• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Modest Proposal: Barack Obama Should Be Hillary Clinton's Running Mate

Obama as Hillary's running mate


  • Total voters
    33
Well when Obama was running against McCain, I figured McCain had it, until Sarah came along.
More I listened to her, my oh my I knew she was completely unqualified.
She was a tipping point for Obama.

You are wrong on three counts. While I am not claiming that Palin was a stellar candidate, she is the only reason the McCain ticket had any chance at all. McCain had a problem with the conservative base. They all thought he was an "ass". Could McCain have picked a better running mate with conservative credentials? Absolutely. However Palin did draw bigger crowds then McCain did, at least initially.

As for qualifications, If you think Palin was not qualified, Obama was even less qualified. At least Palin had executive experience as governor. Obama did not.....and it shows.

As for tipping points, Obama's success was significant African American turnout and winning over the youth vote. Had nothing to do with McCain's running mate.
 
Theoretically, does that preclude an ex-President from occupying any role that falls in the line of succession?
 
You are wrong on three counts. While I am not claiming that Palin was a stellar candidate, she is the only reason the McCain ticket had any chance at all. McCain had a problem with the conservative base. They all thought he was an "ass". Could McCain have picked a better running mate with conservative credentials? Absolutely. However Palin did draw bigger crowds then McCain did, at least initially.

As for qualifications, If you think Palin was not qualified, Obama was even less qualified. At least Palin had executive experience as governor. Obama did not.....and it shows.

As for tipping points, Obama's success was significant African American turnout and winning over the youth vote. Had nothing to do with McCain's running mate.

Well as we have differing opinions, i will go with mine.lol
 
Last edited:
Thank you for that - but perhaps I needed to be corrected a little bit. I suppose, from the wording you provided, that Obama could run for a seat in the House of Representatives and he could be elected by that body to serve as the Speaker of the House. If the President and/or Vice-President happened to be assassinated in the same attack, could he then serve as President or Vice-President or would it skip to the next in line?

That is a good question. My opinion is that he would still be ineligible. That would take more research then the 12th amendment issue. He could run for congress though.
 
Sounds a lot like Putin and Medvedev. Perhaps next we should set up a politburo and show photos of Hillary topless on horseback.

You just ruined my appetite for dinner. :sick:
 
Does it also state the the Pres and VP cannot be from the same state as well?

No but it states that the electors (electoral college) cannot choose both president and vice president from the same state they (the electors) inhabit.
 
No but it states that the electors (electoral college) cannot choose both president and vice president from the same state they (the electors) inhabit.

Thank you
 
And the lawyers speak, not, and certainly not I. Posted as it would make for a lively debate.
I am far from knowledgeable on your Constitution.
Same reason i had asked another member if the Constitution clearly states the separation of Church and State.
And lo and behold it does not for some, but another interesting discussion?????
Open the link.
VP Bill? Depends on Meaning of 'Elected'

There is no wording in the US Constitution regarding separation of church and state. The first amendment bans the government from enacting an official state religion, meaning that we will not become a clerical state. Many on the left misinterpret that as a ban on religion in government or government buildings. It does not.
 
Theoretically, does that preclude an ex-President from occupying any role that falls in the line of succession?

Probably, however I would ask a constitutional lawyer on that one.
 
I'm no US constitutional scholar, like the President supposedly is, but it's my understanding that he has been elected to two terms as President and therefore he cannot stand for election to any position that may lead to a third term as President.

I'll stand by to be corrected.

technically the president cant hold any official positions after he leaves the white house.
 
There is no wording in the US Constitution regarding separation of church and state. The first amendment bans the government from enacting an official state religion, meaning that we will not become a clerical state. Many on the left misinterpret that as a ban on religion in government or government buildings. It does not.
That is what i thought as well.
Again, thank you for the insight.
Your constitution can be a tad confusing for us up here. Meaning me.
 
I'm no US constitutional scholar, like the President supposedly is, but it's my understanding that he has been elected to two terms as President and therefore he cannot stand for election to any position that may lead to a third term as President.

I'll stand by to be corrected.

That would be the Twenty-Second Amendment:

Section. 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section. 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

It seems to apply only to one being elected directly to the position of President. I imagine there could be some fights in the courts over it if it arose, but by my reading, it doesn't seem to prevent one from being elected or appointed to some other position that puts him in line to the Presidency, such as Vice President or Speaker of the House.

I do think that Clinton/Obama ticket would be very polarizing. I think there's a very strong correlation between those of us who are fed up with the incompetence, bad judgement, hubris, and outright corruption that Obama has represented; and those who think that Hillary Clinton would just be more of the same. It's generally a good practice among nominated Presidential candidates to pick a running mate that has strengths to cover for the weaknesses of the main candidate. Mr. Obama would only aggravate and underscore Mrs. Clinton's weaknesses.


Before any Americans answer, John, do you think you can name the one President of the United States who achieved this position without being elected to it, or to any other position close in line to the Presidency? As far as I know, it happened only once.
 
That would be the Twenty-Second Amendment:

Section. 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section. 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

It seems to apply only to one being elected directly to the position of President. I imagine there could be some fights in the courts over it if it arose, but by my reading, it doesn't seem to prevent one from being elected or appointed to some other position that puts him in line to the Presidency, such as Vice President or Speaker of the House.

I do think that Clinton/Obama ticket would be very polarizing. I think there's a very strong correlation between those of us who are fed up with the incompetence, bad judgement, hubris, and outright corruption that Obama has represented; and those who think that Hillary Clinton would just be more of the same. It's generally a good practice among nominated Presidential candidates to pick a running mate that has strengths to cover for the weaknesses of the main candidate. Mr. Obama would only aggravate and underscore Mrs. Clinton's weaknesses.


Before any Americans answer, John, do you think you can name the one President of the United States who achieved this position without being elected to it, or to any other position close in line to the Presidency? As far as I know, it happened only once.

Gerald Ford was Speaker of the House when he succeeded Agnew in the Vice-Presidency and then Richard Nixon in the Presidency. I think
 
That is what i thought as well.
Again, thank you for the insight.
Your constitution can be a tad confusing for us up here. Meaning me.

You are very welcome. Most who misinterpret it here, do not actually read it.
 
You are very welcome. Most who misinterpret it here, do not actually read it.

Well with many SCOTUS rulings on it, the territory can be rocky at times.
I have read portions, and as time permits will read more.
So be prepared for more questions and I appreciate the help.
 
No need to be corrected. You are correct. It's covered in the 12th Amendment to the US Constitution:

"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

Possible, but I think most likely not.

The Twenty-Second Amendment doesn't state that someone who has already served two terms is ineligible to the office of President; only that such a person cannot be elected President.

Also, this may possibly be considered to be superseded by some later provision which I know is in there somewhere among the Amendments, but which I was just now unable to find, which changes the way the Vice President is selected. It used to be that the first runner-up in the Presidential election got to be Vice President, but this too often resulted in a President and a Vice President who could not work together because of ideological incompatibility, so somewhere along the way, it was changed so that each Presidential candidate chooses a “running mate” who will be elected Vice President if that main candidate is elected President.

I did, however, find something in the Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, that I didn't realize was there, which ought to have invalidated Obama as of his 2012 reelection, and, if upheld, would certainly make him ineligible now.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

I do not think it can be denied that during his first term, Obama committed acts that clearly constitute “insurrection or rebellion“ against the Constitution, and which, by this language, render him ineligible to be elected to public office. During his second term, his immigration policies clearly constitute having “…given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
 
Last edited:
Gerald Ford was Speaker of the House when he succeeded Agnew in the Vice-Presidency and then Richard Nixon in the Presidency. I think

That's the one, but, no, he wasn't Speaker of the House. Remember, at this time, the Democrats controlled Congress, and had for decades. The Speaker of the House—just behind the Vice President in the line of succession to the President, would have been a Democrat. Ford was the house minority leader, much farther from that line of succession. Agnew was compelled to resign as Vice President, over a scandal involving conduct that took place long before he achieved that position, and Ford was appointed to take his place. Nixon was then caught up in a scandal of his own, and compelled to resign, which put Ford in the Presidency.

It jumps out at me, in the historical context, that the misconduct of which Nixon was accused, which led to his resignation, is nothing compared to misconduct in which the current President appears to have engaged or to have helped attempt to cover up.
 
Well with many SCOTUS rulings on it, the territory can be rocky at times.
I have read portions, and as time permits will read more.
So be prepared for more questions and I appreciate the help.

A lot of the Supreme Court rulings are in legalese and can be hard to decipher. They are mostly good decisions, however there are times when instead of interpreting the law, they effectively legislate from the bench and go by their own partisan political bent.
 
Possible, but I think most likely not.

The Twenty-Second Amendment doesn't state that someone who has already served two terms is ineligible to the office of President; only that such a person cannot be elected President.

Also, this may possibly be considered to be superseded by some later provision which I know is in there somewhere among the Amendments, but which I was just now unable to find, which changes the way the Vice President is selected. It used to be that the first runner-up in the Presidential election got to be Vice President, but this too often resulted in a President and a Vice President who could not work together because of ideological incompatibility, so somewhere along the way, it was changed so that each Presidential candidate chooses a “running mate” who will be elected Vice President if that main candidate is elected President.

The 12th amendment is pretty clear that anyone no longer eligible to run for president cannot run for vice president. I do not see anything in the 22nd amendment that would invalidate that.

I did, however, find something in the Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, that I didn't realize was there, which ought to have invalidated Obama as of his 2012 reelection, and, if upheld, would certainly make him ineligible now.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

I do not think it can be denied that during his first term, Obama committed acts that clearly constitute “insurrection or rebellion“ against the Constitution, and which, by this language, render him ineligible to be elected to public office. During his second term, his immigration policies clearly constitute having “…given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

I agree in regards to his second term. In my opinion trading five murderous Taliban terrorist leaders for a single US military deserter does amount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I also agree that his attempt to go around congress with virtual amnesty to illegal immigrants is highly unconstitutional. And Obamacare enacted in his first term is a clear violation of the tenth amendment regardless of the Supreme Court ruling otherwise.
 
That's the one, but, no, he wasn't Speaker of the House. Remember, at this time, the Democrats controlled Congress, and had for decades. The Speaker of the House—just behind the Vice President in the line of succession to the President, would have been a Democrat. Ford was the house minority leader, much farther from that line of succession. Agnew was compelled to resign as Vice President, over a scandal involving conduct that took place long before he achieved that position, and Ford was appointed to take his place. Nixon was then caught up in a scandal of his own, and compelled to resign, which put Ford in the Presidency.

It jumps out at me, in the historical context, that the misconduct of which Nixon was accused, which led to his resignation, is nothing compared to misconduct in which the current President appears to have engaged or to have helped attempt to cover up.

And we can add one 2016 presidential candidate to that. Nixon was in trouble over two things...an 18 minute gap in a tape recording and obstruction of justice. Hillary has deleted over 30,000 emails.
 
I'm no US constitutional scholar, like the President supposedly is, but it's my understanding that he has been elected to two terms as President and therefore he cannot stand for election to any position that may lead to a third term as President.

I'll stand by to be corrected.

You're not wrong. The Constitution requires that the VP be eligible to be President.
 
It jumps out at me, in the historical context, that the misconduct of which Nixon was accused, which led to his resignation, is nothing compared to misconduct in which the current President appears to have engaged or to have helped attempt to cover up.

Of course. Because Nixon was a Republican, which in your mind means he is incapable of doing anything bad.
 
Of course. Because Nixon was a Republican, which in your mind means he is incapable of doing anything bad.

I don't see anyone suggesting such. Nixon was not innocent. Barack "Hussein" Obama's crimes are just worse. If Obama were a republican with a democrat controlled congress, he would be facing impeachment proceedings now.
 
I'm no US constitutional scholar, like the President supposedly is, but it's my understanding that he has been elected to two terms as President and therefore he cannot stand for election to any position that may lead to a third term as President.

I'll stand by to be corrected.

So he could never be, say, speaker of the house? That doesn't sound right.
 
A Modest Proposal: Barack Obama Should Be Hillary Clinton's Running Mate


Whew, now that would send some people off the deep end, now wouldn't it.
Thoughts are?



Please see the line of succession amendment. I believe a vice president must be "eligible" to be president and neither Obama nor Bill Clinton are eligible...and there would be the game winner, Hillary as president and Bill as 'first' husband.
 
Back
Top Bottom