# Clinton's third term **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [December 6, 1999, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clintons-third-term/1565 "1999-12-06T20:06:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![nebuli](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/0ea827/32.png) [@nebuli](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nebuli)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 1999, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clintons-third-term/1565/41 "1999-12-10T22:59:00Z")
> [@](#): > > No, under the ancient legal doctrine known as gettus realus. John, I’d have more confidence in your answer if so many judicial decisions in the past didn’t appear to violate the above mentioned doctrine 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Boris\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/fbc32d/32.png) [@Boris\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boris_B)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 1999, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clintons-third-term/1565/42 "1999-12-14T20:43:00Z")
I guess I can’t figure out the difference between amending the Constitution and writing a new one. Couldn’t you write a new one, with exactly the same text as the old one plus one additional paragraph? Alternately, couldn’t you stick with the old one, but amend it to say, “Everything else in the Constitution but the contents of this Amendment shall be invalid”? * * * I don’t want to make people think like me, I want them to think like me of their own free will. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 1999, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clintons-third-term/1565/43 "1999-12-17T06:57:00Z")
An ammendment that cancels everything but itself? I have to turn to the aforementioned “Gettus Realus” doctrine. Such a radical alteration would be the same thing as a rewrite. It would probably be less trouble to get Congress to agree to call a new constitutional convention. * * * “I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms.” -The Secret of Monkey Island ---
**Author:** ![CJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7ba0ec/32.png) [@CJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJ)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2000, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clintons-third-term/1565/44 "2000-01-05T21:16:00Z")
The 5th Article (Amending Procedure) of the US Constitution says nothing about how it may be amended, so if you wanted to, say, force Wyoming to have only one Senator, you would first have to amend Article 5 to delete the bit about equal representation, and then amend whatever else of the Constitution you wanted. Similarly, if you want to delete the Constitution and replace it with another text, a Constitutional Convention could first amend Article 5 if needed, and then do whatever it wants with the rest of the Constitution, including complete repeal and replacement, subject only to approval by Conventions in 75% of the states. This is a comparatively simple amending formula, compared to Canada’s at least 5 constitutional amending formulas, depending on what is to be amended. And amending the amending formula requires unanimous consent of the provinces and federal government. Then again, you can’t have things that are perfectly legal but quite definitely unconstitutional in the States. [shrug] ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2000, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clintons-third-term/1565/45 "2000-01-06T17:01:00Z")
> [@](#): > > The 5th Article (Amending Procedure) of the US Constitution says nothing about how it may be amended, Yes it does, by simple fact of _being_ the amending procedure. The Constitution is not a set of mathematical postulates or microprocessor specifications; it was never intended to be interpreted as if it were, and it is not. Treating it as a logic puzzle only shows that you don’t understand how Law works. * * * John W. Kennedy “Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.” – Charles Williams ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2000, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clintons-third-term/1565/46 "2000-01-10T05:37:00Z")
Is there any document that supersedes the Constitution, by law or in fact? I’m thinking specifically of the Declaration of Independence. Around the time of the Waco siege, I read an article (in the National Review or the Atlantic Monthly?) saying that the right to bear arms is a check against constitutional government itself; that the Declaration of Independence established that the people have an inalienable right to overthrow any government–constitutional or not–if it becomes destructive of the people’s Life, Liberty, or Pursuit of Happiness. If this were true, it would perhaps imply that some portions of our _de facto_ constitution are actually unwritten. Does this argument appear to hold water? DHR * * * Why must I feel like that/Why must I chase the cat?/Nothin’ but the dog in me.–George Clinton ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2000, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clintons-third-term/1565/47 "2000-01-11T06:30:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Is there any document that supersedes the Constitution, by law or in fact? There’s really no straightforward answer to that question. The Declaration of Independence sets down ideals for a government, but does not establish a government itself. However, the DoI says that all people have the right to overthrow unjust governments, so I’d say that the _principles_ in the DoI are the superceding factor. The Constitution supercedes all other systems in _application_ of law. However, if enough states decided that we needed to apply our governing philosophy in a different way, then you can bet that a constitutional convention would be held. It’s already been done twice. * * * –It was recently discovered that research causes cancer in rats. ---
**Author:** ![\_Df](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/7ba0ec/32.png) [@\_Df](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_Df)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2000, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clintons-third-term/1565/48 "2000-01-12T00:08:00Z")
> [@](#): > > I guess I can’t figure out the difference between amending the Constitution and writing a new one. One possible difference might be (WAG Alert, WAG Alert!) that any amendment, no matter how sweeping, if properly passed would apply to all states whether they liked it or not, whereas chucking the Constitution might be seen as akin to dissolving the Union, leaving open the possibility of arguments by objecting, non-ratifying, or non-participating states that they’re still subject to the old-fangled Consitution and want nothing to do with these New, Improved United States (NOW in Collectible Boxes!). I suppose any attempt to “chuck the Constitution” would require a political solution or a civil war to resolve, for the New Constitutionalists could as easily be seen to be trying to leave the union as those who refuse to change. ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2000, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clintons-third-term/1565/49 "2000-01-12T00:38:00Z")
An amendment or a new constitution is only good if everybody abides by it. You could just as easily adopt an amendment to the constitution that say 1/4 of the states vehemently opposed. Those 12 states (the maximum amount of non-ratifiers you can have) could just tell the other 38 to essentially “stick it” when it comes to enforcing that amendment. The remedies would probably be something along the lines of the Civil War. However, since the Federal government’s influence is so strong today, the chance of any state even considering secession would be very small, if not nonexistent. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2000, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clintons-third-term/1565/50 "2000-01-19T06:41:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by PTVroman: > In the early days, the Electoral college voted, and the person with the most votes was President; the person with the 2nd most votes was Vice President. Those early days ended thanks to the 12th Amendment (1804) and thus today the Electoral College casts two sets of votes: one for prez & one for veep. What it seems to me that many people are missing is that the office of Vice President is not the only way to get into the presidential chair (hold the jokes, please). The 25th Amendment (1967) governs Succession to Office. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2000, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clintons-third-term/1565/51 "2000-01-21T03:52:00Z")
Monty, I don’t think the 25th Amendment governs the succession to the Presidency. It governs what happens if the President is incapacitated, and also provides for the appointment of a new Vice-president if the incumbent dies, resigns or is impeached. Article II, section 1, para. 6 authorises Congress to enact laws governing the succession to the presidency if both the President and the Veep die, etc. * * * and the stars o’erhead were dancing heel to toe ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2000, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clintons-third-term/1565/52 "2000-01-21T04:08:00Z")
See, jti, that’s the cool thing about living in a land with a mass production of these things called textbooks. My Quick Study Academic U.S. Constitution has the following heading for the 25th Amendment: “1967 - Succession to Office” and here’s the text: > [@](#): > > **Section _1_**. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President. > > **Sec. _2_**. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take offic eupon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. > > **Sec. _3_**. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President. > > **Sec. _4_**. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Seante and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the pwoers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. > > Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the pwoers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thris vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office. Kind of hard for the dead President to nominate someone for office, isn’t it? Also, it’s not “pass laws,” it’s “Decide the issue.” There are laws and there are also Acts of Congress. Different things, but perhaps that’s just semantics. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2000, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clintons-third-term/1565/53 "2000-01-21T04:17:00Z")
To be fair, the 25th Amendment didn’t touch the portion of the 2nd Article of the original Constitution which states: [quote] In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide fo the cAse of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice Presidnet, declaring what Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. [quote] So, the 2nd Article governs the Congress passing laws for who fills in when both the prez and veep aren’t up to it & the 25th Amendment governs what to do when only one of them isn’t up to it. Article Two uses the words “by law” and Amendment 25 uses the words “decide the issue.” No wonder the voting populace is confused! ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2000, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clintons-third-term/1565/54 "2000-01-22T20:02:00Z")
The 25th Amendment was ratified in the aftermath of JFK’s assassination. Congress was afraid that there was a possibility that there could be a comatose president, who couldn’t tell anyone that he wasn’t up to the job. This amendment was supposed to eliminate that possibility. The 25th amendment also is supposed to address the problem of what to do if the Pres says s/he is up to the job, but the Veep disagrees. During the Garfield and Wilson administrations, the presidents were alive, but unable to perform their duties. (I believe Garfield was able to sign one extradition order before he died. Just who ran the Wilson White House after his stroke is still a bit of a mystery.) Reagan and Clinton have both signed over temporary power to their Veeps during surgical procedures. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2000, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clintons-third-term/1565/55 "2000-01-24T04:16:00Z")
Monty, I think we’re speaking at cross-purposes. I was replying to your previous posting: > [@](#): > > What it seems to me that many people are missing is that the office of Vice President is not the only way to get into the presidential chair (hold the jokes, please). > The 25th Amendment (1967) governs Succession to Office. Yes, section 1 of the 25th Amendment states that the Veep succeeds to the President - it repeats the principle stated in Article II that I referred to. However, the 25th Amendment does not govern the succession after the Veep, which I took you to be referring to in the earlier post. ARticle II authorises the Congress to enact a law saying who will succeed if both the Prez and the Veep are killed, etc. * * * and the stars o’erhead were dancing heel to toe ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2000, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clintons-third-term/1565/56 "2000-01-24T06:43:00Z")
Further, Congress has enacted such a law: United States Code, Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 19. Under that provision, if neither the President nor the Veep is able to act, the line of succession is: 1. Speaker of the House; 2. President pro tem of the Senate; 3. Secretary of State; 4. Secretary of the Treasury; 5. Secretary of Defense; 6. Attorney General; 7. Secretary of the Interior; 8. Secretary of Agriculture; 9. Secretary of Commerce; 10. Secretary of Labor; 11. Secretary of Health and Human Services; 12. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; 13. Secretary of Transportation; 14. Secretary of Energy; 15. Secretary of Education; 16. Secretary of Veterans Affairs. As well, although section 1 of the 25th Amendment governs the succession of the Veep to the Presidency, I don’t read the rest of the section as dealing with the succession, if by that we mean a new person becoming President. Section 2 provides for the succesion to the Vice-Presidency, while sections 3 and 4 deal with the temporary assumption of the duties of the Presidency by the Vice-President, upon the inability of the President to act. Moreover, sections 3 and 4 are very clear - The Vice-President does not succeed to the Presidency on the President’s inability. Rather, the Vice-President exercises the duties of the office, as Acting President, and only for so long as the President is unable to act. As I said earlier, I was replying to Monty’s post, where he pointed out that not only the Vice-President is in the line of succession to the Presidency. However, that succession is governed by the power that Article II gives to Congress, and the law that Congress has enacted pursuant to that power. * * * and the stars o’erhead were dancing heel to toe ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2000, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clintons-third-term/1565/57 "2000-01-24T06:51:00Z")
As for the difference in wording between Article II and the 25th Amendment (“by law” versus “decide the issue”) that Monty and BobT mention, it’s because Congress is exercising two different functions. Article II gives Congress a legislative power: to enact a law that will govern the succssion to the Presidency. Section 4 of the 25th Amendment gives Congress a different power: Congress is the body that will settle a dispute between the two elected members of the Executive branch. In this scenario, the Veep (and a majority of the Cabinet) are saying that the Prez is incapable of exercising his duties. The Prez denies that, and says that he is capable. The 25th Amendment provides that Congress shall decide the issue, a quasi-judicial function. * * * and the stars o’erhead were dancing heel to toe ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2000, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clintons-third-term/1565/58 "2000-01-24T15:15:00Z")
Isn’t it the case that more than one of Clinton’s cabinet members are not qualified to be President, because they weren’t born in the U.S., or were too young, or whatever? (Is Frederico Pena still a cabinet member? I remember hearing that he is not a citizen-by-birth. And didn’t Madaline Albright arrive as a WW2 refuge?) Anyways, if a cabinet member didn’t meet the requirements to be elected president, would he/she get skipped over if things got that far? Or would it be possable for someone to become president who could not be elected in their own right? This is all hypothetical, of course… _No, no, Joe-Bob, use the expensive sniper scope! We’ll only get one chance at this!_😛 * * * –It was recently discovered that research causes cancer in rats. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2000, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clintons-third-term/1565/59 "2000-01-24T16:59:00Z")
Note that, after the two congressional leaders, the officials named are the heads of the various executive departments under the President (who constitute the Cabinet, which otherwise has no separate identity), in order of the creation of the departments. The addition of the Speaker and the President Pro Tem to the line is fairly recent (50’s, I think), on the theory that they were at least elected by _somebody,_ whereas the cabinet members were never elected by anyone; others condemn it as an abuse of the separation of powers. When my parents were in school, there was a mnemonic by way of the obscure (in fact, completely imaginary) Polish saint: “St. Wapniacl”. State Treasury War (now absorbed into Defense) Attorney General Postmaster General (no longer a department) Navy (now absorbed into Defense) Interior Agriculture Commerce Labor * * * John W. Kennedy “Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.” – Charles Williams ---
**Author:** ![Cooper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/50afbb/32.png) [@Cooper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cooper)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2000, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clintons-third-term/1565/60 "2000-01-24T17:51:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Isn’t it the case that more than one of Clinton’s cabinet members are not qualified to be President, because they weren’t born in the U.S., or were too young, or whatever? I’m guessing that although they are not qualified to be elected president, or otherwise hold that office, there is no provision that excludes them from the position of Acting President. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clintons-third-term/1565.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clintons-third-term/1565.md?page=4)