, you got ENGLISH wrong, Again.
I suggest you "investigate" more.
Smokin, a spell check error. You don't want me picking apart your typos and misspelled words do you? I could have a field day.
I know what the words mean.
Elect
elect
2 entries found for elect.
To select an entry, click on it.
elect[3,verb]self-elected
Main Entry: 3elect
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin electus
transitive verb
1 : to select by vote for an office, position, or membership <elected her class president
Do you see the word serve here? How about the word bar or barred?
It's a pleasure to see you showing everyone how foolish you can be:D :D

[redneckcharlie]

35K a year has never been considered RICH in my lifetime, and I've been around about 17 years longer than you. Through the 70's 35K was considered middle income. While there may have been a tax increase on wage earners above poverty level that included those making 35K, I am unaware of a time where 35K was ever considered rich.
From wik
Lower middle class
According to sociologists such as Dennis Gilbert of Cornell University, the middle class is divided into only two groups: the upper middle and lower middle class.[25] As mentioned above, the upper middle class, according to Gilbert as well as Thompson & Hickey, constitutes roughly 15% of the population. The lower middle class is the second most populous according to both models, constituting roughly one third of the population, the same percentage as the working class. However, according to James M. Henslin, who also divides the middle class into two sub-groups, the lower middle class is the most populous, constituting 34% of the population.[5] In all three class models the lower middle class is said to consist of "semi-professionals" and lower level white collar employees. An adaptation by sociologists Brian K. William, Stacy C. Sawyer and Carl M. Wahlstrom of Dennis Gilbert's class model gave the following description of the lower middle class:[5]
The lower middle class… these are people in technical and lower-level management positions who work for those in the upper middle class as lower managers, craftspeople, and the like. They enjoy a reasonably comfortable standard of living, although it is constantly threatened by taxes and inflation. Generally, they have a high school educational and perhaps some college or apprenticeship education.
As social classes lack clear boundaries and overlap there are no definite income thresholds as for what is considered middle class. Sociologist Leonard Beeghley identifies a male making $57,000 and a female making $40,000 with a combined households income of $97,000 as a typical middle class family.[31] Sociologists William Thompson and Joseph Hickey estimate an income range of roughly $35,000 to $75,000 for the lower middle class and $100,000 or more for the upper middle class. Many social scientists including economist Micheal Zweig and sociologist Dennis Gilbert contend that middle class persons usually have above median incomes.
I'm not the one who has displayed stupidity here. By law, a prior two term President may can become President again through secession, whether you like it or not. It is a legal fact. If you don't like this, I suggest you contact your Congressman and begin a push for an amendment to the Constitution.
When did your hypethetical situation argument become fact? I guess I missed that post? Did you come up with case law to support your argument? I'm curious, have you ever been wrong in your position in an argument? From what I've seen on this forum, you never have(according to you). I saw a good bumper sticker on a car in San Diego a couple weeks ago. It said " Don't always think that what you believe is true ". ;)

[ULTRA26 # 1]

When did your hypethetical situation argument become fact? I guess I missed that post? Did you come up with case law to support your argument? I'm curious, have you ever been wrong in your position in an argument? From what I've seen on this forum, you never have(according to you). I saw a good bumper sticker on a car in San Diego a couple weeks ago. It said " Don't always think that what you believe is true ". ;)
Charlie,
I have been wrong more than once, and have always been man enough to admit it and if appropriate, apologize for wasting peoples time.
With regard to the 22nd amendment, my opinion, as is many other vary qualified legal minds, is that the language isn't not clear.
Nothing factual about the hypothetical
There is nothing in the 22nd amendment that states that a prior two term President, may not hold the office of President again by succession. It's difficult to be wrong about this as the 22nd amendment in no way addresses this issue no matter what others assert.

[Milton04]

The same quesstion could be raised about W. Obama probably doesn't matter as Team Clinton seems to be coming on strong on the Dem side. Thompson needs to get to work[/QUOTE]
I worry that Clinton will get the Dem nomination and then she will "Contribute" $10-$20 million to 3rd party and that will derail the Republican's all the way. And yes you are right, Thompson needs to giddy up!!!

[redneckcharlie]

Charlie,
I have been wrong more than once, and have always been man enough to admit it and if appropriate, apologize for wasting peoples time.
With regard to the 22nd amendment, my opinion, as is many other vary qualified legal minds, is that the language isn't not clear.
Nothing factual about the hypothetical
There is nothing in the 22nd amendment that states that a prior two term President, may not hold the office of President again by succession. It's difficult to be wrong about this as the 22nd amendment in no way addresses this issue no matter what others assert.
There is absolutely no way to misinterpret the intent of the law. It was written to avoid the very situation you and others(others being those brilliant legal minds that support your position) are trying to support. When the laws were written, the originators of the law could never fathom that there would be an ex presidents wife that would be running for the office of president. That is most likely due to the culture of the time, and where society put a womans standing in it. Never the less, you have people now that will try to exploit that situation for there own benefit. This can be argued any way you want, it is nothing more than an end around the constitution, plain and simple!

[Milton04]

I know that I will get a lot of shiat for this, but I agree with Ultra26 in what he is trying to state. While I am not a Fed judge, I do see his point. Bill Clinton would not be elected as President, he would elected as VP and then if Hillary was ousted, he would not be elected, he would be moved into the Presidency. Ammendment 22 is very confusing and written very losely. Just my 2c's.
Milton

[ULTRA26 # 1]

The same quesstion could be raised about W. Obama probably doesn't matter as Team Clinton seems to be coming on strong on the Dem side. Thompson needs to get to work
I worry that Clinton will get the Dem nomination and then she will "Contribute" $10-$20 million to 3rd party and that will derail the Republican's all the way. And yes you are right, Thompson needs to giddy up!!!
Agreed
There is absolutely no way to misinterpret the intent of the law. It was written to avoid the very situation you and others(others being those brilliant legal minds that support your position) are trying to support. When the laws were written, the originators of the law could never fathom that there would be an ex presidents wife that would be running for the office of president. That is most likely due to the culture of the time, and where society put a womans standing in it. Never the less, you have people now that will try to exploit that situation for there own benefit. This can be argued any way you want, it is nothing more than an end around the constitution, plain and simple!
Charile,
Forget the issue of VP and consider the matter of a 2 term President who legally became Speaker of the House. If both the President and the Vice President became unable to perform their duties, the next in line for the office is Speaker of the House. NOTHING in the 22nd amendment restricts this Speaker of the House, from becoming President by succession, period.
No attempt to exploit, twist or confuse the language of the Constitution here
just plain and simple facts.
Another view to interpret the 22nd is what would be better for the Country
Example
Ronald Reagan, after being President for two terms, legally becomes Speaker of the House and Obama is President pro tem.
Both the Pres and Vice Pres become incapable of performing their duties.
The Constitution states that Reagan is the successor. Reagan is clearly the most qualified to assume the position. No Congress, Senate or Supreme Court is going to skip over Reagan and make Obama President, because of the elected to 2 term limit language stated in the 22nd.

[redneckcharlie]

I love how the 12th amendment is completely ignored in this whole thing. This is a pointless argument. I wonder what my old mans reaction would have been when he told me NOT to go outside because I was on restriction(as a child). But, he found me outside on the front porch with my friends. And I inturn told him that I wasn't technically "outside" because the porch is still part of the house, and to be "outside" I would have had to been off the porch. I'm done with this. Its a complete waste of time at this point. Peace. :rolleyes:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I love how the 12th amendment is completely ignored in this whole thing. This is a pointless argument. I wonder what my old mans reaction would have been when he told me NOT to go outside because I was on restriction(as a child). But, he found me outside on the front porch with my friends. And I inturn told him that I wasn't technically "outside" because the porch is still part of the house, and to be "outside" I would have had to been off the porch. I'm done with this. Its a complete waste of time at this point. Peace. :rolleyes:
Sorry you are unable to comprehend that in the case of the Speaker of the House, the 12th amendment doesn't apply, AT ALL.

[redneckcharlie]

Sorry you are unable to comprehend that in the case of the Speaker of the House, the 12th amendment doesn't apply, AT ALL.
Well I lied, I'm responding again. My comprehension is fine, read the 12th amendment. Its yours that is highly suspect here. Your hypothetical situation started out with Clinton as VP, now its moved down to Speaker. Do you think maybe all this time and effort towards a pointless arguement should be put towards something that actually matters? I can think of dozens of of problems facing this country at this moment that could use some attention. :rolleyes:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Well I lied, I'm responding again. My comprehension is fine, read the 12th amendment. Its yours that is highly suspect here. Your hypothetical situation started out with Clinton as VP, now its moved down to Speaker. Do you think maybe all this time and effort towards a pointless arguement should be put towards something that actually matters? I can think of dozens of of problems facing this country at this moment that could use some attention. :rolleyes:
What is your opinion regarding the Speaker?

[never_fast_enuf]

I suspect that if any of these scenarios ever did take place, the person who served two previous presidential terms would be passed over in the event that they would somehow find themselves in a situation to become president again.
The intent of the 22 amendment is clear. Two terms...period

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I suspect that if any of these scenarios ever did take place, the person who served two previous presidential terms would be passed over in the event that they would somehow find themselves in a situation to become president again.
The intent of the 22 amendment is clear. Two terms...period
I give you credit for viewing this with more intelligence than your buddy Smokin.
I'm surprised that Tex won't chime it here. He probabaly wants to be honest which means he might have some agreement with me, which is a sin here. :D

[never_fast_enuf]

I will add that I think there would be an immediate challenge to the supreme court if any current two term president ran for VP. I also think that same two term president would not come out on top.

[Old Texan]

I give you credit for viewing this with more intelligence than your buddy Smokin.
I'm surprised that Tex won't chime it here. He probabaly wants to be honest which means he might have some agreement with me, which is a sin here. :D
OK., I'll chime in. The issue is open to challenge in court, IF it ever becomes an issue. Chances are very unlikely since Bill Clinton and soon to be George Bush are the only living possibilitiess for the next 10+ years.
I stand by what I've seen of the 12th setting the precedent and think the 22nd is vague and fuzzy plus of small relevance.
Time spent debating an entirely theoretical event of low probability seems quite a waste actually. Time perhaps better spent understanding who George Soros is and what he stands for and against.......Oops, I forgot Soros is irrelevant to you.:devil:
Agreeing with you isn't a sin, it's just difficult to find points of agreement.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

OK., I'll chime in. The issue is open to challenge in court, IF it ever becomes an issue. Chances are very unlikely since Bill Clinton and soon to be George Bush are the only living possibilitiess for the next 10+ years.
I stand by what I've seen of the 12th setting the precedent and think the 22nd is vague and fuzzy plus of small relevance.Time spent debating an entirely theoretical event of low probability seems quite a waste actually. Time perhaps better spent understanding who George Soros is and what he stands for and against.......Oops, I forgot Soros is irrelevant to you.:devil:
Agreeing with you isn't a sin, it's just difficult to find points of agreement.
Interestingly and and maybe unknowingly you have agreed with the main of this argument. :)
Soros is only as relevant as people allow him to be.

[never_fast_enuf]

Soros is only as relevant as people allow him to be.
Soros is as relevant as his MONEY allows him to be. Judging by the dems, that makes him as relevant as anyone in their party.
See, an old dog CAN learn new tricks. :D

[centerhill condor]

That is perhaps the most moronic and naive quote you have made today and trust me, I have a plethora of quotes from which I can choose.
easy there big fella...don't bait the "red card".
All this is really a non issue. None of ya'll are gonna be decidin' what/who/how gets in the oval office. It is in fact another "tar baby" trap. Let ultra have the last word and move on to the next "non issue" to soil your Sunday pants.
This thread gives more evidence of how difficult "self rule" can be.
CC

[never_fast_enuf]

I cleaned the last one up since I posted it before I got the yellow card.:D

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Soros is only as relevant as people allow him to be.
George Soros is $8 BILLION relevant, which is VERY relevant.
You cry on one hand about money controlling a party, yet (as usual) want to ignore he who owns YOUR party. :idea: :idea: