Grover Norquist wants to make it unconstitutional for Hillary Clinton to be President.
Okay, what he actually proposed was that the Constitution be amended to prohibit a spouse, sibling, or child of an office holder from succeeding to that office. And he did say only “immediately succeed” so Clinton would not be covered under it (although he said Congress would have the power to define “immediately succeed”).
Norquist says that this amendment would send a “message” - and I think it’s pretty clear who that message is aimed at in 2007. For some reason, Norquist didn’t see any need to send this message in the last two Presidential elections.
It is my long held opinion that Muppets should stay out of politics.
.
.
.
Ohh Grover Norquist, it is my long held opinion that Muppets know more about politics than Grover Norquist.
CMC +fnord!
Seriously, on the list of things that need to be changed in the electoral process and the list of theoretically needed amendments to the Constitution, Grover’s are so far down on the list that, well they just aren’t on the list.
The gods forbid that we could just trust the electorate to vote for who they want in office!
Norquist. That freak from Americans for Tax Reform?
I realize he’s got a lot of access at the White House these days but isn’t this sort of outside his normal purview. He must be really worried about her if he’s wandering that far afield.
Even if something like that were possible, or even desired, there wouldn’t have enough time to get it passed before the elections. There is no way that 38 states are going to sign off on something like that fast enough to keep her out of the White House (assuming she wins).
It’s just another yahoo flapping his gums and waving his arms for attention. DNFTT.
So, he proposes a constitutional amendment to prohibit a family member from immediately succeeding a president? Sounds like a solution in search of a problem.
Are you sure this wasn’t Jorge Norquist suggesting an amendment to the Argentine constitution?
Who would that be? Jeb? No one running for president would be affected if this amendment were, miraculously, to pass. Sounds like a lot of hot air to me. He ought to start working on that whole native born thingy so Arnold can run.
Here’s a link to the article that doesn’t require registration.
You quoted one section at the end where he conceded his amendment wouldn’t aplly to Clinton. But the article opens with a long diatribe against political dynasties and how bad they are for America. And has these lines:
Sure he’s technically comparing both George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton to the likes of Bashar al-Assad and Kim Jong Il. But Bush isn’t running for election, so any declarations that he shouldn’t be elected are coming eight years too late. As I said before anyone who’s denouncing “political dynasties” in 2007 is talking about one candidate.
While I agree that it’s not going to pass, I disagree about your conclusion. Norquist is not “just another yahoo” nor is he a “troll” in American politics. He’s a powerful organizer in the Republican coalition and exercises influence to anoint “true conservatives.” He has had an extraordinary influence on the fiscal and policy directions of the current administration as well as individual Republican candidates. Kissing Norquist’s pinky ring is far more important to Republican office-seekers than paying homage to the Pat Robertson crowd.
While Norquist surely can’t expect that this kind of proposal will actually be adopted, it’s probably an attempt to create a wedge issue in nearing elections. It’s not just trolling; it’s part of a deliberate propaganda campaign.
I find it hi-larious that no tighty-Righties had any problems with “political dynasties” back in 2000 when Gee Dubya was first running for president. No problems whatsoever.
Um, the same constitution that tells them they can’t exalt some of their number to a higher caste, say, a “nobility”; nor extend a state governor’s term to life; or any number of other anti-democratic things.
People being born with certain political powers or holding an office forever without being subject to election is anti-democratic. But voting for a candidate, even though he or she may be related to another office holder, is democratic. As long as the voters have a choice, there’s nothing anti-democratic about them choosing the wife or son of a former president.