| Author |
|
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4638
|
| Posted: 10 March 2008 at 6:56pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Brian Floyd wrote:
| The same source that told me the wrong state Obama was claiming he
won...my father, actually.....is saying that Obama's solution to the
situation in Michigan (don't know about Florida) would be to just split
the delegates down the middle, and I find that laughable if its true. |
|
|
No offense to your Dad, but I can find no evidence that Obama has said either of those things. Correct me if I'm wrong and you can provide a more authoritative source. The trouble with the internet age is that silly rumors can spread like wildfire and people are too quick to believe things if they fit with the negative viewpoint they already have.
Regarding Michigan and Florida, the idea of seating the delegates as is would be patently unfair. Aside from the issue of Obama not being on the ballot in Michigan, neither candidate did any campaigning, which clearly was a significant advantage to Clinton who was much better known. There's no doubt the outcome would have been different if they'd campaigned in those states. And anyway, what would be the sense of the Democratic Party rendering a punishment, and then saying "aw shucks, we didn't mean it" and allowing their votes to count? The Michigan and Florida Democrats knew what the consequences would be if they moved their primaries. They knew for months in advance. And they still went ahead and did it. At minimum, I'd say that if they want a revote then the states should pay for it... the Democratic National Committee should not pay anything, as it's not their fault this happened.
Edited by Jason Czeskleba on 10 March 2008 at 6:57pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4638
|
| Posted: 10 March 2008 at 7:34pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Bob Neill wrote:
| Who honestly thinks that Clinton and Obama could ever reach an
agreement where whoever comes in second would be the running mate? |
|
|
I'd say there's no chance in Hell of a them joining forces. Clinton would never accept a VP slot... after all her talk about Obama's inexperience, it would make her look like a fool to be his VP. And I think if Obama does not get the nomination he will decide to just lay low and go back to being a Senator. That would leave him much better positioned for a run in 2012 than being the VP half of a failed ticket this year.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Neil Lindholm
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: China
Posts: 4943
|
| Posted: 10 March 2008 at 7:59pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
I just can't imagine that anyone would want Clinton as President. Eight years of the prior nonsense was enough. Besides, isn't there an American law that says that a person can't serve for more than two terms? A Clinton Whitehouse would include Bill, which would break the spirit of the law.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4638
|
| Posted: 10 March 2008 at 8:35pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Neil, you are being facetious about breaking the spirit of the law, I presume?
What the law says at any rate is that no person can be elected President more than twice. Theoretically it would be legal for Hillary to select Bill as her Vice President, win the election, be sworn in and then immediately resign, thus making Bill the President again. There's actually a paranoid right-wing email making the rounds that contends this is their nefarious Secret Plan (of course, it doesn't bother to explain WHY she would ever want to do that). I suppose theoretically McCain could do the same thing, choosing Bush as his running mate. That brings up an interesting question... I wonder why no one has ever asked an ex-President to be a Vice Presidential candidate?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Christopher Alan Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 October 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2787
|
| Posted: 10 March 2008 at 9:14pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Bill Clinton cannot become Vice President. He is ineligible to be President which also makes him Ineligible to be Vice President.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4638
|
| Posted: 10 March 2008 at 9:38pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Bill Clinton is Constitutionally ineligible to be elected President. It's debatable whether that means he is ineligible to be President. Theoretically, if Clinton got elected to the House of Representatives and then became Speaker, and then both the President and Vice President were killed simultaneously in an accident, Clinton would become President, wouldn't he? And if we establish thus that Clinton is eligible to become President by means other than election (no matter how unlikely), doesn't that make him eligible to be Vice President?
I know, I'm taking this argument to ridiculous lengths, and none of this will ever happen. And if it did, it would end up being decided by the Supreme Court. But hypothetically it could happen, couldn't it?
Edited by Jason Czeskleba on 10 March 2008 at 9:42pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Kevin Brown
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 31 May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9126
|
| Posted: 10 March 2008 at 9:46pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Bill Clinton cannot become Vice President. He is ineligible to be President which also makes him Ineligible to be Vice President.
*************************
Not true. He's eligible to be Vice President, he just could not serve as President if anything happened to Hillary. The line of succession is the Speaker of the House of Representatives, then the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and then Secretary of State.
And then I forget the rest without looking it up...
But Bill Clinton CAN serve as Vice President, but he'll know he can never serve as President again beyond "acting President" for no more than 2 years. (Presidents can serve 2 terms or 10 years.)
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4638
|
| Posted: 10 March 2008 at 9:51pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Kevin, the Constitution says nothing about how long a person can serve as President. It says a person cannot be elected President more than twice (or more than once if they've already served more than two years of someone else's term). It places no limits on how long someone might serve as President if they could gain the office by means other than direct election.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Christopher Alan Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 October 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2787
|
| Posted: 10 March 2008 at 9:51pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
From the 12th Amendment
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Neil Lindholm
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: China
Posts: 4943
|
| Posted: 10 March 2008 at 9:56pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
What is the reason for that law? Was it passed after the next group didn't like Roosevelt? In Canada, we can have Prime Ministers for as long as they get elected (maximum one election every five years) but wasn't Roosevelt the last to serve more than two terms?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Christopher Alan Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 October 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2787
|
| Posted: 10 March 2008 at 10:07pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
The 22nd Amendement was passed after Franklin Roosevelt. Since George Washington only served two terms most people thought that no one else should. Teddy Roosevelt didn't run again in 1908 because of this even though he had only been elected once and served the remainder of McKinley's term. He changed his mind and ran again in 1912 because he was angry with the job Taft had done. He came in second splitting the republican vote and handing the election to Wilson. Taft was the only sitting president to ever finish 3rd. Grant also ran for a 3rd term 4 years after the end of his second but didn't get the republican nomination.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Neil Lindholm
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: China
Posts: 4943
|
| Posted: 10 March 2008 at 10:10pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Is that the only reason? Because Washington didn't serve more than two? Seems kind of a silly reason. I thought it would have been something like restricting the growth of personal power or creation of a fiefdom or something.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Topic Closed)
