# If Hillary wins, can she have Bill help her on every decision? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 6, 2015, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-hillary-wins-can-she-have-bill-help-her-on-every-decision/730119 "2015-09-06T00:52:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![SigMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@SigMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SigMan)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2015, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-hillary-wins-can-she-have-bill-help-her-on-every-decision/730119/21 "2015-09-06T03:08:42Z")
If Hillary wins will Bill become the First Gentleman? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2015, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-hillary-wins-can-she-have-bill-help-her-on-every-decision/730119/22 "2015-09-06T03:20:27Z")
In formal social precedence? Who knows; I don’t think anybody actually understands the formal rules of social precedence any more, with all the changes the world has gone through since they were first codified. In common parlance? Yeah, sure looks that way. ---
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2015, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-hillary-wins-can-she-have-bill-help-her-on-every-decision/730119/23 "2015-09-06T03:29:53Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > There is nothing even remotely unConstitutional about a former first spouse being President. Would you wonder the same thing about a father and son? Yes. And it goes directly to the question asked and repeated by the OP: Would there by anything wrong with Hillary (or Chelsea, or Charlotte) serving as a proxy for an extended Clinton presidency? And given that the constitution protects Gay Marriage, I certainly can see the term limitation being read to exclude proxy terms. I don’t see that “remote” is a conclusive argument. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2015, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-hillary-wins-can-she-have-bill-help-her-on-every-decision/730119/24 "2015-09-06T03:33:39Z")
What makes you assume the first Clinton presidency wasn’t all Bill acting out Hillary’s advice the whole time? Why is this only a factor for a Hillary presidency? ---
**Author:** ![Habeed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a587f6/32.png) [@Habeed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Habeed)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2015, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-hillary-wins-can-she-have-bill-help-her-on-every-decision/730119/25 "2015-09-06T03:36:32Z")
> [@Melbourne](#): > > Yes. And it goes directly to the question asked and repeated by the OP: > > Would there by anything wrong with Hillary (or Chelsea, or Charlotte) serving as a proxy for an extended Clinton presidency? > > And given that the constitution protects Gay Marriage, I certainly can see the term limitation being read to exclude proxy terms. > > I don’t see that “remote” is a conclusive argument. The problem with the “proxy” argument is where do you draw the line? What if Obama were spending every day on an extended conference call with Bill Clinton or George W Bush, checking over every decision? How do you say “this is too much taking advice from previous presidents.” If Hillary still makes all the decisions, she just tends to take Bill’s side almost every time, how can you say it’s a proxy. Also, executive privilege means that even if Hillary were taking Bill’s view 100% of the time, who would have standing to sue, and how would you subpoena the Presidential records that are protected by privilege? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2015, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-hillary-wins-can-she-have-bill-help-her-on-every-decision/730119/26 "2015-09-06T03:48:08Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > The problem with the “proxy” argument is where do you draw the line? What if Obama were spending every day on an extended conference call with Bill Clinton or George W Bush, checking over every decision? How do you say “this is too much taking advice from previous presidents.” If Hillary still makes all the decisions, she just tends to take Bill’s side almost every time, how can you say it’s a proxy. Also, executive privilege means that even if Hillary were taking Bill’s view 100% of the time, who would have standing to sue, and how would you subpoena the Presidential records that are protected by privilege? **Moderating** If this is the direction you want to take this thread, let’s move this over to GD. Since there is clearly no established precedent on this, any answer must be speculative. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2015, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-hillary-wins-can-she-have-bill-help-her-on-every-decision/730119/27 "2015-09-06T03:53:50Z")
I can’t see Bill even wanting a cabinet position. It would be a lot of work as well as a step down from being President emeritus. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2015, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-hillary-wins-can-she-have-bill-help-her-on-every-decision/730119/28 "2015-09-06T04:00:24Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > This is correct, but he still can’t be in his wife’s cabinet, because of a law passed after Bobby Kennedy was his brother’s attorney general. Presidents can’t employ their relatives (which includes spouses). Cite? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2015, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-hillary-wins-can-she-have-bill-help-her-on-every-decision/730119/29 "2015-09-06T04:21:45Z")
> [@Melbourne](#): > > Yes. And it goes directly to the question asked and repeated by the OP: > > Would there by anything wrong with Hillary (or Chelsea, or Charlotte) serving as a proxy for an extended Clinton presidency? > > And given that the constitution protects Gay Marriage, I certainly can see the term limitation being read to exclude proxy terms. > > I don’t see that “remote” is a conclusive argument. The main problem with any reference to Hillary Clinton as a proxy is her personality. I am sure that both Clintons hold very similar views on most issues across the political spectrum, but the notion that Ms. Clinton would defer to her husband’s specific takes on any issue seem remote, at best. As to a law prohibiting proxy terms, I doubt that one could even enforce it. Even those women who have been accused of being proxies for their term limited spouses, (notably Lurleeen Wallace (AL) and Ma Ferguson (TX)), have taken actions, independently, that challenged the notion that their husbands were manipulating them as putppets. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2015, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-hillary-wins-can-she-have-bill-help-her-on-every-decision/730119/30 "2015-09-06T04:58:53Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > My guess would be that the spouses of _ **Jane Adams** _ and Dolly Madison sought their advice while the spouses of Martha Washington and Mary Todd Lincoln did not. I think you probably mean Abigail. Or, at a stretch, Louisa. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2015, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-hillary-wins-can-she-have-bill-help-her-on-every-decision/730119/31 "2015-09-06T05:13:00Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Cite? [Here](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/90/hr7977/text)’s what **Lord Feldon** is referring to; it’s long been nicknamed “The Bobby Kennedy Law”; jump ahead to Section 221, which spells out that, for purposes of this section, > [@](#): > > …‘public official’ means an officer (including the President and a Member of Congress) … ‘relative’ means, with respect to a public official, an individual who is related to the public official as father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife … A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official. An individual may not be appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in or to a civilian position in an agency if such appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement has been advocated by a public official, serving in or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency, who is a relative of the individual. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2015, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-hillary-wins-can-she-have-bill-help-her-on-every-decision/730119/32 "2015-09-06T07:36:58Z")
That’s a little dense for my palate. Could Bill be Hillary’s Chief of staff? I can’t seem to parse it as forbidding that. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2015, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-hillary-wins-can-she-have-bill-help-her-on-every-decision/730119/33 "2015-09-06T08:01:44Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > That’s a little dense for my palate. Could Bill be Hillary’s Chief of staff? I can’t seem to parse it as forbidding that. " May not appoint to a civilian position in the agency over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative." Unless CoS is a military appointment, it appears not. The Cos is an employee of The White House and it would be tricky to argue that the President doesn’t exercise any jurisdiction or control over the White House. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2015, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-hillary-wins-can-she-have-bill-help-her-on-every-decision/730119/34 "2015-09-06T10:16:17Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > I think you probably mean Abigail. Or, at a stretch, Louisa. You are right: Abigail. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2015, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-hillary-wins-can-she-have-bill-help-her-on-every-decision/730119/35 "2015-09-06T11:31:23Z")
The idea that a female president will secretly let her husband run things is as real a concern as having some other female president start world war three because “it’s her time of the month.” There are enough real issues open for debate in this election that one has no need to invent sexist conspiracy theories to add to the mix. And no, there’s no basis for the Supreme Court to intervene to stop Hillary from being elected because somebody thinks that Bill Clinton seems like Putin. This is silly. End of story. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2015, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-hillary-wins-can-she-have-bill-help-her-on-every-decision/730119/36 "2015-09-06T11:56:38Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > I understand this is a thread skirting the edge of GQ and more opinionated forums. Still, isn’t it a well establish fact, with many references, that Putin has taken actions to dodge term limits and that he de facto has near dictatorial power over Russia? I’m asking if in the United States, if Hillary de facto allows Bill Clinton to rule for another 8 years, if this in fact is comparable to Putin’s actions and if the Constitution or the Supreme Court is likely to prevent it. Your fantasy puts Bill Clinton in Putin’s place & makes Hilary the pawn for a dictator. Surely his power-mad scheming would have required her to run for office immediately after his own second term. After the next 8 years–damn, Chelsea’s still too young! What to do? Even the most rabid Clinton-haters have failed to use this scenario. I’m sure the next President Clinton will get advice from the previous one. Just as he discussed things with her during his own presidency. But it doesn’t seem a matter for the Supreme Court. ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2015, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-hillary-wins-can-she-have-bill-help-her-on-every-decision/730119/37 "2015-09-06T13:24:14Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > " May not appoint to a civilian position in the agency over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative." > > Unless CoS is a military appointment, it appears not. The Cos is an employee of The White House and it would be tricky to argue that the President doesn’t exercise any jurisdiction or control over the White House. Unless of course, we look a little more closely at the definition of “agency.” > [@](#): > > (1) 'agency’means— > " (A) an Executive agency; > " ( B ) an oflfice, agency, or other establishment in the legis- > lative branch; > " ( C ) an office, agency, or other establishment in the judi- > cial branch; and > " ( D ) the government of the District of Columbia; Since this is being inserted into Title 5 of the USC, we need to look at the definition of “Executive agency” in Title 5: > [@](#): > > 5 U.S. Code § 105 - Executive agency > > For the purpose of this title, “Executive agency” means an Executive department, a Government corporation, and an independent establishment. Is the White House staff an Excutive Department? Nope: > [@](#): > > 5 U.S. Code § 101 - Executive departments > The Executive departments are: > > The Department of State. > > The Department of the Treasury. > > The Department of Defense. > > The Department of Justice. > > The Department of the Interior. > > The Department of Agriculture. > > The Department of Commerce. > > The Department of Labor. > > The Department of Health and Human Services. > > The Department of Housing and Urban Development. > > The Department of Transportation. > > The Department of Energy. > > The Department of Education. > > The Department of Veterans Affairs. > > The Department of Homeland Security. Is the Whitehouse staff a Government corporation? I don’t think so: > [@](#): > > 5 U.S. Code § 103 - Government corporation > > For the purpose of this title— > (1) “Government corporation” means a corporation owned or controlled by the Government of the United States; and > (2) “Government controlled corporation” does not include a corporation owned by the Government of the United States. Is the White House staff an independent establishment? The answer is not obvious: > [@](#): > > 5 U.S. Code § 104 - Independent establishment > > For the purpose of this title, “independent establishment” means— > (1) an establishment in the executive branch (other than the United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission) which is not an Executive department, military department, Government corporation, or part thereof, or part of an independent establishment; and > (2) the Government Accountability Office. The Courts have looked at this question: In United States v Espy, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said: > [@](#): > > An entity within the Executive Office does not qualify as an “agency” unless it exercises “substantial independent authority,” Soucie v. David, 448 F.2d 1067, 1073-76 (D.C.Cir.1971); see Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 156, 100 S.Ct. 960, 63 L.Ed.2d 267 (1980), which, of course, would not be true of either the Chief of Staff or the President’s Counsel. In Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Supreme Court said that > [@](#): > > The FOIA does render the “Executive Office of the President” an agency subject to the Act. 5 U.S.C. § 552(e). The legislative history is unambiguous, however, in explaining that the “Executive Office” does not include the Office of the President. The Conference Report for the 1974 FOIA Amendments indicates that “the President’s immediate personal staff or units in the Executive Office whose sole function is to advise and assist the President” are not included within the term “agency” under the FOIA. H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 93-1380, p. 15 (1974), reprinted in Source Book II, p. 232. Safire’s request was limited to a period of time in which Kissinger was serving as Assistant to the President. Thus, these telephone notes were not “agency records” when they were made. Note that although both these cases concern the Freedom of Information Act, the FOIA is part of Title 5 and hence the definitions in Title 5 would apply. And there is the more mundane case of the White House chef who filed an employment discrimination lawsuit. The United States Court of Appeals,District of Columbia Circuit in Haddon v Walters writes: > [@](#): > > Although this definition of independent establishment does not clearly foreclose Mr. Haddon’s argument, he fails to explain how the Executive Residence fits within the compass of that term.   We conclude that it does not for two reasons. > > First, we note that elsewhere Congress has used the term “independent establishment” in distinction to the Executive Residence.   Specifically, Congress has authorized “[t]he head of any department, agency, or independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government [to] detail, from time to time, employees of such department, agency, or establishment to the White House Office, the Executive Residence at the White House, the Office of the Vice President, the Domestic Policy Staff, and the Office of Administration.”   3 U.S.C. § 112 (1988) (emphasis added).   That Congress distinguished the Executive Residence from the independent establishments, whatever they may be, suggests that Congress does not regard the Executive Residence to be an independent establishment, as it uses that term. > > Second, while Title 5 relates to government organization and employees and prescribes pay and working conditions for agency employees, see, e.g., 5 U.S.C. § 7103(a) (1988 & Supp. III 1991), Title 3 addresses similar concerns with respect to the President’s advisors and the staff of the Executive Residence.   See, e.g., 3 U.S.C. § 105(b)(1) (1988) (authorizing the President “to appoint and fix the pay of employees in the Executive Residence at the White House without regard to any other provision of law regulating the employment or compensation of persons in the Government service”).   Accordingly, as Mr. Walters argues, section 2000e-16’s incorporation of Title 5’s definition of executive agency further suggests that it does not apply to the staff of the Executive Residence. Although this ruling applies to the Executive Residence staff rather than the White House office, note that if we replace the first and last instances of the words “Executive Residence” with “Executive Offices” in the second paragraph, the statement still holds true. And note that U.S.C. § 107 contains almost identical language to U.S.C. § 105 with respect to the President’s personal advisors. In other words, the restrictions of Title 5 do not apply to the President’s personal policy advisors. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2015, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-hillary-wins-can-she-have-bill-help-her-on-every-decision/730119/38 "2015-09-06T16:11:51Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > First of all, I know the new thinking is that a lady asking her husband for help is highly patriarchal, etc. I think that, in most successful marriages, both people feel free to ask their partner for help. > [@](#): > > Except, in the case of Bill and Hillary Clinton, her husband is conveniently one of the most popular presidents of the modern era, and whether through luck or skill, America did well during his era. Neither a President getting help/advice from his spouse, nor a President getting help/advice from a former president, is historically unprecedented. In theory, I suppose this could result in a woman holding the office of President while her husband actually exerts the power, somewhat like [Lurleen Wallace](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurleen_Wallace) or [Miriam Ferguson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miriam_A._Ferguson). In practice, I don’t really see Hilary Rodham Clinton ceding all the decision-making authority to her husband. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2015, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-hillary-wins-can-she-have-bill-help-her-on-every-decision/730119/39 "2015-09-06T16:25:29Z")
I think we can safely assume that Bill will not be interviewing any WH interns. Actually, I think he’ll be lucky if Hillary lets him anywhere near the WH. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2015, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-hillary-wins-can-she-have-bill-help-her-on-every-decision/730119/40 "2015-09-06T16:40:19Z")
Presidents have legal requirements and constraints on their _actions_, but they can listen to, or ignore, anyone they choose to, just like anyone else. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-hillary-wins-can-she-have-bill-help-her-on-every-decision/730119.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-hillary-wins-can-she-have-bill-help-her-on-every-decision/730119.md?page=3)