It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Is Hillary even constitutionally eligible?

page: 2
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 05:04 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

That's interesting, although technically could you argue that this law only applies to men as she cannot "forfeit his office".




posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 05:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

I don't believe emails are considered legal documents, any more that phone conversations would be.





posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Thoren
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

First off I would like to apologize for a making an idiotic post in your thread. It was actually an experiment to test the state of mind of the people of ATS as of lately. It seems that simply posting a humorous gif garnered 4 stars quite quickly considering how late it is for a good majority of atsers. In fact it garnered more stars than the other posts that actually have input in this thread. As someone who has been reading ats almost daily since 2009 I am rather disappointed that Atsers seem to promote short snarky one liners and humorous troll posting rather than actual input and thought provoking posts.

Once again I apologize for the post with no substance and hope you did'nt take too much offense of my using your thread for an experiment.


I thought it was a good post.

Grandpa walks in to the whorehouse and Bart is working there.

I was expecting something different from the title too.



ETA; yeah, that bible thing doesn't work like that in the eyes of the law.


edit on 10 26 2016 by burgerbuddy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I don't believe that "one flesh" should be able to serve more than 2 terms


Devils advocate, but if applicable, as in the scientific (dna) sense of "one flesh", shouldn't this argument have been raised multiple times before, Bush's, FDR & Teddy, John and John Quincy Adams....this argument unfortunately has no merit, precedence, or need for discussion. The office might not be free of influence from the husband, but unfortunately dynasties tend to gain and retain power, thus the "dynastic" aspect...God help us all, if she gets elected, but unfortunately this isn't the argument that could change or stop it from happening...




posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Ranger351

Fair enough, I thought others would have a problem with Bill and Hillary serving 3 or 4 terms.

Guess not.

 


Mod Note: It is against the Terms and Conditions to edit political candidate names.
edit on 10/26/2016 by eriktheawful because: edited political name change


Apologies, Just trying to do a brangelina thing to establish I was considering them both as 1 entity. Just had to edit it again so that it made sense.
edit on 26-10-2016 by Krahzeef_Ukhar because: editing is fun



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

I don't believe emails are considered legal documents, any more that phone conversations would be.




Thank you for that. I learned something!


On February 16, 1971, the taping system was installed in two rooms in the White House: the Oval Office and the Cabinet Room. Three months later, microphones were added to President Nixon's private office in the Old Executive Office Building, and the following year microphones were installed in the presidential lodge at Camp David. The system was installed and monitored by the Secret Service, and tapes were kept in a room in the White House basement. Significant phone lines were tapped as well, including those in the Oval Office and the Lincoln Sitting Room, which was Nixon's favorite room in the White House.
en.wikipedia.org...


So, likewise, wouldn't have been the responsibility of the Secret Service or the NSA to monitor and keep records (back-ups) of Hillary's Secretary of State communications, whether they originated from a .gov server or a special server installed in her basement?

Who was supposed to be monitoring and backing up Clinton's communications?




edit on 26-10-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I don't think that people should take the star system so seriously on here. I tend to think of it as the "Like" button on Facebook, it holds no merit aside from letting you know that people liked your post. Your post was humorous, and people liked it. Shouldn't be too surprising since a lot of people are tired of these political jabs being thrown back and forth -- you made somewhat light of the situation.

Regarding the OP: Religion should play no part in the governance of this country. Be it for, or against, any person or organization within the government. It would be unconstitutional to disqualify her for running based upon interpretations of religious texts. So no, she is not constitutionally disqualified based upon the assertions made.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

By law, women are now considered to be actual human beings, able to have many of the political freedoms that men have enjoyed over the centuries.

So yes, she's constitutionally permitted.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Nah, she's not, and Obama is not a citizen, and Ted Cruz's father killed JFK.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar


I don't believe that "one flesh" should be able to serve more than 2 terms.


WTH? Are they conjoined twins? lol. That's nuts, man.

That's a religious belief, and mind you we have separation of church and state here. Husband and wife are two separate entities.



edit on 10/26/2016 by angeldoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: imthegoat

Cheers, I wouldn't want religion to effect anything (or exist).

However she has spent a lot of time over the years defining marriage. A 3rd definition would be nice.

The constitution is written clearly with the assumption that a man will be in power. I don't think when term limits were introduced they would have thought a female prez was possible. The idea that the wife of a previous prez would make it would have seemed equally impossible.

It's too late to change it now, however I do feel it goes against the principle of term limits.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

This isn't about her being a woman at all.
It's about her possibly spending 16years in the white house master bedroom.

If Trump married Bill I'd have the same reservations.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: imthegoat

Cheers, I wouldn't want religion to effect anything (or exist).

However she has spent a lot of time over the years defining marriage. A 3rd definition would be nice.

The constitution is written clearly with the assumption that a man will be in power. I don't think when term limits were introduced they would have thought a female prez was possible. The idea that the wife of a previous prez would make it would have seemed equally impossible.

It's too late to change it now, however I do feel it goes against the principle of term limits.


And you are grossly mistaken. I hope you learn from this thread.




posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   
I get what you're saying OP - it speaks to the Dynastic feel that the founding fathers wouldn't have approved of.
edit on 10/26/2016 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Byrd

This isn't about her being a woman at all.
It's about her possibly spending 16years in the white house master bedroom.

If Trump married Bill I'd have the same reservations.


Clearly it is, since you said this just one post up!



The constitution is written clearly with the assumption that a man will be in power. I don't think when term limits were introduced they would have thought a female prez was possible.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

I was explaining why they wouldn't have thought there was a need to mention couples back in the day.

I also mentioned Bill hooking up with Trump so it wasn't clouded by the typical Misogyny remarks.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

Well I've learned I'm a misogynist for thinking that women weren't treated equally in 1947 when they introduced term limits.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: kosmicjack
I get what you're saying OP - it speaks to the Dynastic feel that the founding fathers wouldn't have approved of.


Exactly, thanks for that. You put it a lot clearer than I did.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar




I also mentioned Bill hooking up with Trump so it wasn't clouded by the typical Misogyny remarks.


So, you think that if Bill Clinton and Donald Trump "hooked up" they would suddenly become "one flesh"?

edit on 26-10-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Probably not suddenly, they'd have to negotiate the pitcher/catcher scenario first.

Yes, it's a silly term and I'm atheist. But yes, marriage is about unity and regardless of the term used I think once you've declared your eternal love for someone and made it official it's clear that you have loyalty which could potentially override your loyalty to the country.

You can't stop people with hidden agendas getting into power. However they should be limited to 2 terms.




top topics



 
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join