I am under the impression that if you are ineligible to be president, you can’t be acting president either. The constitutional provisions established in Article II say that you have to be a “natural born citizen” (or a citizen of the US in 1787, but there aren’t many of those types running around.)
So, I think Madeline Albright would be skipped over since she was born in what was then called Czechoslovakia.
Federico Pena isn’t in the Cabinet anymore, but he was born in Laredo, Texas so he can run for president.
Congress has provided for this as well. After listing the succession through the Speaker, the President pro tem, and the Cabinet, the statute provides that the provision “… shall apply only to such officers as are eligible to the office of President under the Constitution.” So, I think BobT is right. Since the Constitution requires the President to be a “natural born citizen” (Article II, Section 1, paragraph 5), Madeleine Allbright is not in the line of succession, as she was born in Czechoslovakia. Same thing when Kissinger was Secretary of State (born in Germany).
Here’s the site to the United States Code provision in question, which I forgot to include in the earlier posting: US Code, Title 3
This requires that Madeleine Albright has to show up at all the State of the Union addresses.
Fortunately for her, she only has to sit through one more, unless Bradley or Gore get elected and decided to keep her around, which is unlikely.
President Clinton can not serve a third term even if he was a cabinet member because he no longer qualifies for the office of President because he has served two terms.
If a Convention of the States is called for the purpose of Admending the Constitution, it can rewrite the Constitution in whole or in part which would then become law once 3/4 of the States ratified the new Constitution.
The President can not suspend the Constitution during times of National Emergency. Writ of Habeas Corpus may be suspended during times of Rebellion or Invasion (Art. II sec. 9) Lincoln did this during the Civil War. We would still have elections, a Criminal Justice Systems, all of the Blessings of Liberty.
State size can only be changed with the consent of its Legislature and Congress (West Virgina was split off from Virgina when Virgina was part of the Confederacy, and therefore not a state, so this prohibition did not apply).
Each state is guaranteed a Republican Form of Government (so this can not be admended), and the number of Senators from a state can only be reduced with consent of that state. I believe Texas can split itself into 5 states (and have 10 Senators)with a majority vote of its Legislature and adoption by Congress.
The DoI does not have the force of law, but in some cases the Articals of Confederation do still have the force of law, (I don’t know if Canada can still become a part of the U.S. by adoption of the Constitution the same way it could have become part of the US by adoption of the Articals of Confederation, I guess that we’ll find out if Qubec leaves the Common Wealth).
Term limits are imposed on Judges (…shall hold their Offices diring good Behavior…(Art III sec. i). The idea behind Term Limits is that it is hard to unseat an Incumbent politician, so artificial means might be a way to get fresh blood into office. Personnly I think that the People should be able to pick who they want as often as they want.
Wrong. In addition to almost every other post above, please check the Consititution, and also any local English language dictionary (the latter for the definition of “elected”).
Wrong. The Declaration of Independence established independence from the United Kingdom. The Articles of Confederation established a loose form of cooperative government which didn’t work all that well. The Constition refers to no prior document as to its basis as the Law of the Land. What the Constitution does refer to as its basis is “We the people of the United States.” It also states, in the 2nd paragraph of Article VI:
You might also check the definition in that dictionary for “constitution.”
Then you are evidently unable to comprehend what’s written. Again from the esteemed Constitution, this time Section 3 of Article IV:
As Canada is not currently, nor ever has been, Congress, they have no automatic right of entry into the current Union established under the Constitution. (Short hijack to make fun of our neighbours to the North: Maybe that’s why it’s called “more perfect.” Sorry, guys; couldn’t resist that joke.)
In case you’re wondering why I added “{sic}” to your remarks, it’s to alert the reader that those misspellings are yours.
Please edit this sentence, “The Constition refers to no prior document as to its basis as the Law of the Land” above to read “The Constitution refers to no prior document as to its basis as the Law of the Land.”
I would really like to see great national debate by Canadians to see if they want to adopt the Articles of Confederation. Now there was an effective form of government. Congress couldn’t get anything done during that period except to pass the Northwest Ordinance and call for a new Constitutional Convention.
If Canada wanted to join the U.S., I would assume that first the U.S. would have to annex the territory. Then, Congress would have to pass statehood bills for the various provinces (and put them in order because we like that sort of stuff in the U.S.) Then we could listen to the Atlantic Provinces (now States) complain about how they only get one representative (I’m guessing about the population, but I don’t think that any of the Atlantic provinces have a bigger population than the states that only get one rep, except Nova Scotia.)
I believe this entire theoretical debate over a Clinton third term leaves out the important fact that if the people said, “Hey, Bill, you’ve used up your terms, time to go” that would pretty much be the end of the situation.
The U.S. Constitution works because everyone buys into the system. If we didn’t, then we’d be having coups frequently.
Although the Constitution does not clearly say so, it nevertheless does presuppose Common Law and the validity in the United States of:
English and Colonial Law as of July 2, 1776, and
State and Union (Articles of Confederation) Law prior to the Adoption.
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams
Point of order: the Union’s viewpoint was that the Confederate states were still part of the union, even though this idea was opportunistically applied – an acceptable Union Virginia “legislature” was convened in what’s now West Virginia and allowed to approve the split, even though Virginia’s delegation to Congress was rejected that session.
At heart, they were making this all up as they went along – Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland even had Confederate legislatures-in-exile (sometimes not in exile, depending on the local action) and representation in both Union and Confederate Congresses. So you ended up with some tortured legal ideas in the mix.
Virginia probably could have raised a fuss about the split after the war, but immediately afterwards it was in too weak of a position to make a claim, and the courts were not eager to take on court cases that might address too closely the question of whether secession was legal at all (note that Jefferson Davis, despite being pretty much the textbook definition of treason under the Constitution, was never tried for it).
(Possibly related; didn’t Vermont secede from New York, and the union entirely, back around its creation, only to rejoin the team when it could? I don’t recall.)
Parts of Vermont were claimed by MS, NH, and NY (mostly NY). In 1777, Vermont declared itself an independent republic. The residents reasoned that since the 13 colonies had jumped ship, they didn’t have any claim over Vermont either. So, Vermont declared itself independent (and adopted a constitution that same year.)
Vermont’s independence was pretty shaky. Many of its residents still preferred to be part of New York. Eventually, Vermont and the original 13 patched up their differences and Vermont joined the “varsity squad.”
It would be cool if Vermont were an independent country in between the US and Canada. It would be sort of like having a North American version of Luxembourg.
[late-coming esoterica nobody cares about]
After seeing CKDextHavn and GKittridge posting on the same page, I was hoping we might be favored with posts from the likes of TLord, MkConnor, SidKidd and UncWillie. Would’ve been pretty freaking yar.
[/late-coming esoterica nobody cares about]
(Hey, by this point who the hell remembers the OP anyway, right?)
JWK: I didn’t say that the Constitution doesn’t “presuppose the validity” of anything prior to that. Read what I wrote and you will see that I said that the Constitution is not based on those prior items. It’s a different government with different rules than the government (Articles of Confederation) which already proved itself to be ineffective. And whatever is listed in those “presupposed” items which explicitly differ, if any do, from the Constitution are of no validity in this nation under the current government.
Funny, Dirt! I hadn’t noticed, thanks for pointing it out. But since GKittridge has only posted once, I take it that it was a joke screen name… unlike mine.
Nitpicking Must Needs Out: The reason Albright and Kissinger are not eligible for the US Presidency is not because they were not born in the US, but because they had no claim to US citizenship at the time of their births. It is possible to be a “natural born citizen” of the US and be born in Czechoslovakia, or Germany, or presumably Mars; one simply needs to choose one’s parents carefully.
Unless you buy into the David Rice Atchison story (Zachary Taylor refusing to take the oath of office on Sunday, so Atchison - Speaker of the House - was Acting President for 24 hours), then the U.S. has had one Acting President – George Bush, when Reagan needed surgery in 1985 and devolved the Presidency on him for something like nine hours in accordance with Amendment XXV.
The question: If I’m understanding you right, Monty, you’re saying that the language of Amendment XXII only prohibits a man from being elected more than twice, and if he were appointed V.P. on a vacancy, or held a Cabinet office, became Speaker of the House or President Pro Tem of hte Senate, and the appropriate events transpired, he could legitimately serve out a term of office despite the apparent intent of Article XXII. Is this correct?
That’s right, Poly. Said amendment does not say “He shall only serve for Two Terms” but that he shan’t be elected to more than two. It does, though, have that interesting bit about only being allowed to get elected to one term if he succeeded as VP to Prez less than two years into the Prez’s term.
Diamond: Thank God, NO!
The fact that he LOST the popular vote both terms is an indication that the electoral college might have outlived its’ usefulness.
I know this is more of a GD topic, but he electoral college does its job well. Here’s a web site that offers many examples of why.
[Clinton’s] conduct in office repudiates everything this country was founded on; situational ethics and moral bankruptcy is not the example we need coming from the oval office. Character IS important.
But he is a character.
What would Brian Boitano do / If he was here right now /
He’d make a plan and he’d follow through / That’s what Brian Boitano would do.
I’m sure this goes of the topic of constitutionality of a presidential third term. As I recall the original question, someone heard about this possibility on some god awful right wing radio show. They often joke about the Clintons being the first Dual Presidency. Now with Hilary running for Senate, It’s not unfeasable that she could run for president in 2004, right? That would certainly circumvent all articles and ammendments of the constitution, and could give their joint presidency not one but two more terms. Then in 16 years Chelsea will be old enough to run for the Office, Giving the fist family eight more years in office. Ok that may be a little silly, but there is nothing constitutional preventing Bill from becoming first husband (first gentleman? we have no precedent here either, what would we call him?) Ok my two cents just ran out.
And apparently electing the wife of a former president is somehow worse than electing the son of a former president (Adams, and possibly Bush), or a grandson (Harrison)?
If Hilary Clinton became president, I think the US would adopt the formula that Texas used when Mr. and Mrs. Ferguson both reached the governor’s office: “Pa” and “Ma”.
