Curious your rationale behind the underlined statement.(Rufus) I would vote for neither and neither should be a consideration as neither are constitutionally qualified for the office.
Curious your rationale behind the underlined statement.(Rufus) I would vote for neither and neither should be a consideration as neither are constitutionally qualified for the office.
How so?Quote by: Rufus
Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 – ratified February 27, 1951
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.
By what standard is either ineligible?
The Forum Rules
Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
[John F. Kennedy]
The principal value of debate lies in the development of logical thought processes, and the ability to articulate your positions publicly.
[Senator Dick Clark of Iowa]
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
[Terry Pratchett]
Well.. The original constitutional definition of 'citizen' did only include white males..
Can you demonstrate where?Well.. The original constitutional definition of 'citizen' did only include white males..
As long as you promise to take whatever I say very, very seriously.
If I did then I wouldn't have asked.
Article 2 Section 1 He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years...
...The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services... nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive...etc. etc.
Well, I was never a strict constructionist anyway. Will anyone (especially the conservative crew) actually try to make that argument? Or... can we admit it's the 21st century and say screw that?
The more you complain, the less I care about your problems.
The worship of the Founding Fathers gets a little silly. It's practical instead to say, "Their view is unknown in the issues of today, and shouldn't be the deciding factor anyway." That is a more purely logical approach, as far as I'm concerned.Well, I was never a strict constructionist anyway.
Will anyone (especially the conservative crew) actually try to make
that argument?
Grandpa h.
Post by post, building his arguments by smashing a couple of theirs -- for America.
I believe it to be a more logical approach to obey the law. This in no way means that I worship the law nor worship those that wrote the law.
But why are we obeying this particular "law" - if law is even the right term? Are we so attached to tradition that we must do exactly what it says without ever questioning it?
The more you complain, the less I care about your problems.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks