It’s not so much that he has to say the words, so much as if John Roberts swears in someone else, there won’t be much dispute about who the President is at that point. And the ex-President would look like a supreme ass if he tried to claim he was the legitimate President.
Sure, aside from the selling pardons, stealing the furnishings from the White House, staffers trashing the place, and Clinton’s five year disbarment.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t see lesser elective offices in his future, nor do I see him on the Supreme Court. More likely he’ll devote his time to writing and charitable works. He won’t be on the cabinet, I don’t think any president would want a former president looming over a cabinet meeting. Maybe just maybe UN ambassador. Still, I’m betting on writing and enjoying fatherhood and perhaps in the not too distant future, being a grandfather.
OK, so my opinion that “the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog” means that the fox jumps over a dog rather than a marmoset, is just my interpretation.
Gotcha.
What, the plain meaning of a document is “just an interpretation,” no matter how clear, specific, and unambiguous the wording is? I just don’t freakin’ get it.
The 22nd Amendment could have been written more broadly, rather than so specifically. Or, having gone with specific wording, it could have specifically included the case of succession due to death, resignation, or impeachment.
The authors having done neither of these things, it’s one hell of a stretch to believe that they meant to have done one or the other.
OK, suppose the Dems had been able to simultaneously impeach and remove from office both Bush and Cheney back in 2007. If John Roberts had skipped over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and sworn in whichever member of the Bush cabinet was next in the line of succession, that would have settled it?
Yeah.
No, of course that wouldn’t have settled it. Mrs Pelosi would’ve had another federal judge swear her into office and Congress would promptly impeach Roberts and remove him from office.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Well, the ex-President could conceivably be first in line, i.e. the veep.
Which is how the issue could be tested without a succession crisis: say in 2020, Hillary drops Kaine from her ticket, and chooses Obama as her veep nominee. The 12th Amendment says the veep has to be someone eligible to be President, a question which of course would hinge on whether the straightforward literal wording of the 22nd Amendment was accepted as its, um, interpretation.
If Hillary won re-election with Obama on her ticket, someone would surely go to court to contest Obama’s right to be veep. Worst case? The Supreme Court would say no, he can’t be veep, and Hillary would use the 25th Amendment to fill the resulting vacancy in the office of the Vice-President.
Good point - while it’s traditional for the CJ to do the swearing-in, that’s not a requirement. When a Vice-President has succeeded to the Presidency due to the death of the President, the new President has usually been sworn in by whatever judge is immediately available.
So you are a textualist now?
Regards,
Shodan
I couldn’t tell you what a textualist is.
However, though IANAL, I believe it’s standard practice in the legal biz to strongly favor the literal wording of a document over other possible interpretations - that while there can be circumstances that can overcome the presumption that the literal meaning is the correct one, you’ve got to have a really strong argument to overcome that presumption.
IOW, while sometimes there are sufficiently strong arguments for going with an alternative interpretation, it ain’t a coin-flip thing between one and the other.
Let me address one of those claims.
“CLAIM: The Clintons were forced to return an estimated $200,000 in furniture, china and art they “stole” from the White House.”
Snopes: MOSTLY FALSE
Cite:
If Pres. Obama was seated on the SCOTUS would he find himself having to recuse himself on more cases than is normal ? I don’t have a clue and IANAL so it is likely I am way off base.
I’ve read that being a former president is in some ways more fun than actually being president. You serve as an elder statesman and troubleshooter for the current president, attend conferences and spend time on whatever issues you find appealing. Certainly Bill Clinton has enjoyed the opportunity to address big issues through the Clinton Global Initiative and his foundation.
I’ll think better of him if that’s what he does, but I suspect he’s going to try to compete with the Clintons on the moneymaking front. And might even pressure his wife or daughters to seek elective office so that potential buyers of his speaking services have even more reason to hand over money to him.
What about conspiring with our enemies to destroy America? Why stop with your personal hatred of the man at mere profit and enriching himself?
All I did was suggest that he might emulate the Clintons. How is that akin to destroying America? It’s just moneygrubbing, maximized by the promise of future quid pro quo.
I’m snarking on your inability to keep your intense and irrational personal hatred of Obama out of your characterization of his motives.
Unlike the Noble GW Bush who wouldn’t dream of selling out.
No charities, no attempt to atone for the tens of thousands maimed and killed so he could out-do Daddy.
I think history has judged you an incompetent asshole.
Why not? They’ve said they’ll be staying on in Washington until their kids graduate high school.
Supreme court is for life. Their youngest will graduate high school in the very near future. She might want to go elsewhere after that.
I’m don’t think Clinton will nominate him. I don’t even really think that’s the best use of his talents. I mean, he’s a really good speaker and inspirer (or so I’ve heard; I hate the pauses, myself). Speeches, front-man for causes, etc. would be something he was good at. I have no idea what he actually wants to do, though.