How To Bring Back Bill - The Orange Mane

Bronco_Beerslug · 09-23-2006, 06:11 AM

This is a great idea! To actually have someone who is intelligent and knows how to run the country back in Washington is just what we need.

-------------------------------------------------------
How to bring back Bill
A Clinton-Clinton 2008 ticket is constitutionally possible.
By Scott E. Gant and Bruce G. Peabody

WASHINGTON, D.C., AND MADISON, N.J. – Americans are nostalgic for the 1990s. They long for a time when terrorism was perceived as a problem confined to foreign lands and when the stock market's rise seemed unstoppable. And, it turns out, many of them miss former President Bill Clinton.

In a recent poll conducted for CNN, respondents favored Mr. Clinton over President Bush on a variety of issues, including policy areas traditionally viewed as GOP strongholds. By a wide margin, those surveyed indicated that Clinton did a better job managing the economy and handling foreign affairs and taxes.

Clinton's resurgent popularity, and Democrats' difficulties in taking over the White House in recent years, might counsel a bold strategy for 2008. Whoever is selected as the Democratic nominee for the next presidential race should consider William Jefferson Clinton as a candidate for vice president.

While the political advisability of such a move is subject to legitimate debate, the legal issues are more straightforward. The only serious question about the constitutionality of Clinton assuming the vice presidency relates to the interplay of the Constitution's 12th and 22nd Amendments.

The 12th Amendment was ratified following the election of 1800, which produced sustained electoral uncertainty after Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, Jefferson's designated vice president, received the same number of electoral votes. The election was sent to the House of Representatives, which took 36 ballots to select Jefferson. The 12th Amendment thereafter required that electoral votes be cast separately for president and vice president, and specified that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president shall be eligible to that of vice president of the United States."

A century and a half later, the states ratified the 22nd Amendment, largely as a response to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's four electoral victories. The amendment bars individuals from being "elected to the office of the president more than twice."

The 22nd Amendment is often described as prohibiting an already twice-elected president, such as Clinton, from again serving as president. But the text of the amendment suggests otherwise. 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. 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.

Clinton's public approval at the time he stepped down from the White House was remarkably high given the voter "fatigue" that normally accompanies a second-term president. Now, nearly six years later, his popularity appears considerable and is seemingly increasing.

Of course, Clinton's spouse, Sen. Hillary Clinton, is viewed as a leading Democratic candidate for president. She would surely have reservations about putting her husband on the 2008 ticket. But Bill Clinton might help energize the Democratic base and defuse arguments that Mrs. Clinton is too liberal.

In the event that Senator Clinton elects not to run in 2008, perhaps an alternate Democratic nominee will have enough self-confidence to consider sharing the stage with the charismatic Bill Clinton in the hopes of recapturing the White House. As for Clinton himself, although there are many reasons why he might decline an invitation to run for vice president, the thrill of another campaign and the lure of a return to the West Wing might be too tempting to resist.

• Scott Gant is a partner with Boies, Schiller & Flexner in Washington. Bruce Peabody is an assistant professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson University in Madison, N.J.

http://tinyurl.com/jfs4v

W*GS · 09-23-2006, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

[...]Americans are nostalgic for the 1990s. They long for a time when terrorism was perceived as a problem confined to foreign lands and when the stock market's rise seemed unstoppable.[...]

In short, bogus peace and bogus prosperity.

Barry Ramey · 09-23-2006, 07:35 AM

Yikes, amazing the fools who believe Clinton was great. Yeah, this country needs more of the FBI and IRS harrassing people like under Clinton.

SteveTensi13 · 09-23-2006, 08:56 AM

Not to mention the ATF and Immigration cops busting into peoples homes grabbing frightened Cuban children seeking asylum at gun point and burning down alternative churches (Waco, TX).

SteveTensi13 · 09-23-2006, 08:57 AM

Not to mention countless sexual harrassment charges and out right rape! Wonder why NOW never said a word about it? Bet if it was a Republican they would've been rioting in the streets. NOW has lost all credibility

Rohirrim · 09-23-2006, 09:05 AM

I was watching Clinton on CSPAN last night. After listening and watching Dubya for six years, it's absolutely remarkable to hear a politician who is competent, knowledgeable, intelligent and logical. His discussion about the problems in the ME was like somebody opened a window and let in some air. It really highlights the chasm between logical, political philosophy, and an ideologue. Like Bubba said, if we have opposing philosophies, we can discuss our differences, but if you are an ideologue and somebody questions you, all you can do is attack them. It really is too bad that the GOP put in that "FDR revenge" term limitation thing. I'm thouroughly convinced, had Bill stayed in office, we'd all be better off to a quantum degree. Now, we have to look forward to cleaning up after George for a decade or two. I still disagree with him about NAFTA, though.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 09-23-2006, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

In a recent poll conducted for CNN, respondents favored Mr. Clinton over President Bush on a variety of issues, including policy areas traditionally viewed as GOP strongholds. By a wide margin, those surveyed indicated that Clinton did a better job managing the economy and handling foreign affairs and taxes.

W*GS must be going absolutely apoplectic over this news.

At any rate, it's obvious that most Americans remember what it was like when we had a real president.

When you compare the illegitimate pinhead and his failed junta to the previous administration, you can appreciate the extent to which this country has gone to the dogs these past six years.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 09-23-2006, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveTensi13

Not to mention the ATF and Immigration cops busting into peoples homes grabbing frightened Cuban children seeking asylum at gun point...

I would think you'd be pleased with this sort of thing, Clayton (given your takes re: Hispanics and illegal immigrants.)

Stuck In Texas · 09-23-2006, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

At any rate, it's obvious that most Americans remember what it was like when we had a real president.

Yeah, I remember Reagan fondly too! lol... Just needlin' ya.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 09-23-2006, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuck In Texas

Yeah, I remember Reagan fondly too!.

How could anyone forget Red Ink Ron?

More criminal convictions in his administration than any other admin in U.S. history.

Stuck In Texas · 09-23-2006, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

How could anyone forget Red Ink Ron?

More criminal convictions in his administration than any other admin in U.S. history.

As a military man... I loved him. Pay raises and enough money to buy equipment we needed. I wasn't in during the Carter years, but the people I've talked to who were, said it was a huge difference.

Unfortunately there were scandals. Just like in every administration. Sad, but true. I think that's just the state of American politics today, but what-r-u-gonna-do?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 09-23-2006, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuck In Texas

Unfortunately there were scandals. Just like in every administration. Sad, but true. I think that's just the state of American politics today, but what-r-u-gonna-do?

Iran-Contra was more than just a scandal - it was outright treason.

Yet lying about a consensual sexual affair is an impeachable offense, according to republicans.

A man who sells missles to our enemy (Iran) to finance an illegal war (and tries to cover it up) gets an airport named after him while a man who lies about a BJ gets impeached.

That makes about as much sense as a screen door on a submarine.

W*GS · 09-23-2006, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

W*GS must be going absolutely apoplectic over this news.

Hardly. Remember, these are the same Americans you deride as morons on a regular basis. You like your fellow Americans when to some degree they agree with you, but when they disagree, they're a bunch of nincompoops.

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

At any rate, it's obvious that most Americans remember what it was like when we had a real president.

Yep - bogus peace and bogus prosperity.

W*GS · 09-23-2006, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

I would think you'd be pleased with this sort of thing, Clayton (given your takes re: Hispanics and illegal immigrants.)

You and Beerslug want all Hispanics given the Elian Gonzalez treatment...

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 09-24-2006, 12:09 AM

One more encore for W*GS!

Quote:

In a recent poll conducted for CNN, respondents favored Mr. Clinton over President Bush on a variety of issues, including policy areas traditionally viewed as GOP strongholds. By a wide margin, those surveyed indicated that Clinton did a better job managing the economy and handling foreign affairs and taxes.

Can't you just picture steam coming out of W*GS' ears?

Ha ha ha!

W*GS · 09-24-2006, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

One more encore for W*GS!

Can't you just picture steam coming out of W*GS' ears?

Ha ha ha!

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpos...6&postcount=13

Bronco_Beerslug · 09-24-2006, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS

You and Beerslug want all Hispanics given the Elian Gonzalez treatment...

You have a problem with reading comprehension.

W*GS · 09-24-2006, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Like Bubba said, if we have opposing philosophies, we can discuss our differences, but if you are an ideologue and somebody questions you, all you can do is attack them.

Gee, Clinton never attacked anyone...

All that crap coming out of his WH about the "vast right-wing conspiracy", tarring all gun owners with the "militia" (i.e., Tim McVeigh) brush and the whole "hate radio" nonsense are just figments of my imagination, eh?

BroncoBuff · 09-25-2006, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry Ramey

Yikes, amazing the fools who believe Clinton was great. Yeah, this country needs more of the FBI and IRS harrassing people like under Clinton.

Sounds like a personal problem ...

.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 09-25-2006, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The O'W*GS Factor

(To LABF): You like your fellow Americans when to some degree they agree with you, but when they disagree, they're a bunch of nincompoops.

You're a liar, and not even a very good one.

I never claim anyone is a "nincompoop" simply because he disagrees with me.

If I call someone a "nincompoop" it's because that person is peddling lies, disinformation, propaganda, or proffering arguments which are invalid or have no factual basis.

Your refusal to acknowledge the difference is just one more example of the sort of intellectual dishonesty with which you (and now your road dog BroncoBuff) have distinguished yourself on this forum.

BroncoBuff · 09-25-2006, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS

(To LABF): You like your fellow Americans when to some degree they agree with you, but when they disagree, they're a bunch of nincompoops.

Hail truth.

.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 09-25-2006, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Hail truth.

Hail bullsh*t.

I would've expected you to recognize the difference between disputes over matters of opinion vs. disputes over matters of fact, truth, or logic.

I guess I gave you too much credit.

defenseman · 09-25-2006, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I was watching Clinton on CSPAN last night. After listening and watching Dubya for six years, it's absolutely remarkable to hear a politician who is competent, knowledgeable, intelligent and logical. His discussion about the problems in the ME was like somebody opened a window and let in some air. It really highlights the chasm between logical, political philosophy, and an ideologue. Like Bubba said, if we have opposing philosophies, we can discuss our differences, but if you are an ideologue and somebody questions you, all you can do is attack them. It really is too bad that the GOP put in that "FDR revenge" term limitation thing. I'm thouroughly convinced, had Bill stayed in office, we'd all be better off to a quantum degree. Now, we have to look forward to cleaning up after George for a decade or two. I still disagree with him about NAFTA, though.

too bad he lied about monica, credibility was totally washed away with that lie...dman

Rohirrim · 09-25-2006, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by defenseman

too bad he lied about monica, credibility was totally washed away with that lie...dman

On that one I'm caught somewhere between him lying about his illicit relationship with another consenting adult, and somebody thinking it was their business to ask - let alone blow $50 million in tax dollars looking for the answer.

W*GS · 09-25-2006, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

I never claim anyone is a "nincompoop" simply because he disagrees with me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

If I call someone a "nincompoop" it's because that person is peddling lies, disinformation, propaganda, or proffering arguments which are invalid or have no factual basis.

In your view, "lies, disinformation, propaganda" are every fact or opinion that differ from yours. Period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Your refusal to acknowledge the difference is just one more example of the sort of intellectual dishonesty with which you (and now your road dog BroncoBuff) have distinguished yourself on this forum.

You're in no position to lecture me, or anyone else, on intellectual dishonesty.

09-23-2006, 06:11 AM	#1
Bronco_Beerslug Angling in the Deep Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Texas Riviera, Southern Mountains Posts: 24,281	How To Bring Back Bill This is a great idea! To actually have someone who is intelligent and knows how to run the country back in Washington is just what we need. ------------------------------------------------------- How to bring back Bill A Clinton-Clinton 2008 ticket is constitutionally possible. By Scott E. Gant and Bruce G. Peabody WASHINGTON, D.C., AND MADISON, N.J. – Americans are nostalgic for the 1990s. They long for a time when terrorism was perceived as a problem confined to foreign lands and when the stock market's rise seemed unstoppable. And, it turns out, many of them miss former President Bill Clinton. In a recent poll conducted for CNN, respondents favored Mr. Clinton over President Bush on a variety of issues, including policy areas traditionally viewed as GOP strongholds. By a wide margin, those surveyed indicated that Clinton did a better job managing the economy and handling foreign affairs and taxes. Clinton's resurgent popularity, and Democrats' difficulties in taking over the White House in recent years, might counsel a bold strategy for 2008. Whoever is selected as the Democratic nominee for the next presidential race should consider William Jefferson Clinton as a candidate for vice president. While the political advisability of such a move is subject to legitimate debate, the legal issues are more straightforward. The only serious question about the constitutionality of Clinton assuming the vice presidency relates to the interplay of the Constitution's 12th and 22nd Amendments. The 12th Amendment was ratified following the election of 1800, which produced sustained electoral uncertainty after Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, Jefferson's designated vice president, received the same number of electoral votes. The election was sent to the House of Representatives, which took 36 ballots to select Jefferson. The 12th Amendment thereafter required that electoral votes be cast separately for president and vice president, and specified that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president shall be eligible to that of vice president of the United States." A century and a half later, the states ratified the 22nd Amendment, largely as a response to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's four electoral victories. The amendment bars individuals from being "elected to the office of the president more than twice." The 22nd Amendment is often described as prohibiting an already twice-elected president, such as Clinton, from again serving as president. But the text of the amendment suggests otherwise. 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. 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. Clinton's public approval at the time he stepped down from the White House was remarkably high given the voter "fatigue" that normally accompanies a second-term president. Now, nearly six years later, his popularity appears considerable and is seemingly increasing. Of course, Clinton's spouse, Sen. Hillary Clinton, is viewed as a leading Democratic candidate for president. She would surely have reservations about putting her husband on the 2008 ticket. But Bill Clinton might help energize the Democratic base and defuse arguments that Mrs. Clinton is too liberal. In the event that Senator Clinton elects not to run in 2008, perhaps an alternate Democratic nominee will have enough self-confidence to consider sharing the stage with the charismatic Bill Clinton in the hopes of recapturing the White House. As for Clinton himself, although there are many reasons why he might decline an invitation to run for vice president, the thrill of another campaign and the lure of a return to the West Wing might be too tempting to resist. • Scott Gant is a partner with Boies, Schiller & Flexner in Washington. Bruce Peabody is an assistant professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson University in Madison, N.J. http://tinyurl.com/jfs4v

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

09-23-2006, 07:35 AM	#3
Barry Ramey Ring of Famer Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,700	Yikes, amazing the fools who believe Clinton was great. Yeah, this country needs more of the FBI and IRS harrassing people like under Clinton.

09-23-2006, 08:56 AM	#4
SteveTensi13 GIVE ME SOME MORE ORANGE OLD SCHOOL BRONCO Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Helmand province, Afghanistan Posts: 1,830 Adopt-a-Bronco: Brandon Stokley	Not to mention the ATF and Immigration cops busting into peoples homes grabbing frightened Cuban children seeking asylum at gun point and burning down alternative churches (Waco, TX).

09-23-2006, 08:57 AM	#5
SteveTensi13 GIVE ME SOME MORE ORANGE OLD SCHOOL BRONCO Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Helmand province, Afghanistan Posts: 1,830 Adopt-a-Bronco: Brandon Stokley	Not to mention countless sexual harrassment charges and out right rape! Wonder why NOW never said a word about it? Bet if it was a Republican they would've been rioting in the streets. NOW has lost all credibility

09-23-2006, 09:05 AM	#6
Rohirrim Partisan Human Cannonball Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater Posts: 48,843	I was watching Clinton on CSPAN last night. After listening and watching Dubya for six years, it's absolutely remarkable to hear a politician who is competent, knowledgeable, intelligent and logical. His discussion about the problems in the ME was like somebody opened a window and let in some air. It really highlights the chasm between logical, political philosophy, and an ideologue. Like Bubba said, if we have opposing philosophies, we can discuss our differences, but if you are an ideologue and somebody questions you, all you can do is attack them. It really is too bad that the GOP put in that "FDR revenge" term limitation thing. I'm thouroughly convinced, had Bill stayed in office, we'd all be better off to a quantum degree. Now, we have to look forward to cleaning up after George for a decade or two. I still disagree with him about NAFTA, though.