|
|
 |
|
Reply
| | | From: Noserose (Original Message) | Sent: 11/29/2008 12:52 PM |
Clinton For Senate? A little pre-feast political appetizer appears on the op-ed page of the Washington Post this morning, where authors Karl E. Meyer and Shareen Blair Brysac argue that the best replacement in the U.S. Senate for Hillary Clinton should she, as expected, become Secretary of State would be �?her husband, former President Bill Clinton. From the op-ed: Who in his party could question so historic and dazzling a choice? In a stroke, the appointment would provide Sen. Clinton's indefatigable husband with a fitting day job, serve the interests of a state beset by a meltdown in its most vital economic sector and offer a refreshing reverse twist on a tradition whereby deceased male senators, representatives or governors are succeeded by their widows. { What do you think? If he became a Senator could he run for President again? Should he? Are the Clinton's about to re-create themselves once again? If Hillery runs for Prez again could she pick Bill as her Veep? Will the right wing ever rid themselves of the Clinton's? Will Chelsy Clinton run for the Senate? Will "Socks" Clinton become first cat once again? } |
|
Reply
| |
| Alaska is correct, the constitution specifically states that no one who is not qualified to be president can be vice President, either, which is why Madeline Albright, Arnold Schwazanegger, Henry Kissenger and others who might be qualified to be good Vice Presidents could never be elected, legally. Don't feel bad, neither could William Shatner |
|
Reply
| |
Jesus H Christ! It's a joke OP. What a bunch! BTW..."socks" is DEAD! |
|
Reply
| | From:  rnrbill | Sent: 11/30/2008 12:21 AM |
There has already been a move to change the constitutional requirments for Pres. The Repubs wanted to make Ronnie eleigble for a third term and the Dems wanted the same opportunity. The Repubs considered the change for Clinton to seek a 3rd term if the DEMS would allow for a foreign national , who became a citizen of the US to be eligible for the presidency. They were looking at AHNOLD. If we know one thing for certain is that the founding fathers left room for the consiitution to be 'upgraded' to keep up with the inevitable life and time changes. |
|
Reply
| |
MrBill, It's true that the founders allowed for future changes to the constitution. It's called an amendment. Unfortunately, both dems and reps have circumvented that process for generations now in order to advance their respective agendas. They both use an overly broad interpretation of the commerce clause to negeate the tenth amendment. |
|
Reply
| |
| I think that the requirement that you be a natural born citizen is absurd in this day and age. Why penalize someone, like say my son, who came to the US @ 5 months over the fact that somebody's who's parents happened to get the right mix of sperm and egg and produced a child here (or in Panama as John McCain's case). I think if you came to this country before 18 or 21 you should be able to lead it. Arnold may be a stretch, came in his 20's I believe, but would he make such a bad President? I may be biased but why should we disqualify a large percentage of Americans who love this country just as much as someone who was born here? There is much to be said that someone who chose to this country may have a unique love of it based on where they came from. It took us 221 years just to live up to the idea that anyone can be president (except women, of course), why exclude someone who was not born here or came here very young? |
|
Reply
| |
But, he certainly CAN run for her Senate seat. |
|
Reply
| |
I think one of the greatest problems the USA has created for itself is "career politicians". This is something the founders probably never considered because there was no such thing at the time. Career politicians are the main cause of all the unconstitutional amendments that have been enacted in the 20th century+. Bringing in career politicains from other countries is not going to help because by &large they would be bringing in even more socialist ideologies that are currently destroying the AMERICAN way of life. |
|
Reply
| |
once again rose you use the name of the Lord in an offensive way. Do you get real pleasure in offending people of faith? |
|
Reply
| |
Do you get real pleasure in offending people of faith? It seems that Rose gets pleasure from offending as many people as possible, and, she's quite good at it!  |
|
Reply
| |
When they are religious right wing fanatics like you Ransomed....yes I do. For serious Christians.....they will not be offended by anything I say. |
|
Reply
| |
You can be nice when you want to driver. Why must you also be so horrible so often??? |
|
Reply
| |
I could make the same assessment of you, Rose, and would probably be justified. As I've said before, you never really discuss anything... you plop liberal rhetoric out in a post and then personally attack anyone who doesn't share your pov. I do not use ad hom attack as a debating tool as you do, and I don't think I'm the only one who is irritated by that. I'm not, "horrible", Rose, it's just you who thinks I am. |
|
Reply
| | | From: rnrbill | Sent: 12/1/2008 4:16 PM |
:Alaska: Regardless of your post, the fact is it can, has been and in all probability will continue to be changed. There is always quid pro quo in change and that too will continue. Usually for each and every step gained, something is lost. Diaper> firs off McTime is a poor example since he is a natural Born American citizen, just like anyother child of Amricans born foreign countries. As for changes to allow for non American naturalized citizens to be president, see the msj to Alaska. Ever hear of giving an inch? |
|
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
First
Return to General