If Jenna is president from 2032-2040, she then can’t run for vice president in 2040. The Constitution says that, to run for vice-president, you must be constitutionally eligible to be president, and, having served 8 years, she would not be.
I’ve noticed it, and posted about it before. For practically all of my political lifetime, the presidency has been in two families. It’s one of the reasons I hoped Hillary wouldn’t run, and still hope she doesn’t win. This country was not meant to have a royal family, or even two of them.
Unfortunately, neither party is in any position to bring this up as an issue, and I doubt anyone else will.
Of the last three presidents, two have been related. That’s hardly a huge run of family members making it to the WH. If Hillary is elected, it will make the run slightly longer, but even then it doesn’t seem that big a deal, especially since I seriously doubt that she will be followed by any other Clinton’s or Bush’s. There just aren’t enough of the Clinton clan around to make a political dynasty, and the current prez has probably insured that the Bush name will be more of a liability then a help for at least a few more election cycles.
Again, getting elected after a family member was elected to the same office hardly makes for a royal family. And while there aren’t that many cases in US history of it happening in the WH (three, if we count the Roosevelts, right?), politically powerful families are hardly a new thing in this country (the Congress especially seems to have a lot of cases of children following their parents to the same office).
They bring it up all the time. The Dems are constantly insinuating that Bush II rode his daddy’s coat-tails into the WH, and I’m sure we’ll here the same about Hillary with regards to Bill if she wins her primary. I doubt there’s support to actually pass an amendment against it, but that’s because it isn’t really that big a deal.
There were John Adams and John Quincy Adams (father and son, one term each, with 24 years between them) and Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt (cousins, ~2 and ~4 terms, respectively, also separated by 24 years)
The Bushes are the first related presidents to serve so closely together (only 8 years), and I would find it slightly troubling if the Democrats fell in to the same rut at the same time.
If Hillary Clinton is elected, that will be 24 (possibly 28) years, a full generation and then some, with the presidency in just two families. I think our system should have greater turnover than that, and greater diversity in the backgrounds, policies and geographic origins of the highest office in the land.
They bring it up in the specific, but not in the general sense that I’m suggesting. New people bring new ideas. As the current offenders, the Republicans can’t say anything. And the Democrats won’t attack Hillary on such a matter of principal.
I’d be against a constitutional amendment on the matter. I just think it’s a clear symptom of stagnation and the issues of campaign strategy and name recognizion over substance.
There’s echos here of a debate in the early 19th century, after four of the first five presidents were all from Virginia. There was a suggestion (never adopted, obviously) that the presidency should be assigned to different parts of the country on a rotating bases. The idea may have been revived when Ohio had a major political run.
Has anyone else noticed what a run the South has had lately? Going back 8 terms, it’s been:
Texas and Maine
The current candidates include Arkansas (Clinton and Huckabee), South Carolina (Edwards), Texas (Paul) and Tennessee (Thompson). I laugh when I hear southerners complain about how no one takes them seriously.