Re: Sally Field is Spielberg's new first lady

From: Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk_at_cox.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 07:26:01 -0700

In article <fdtfqb08sa_at_drn.newsguy.com>,  George Peatty <pttyg47-1230_at_copper.net> wrote:

> In article <fdq02d$3oc$1_at_panix1.panix.com>, William December Starr says...
> >
> >In article <8shof3hrvkd28qc049bsuunbbh9q8fd8vk_at_4ax.com>,
> >George Peatty <peattyg47-1230_at_copper.net> said:
> >
> >> Not the point. The issue is whether their relationship is such
> >> that .. need him or no .. his influence in her decisions might be
> >> unduly felt. That is a constitutional issue more complex than the
> >> Gordian knot, and I don't even want to go there.
>
> >What does the Constitution say about whom a President may choose to
> >listen to or even be influenced by?
>
> Irrelevant. The issue here is how many terms can a president serve, and on
> that
> point, the constitution is clear: only two. If we elect Hillary, Bill
> circumvents that restriction. It is contemptible of them to even consider
> her nomination, considered in that light.

Hmm. Okay, how far would you extend this prohibition? Would you prevent fathers and sons from being President? What about brothers? Grandchildren? Ex-spouses? Would Hillary be okay if she had gotten that divorce? Would you keep a Veep that you considered a puppet from becoming President on the grounds that he might make the former POTUS chief of staff?

That probably sounds snarky, but I'm serious. If you say a current spouse can't run if their spouse did 2 terms, where do you stop?

-- 
"Mmmm, au jus.  Not quite gravy, not quite blood . . ."

Received on Tue Oct 02 2007 - 07:26:00 PDT