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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Here’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,
" 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.
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.
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.
Unless of course, we look a little more closely at the definition of “agency.”
Since this is being inserted into Title 5 of the USC, we need to look at the definition of “Executive agency” in Title 5:
Is the White House staff an Excutive Department? Nope:
Is the Whitehouse staff a Government corporation? I don’t think so:
Is the White House staff an independent establishment? The answer is not obvious:
The Courts have looked at this question:
In United States v Espy, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said:
In Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Supreme Court said that
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 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.
I think that, in most successful marriages, both people feel free to ask their partner for help.
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 or Miriam Ferguson. In practice, I don’t really see Hilary Rodham Clinton ceding all the decision-making authority to her husband.