I had a dream


Last night I had the the most wonderful dream. It was so real, so life-like and so vivid I woke up so happy . Let me describe it to you...

1. Hillary won the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States.

2. Naturally, she wants to choose as her running mate someone with a lot of knowledge and experience in government and foreign affairs, someone who is a seasoned campaigner who could bring a lot of strength to the ticket. Who better than Bill, her husband?

3. Hill and Bill go on to win the election in November and the Democrats maintain control of the House and the Senate.

4. Hillary is sworn in as President on January 20, 2009. The next day, after all the inauguration parties are over, she calls a press conference to make an announcement: she is resigning as President! Bill, as the Vice President, immediately becomes President. This is all perfectly legal under the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, for it states that "no person may be elected as president more than twice." Bill is not being elected for a third term but is merely serving out the remainder of Hillary's term---all 4 years of it.

5. But wait...there's more! The following day Bill calls a press conference to make an announcement. He has chosen someone to fill the now vacant office of Vice President. Guess who he picks? Why, Hillary, of course!

nightmare

if if had been Obama

I have to agree...nightmare!

You're nightmare will be if Mccain wins the election,you think times are bad now,you haven't seen anything,he will put the draft back into effect. He said he would follow O Soma Binladen to the gates of hell.but what he didn't tell you was,it would be the young men who have just graduated high school that will go into hell after him while Mccain is at Camp David or someplace else hiding out.
You had better think about your vote before you cast it, most of you have son's and grandson's who don't want to die in a country where everyone else thinks it's acceptable and are looking for all of those Virgins awaiting them.Well my grandson's aren't looking for Virgins, they just want a life.

That was not your dream, you copied and pasted information from a website and did not give them the credit!

I did not copy and paste anything, because I don't know how to copy and paste. Are you trying to say that someone else is having the same dreams as I am? Lucky person. Let me give you GOP's something to chew on

1-Hillary Clinton-Liberal Democrat President-2008

2-Barack Obama-Liberal Democrat President-2008

3-John McCain-Liberal Democrat President-2008

How can the democrats lose? Now this sounds like a real nightmare for the Republicans to me!!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/president.asp

Almost for word all over the net mostly by Mike Huckabee supporters:

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?p=494798

http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-611594.html

http://motheronearth.com/members/feed2wxr/

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa/msg/5a1f5594a839fd5f

http://www.baltimoresun2.com/talk/showpost.php?s=e149e653aff617b2a7a8bca968db1501&p=3003688&postcount=113

http://forums.terra.com/foros/mexicanos_en_la/Mexicanos_en_LA_C45/Mexicanos_en_LA_F230/Nightmare__%3COT%3E_P969031/

http://forums.qrz.com/showpost.php?s=99e6e99c8ea9a7e81e3bd5520a9745f6&p=1120371&postcount=1

http://www.orderbankchecksonline.com/blog/

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_F/threadview?m=tm&bn=23558&tid=262602&mid=262756&tof=1&rt=2&frt=2&off=1

http://www.syracuse.com/forums/nationalpolitics/index.ssf?extlink?artid=1111465

One could just as easily argue that a Republican candidate would choose George W. Bush as Vice President on the basis that his experience in combating terrorism is necessary in the future administration to make sure we aren't killed in a domestic nuclear attack or something similarly tragic and sensationalist designed to exploit our fears. In fact, if you read through to the end, you'll see how it could actually be easier for Bush to achieve this than Clinton based on the makeup of the Supreme Court.

I believe this is a moot point, however.

The 12th Amendment states "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

The 22nd Amendment states "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."

Of course you'll say that the 12th Amendment doesn't actually exclude a two-term former President because the 22nd Amendment doesn't affect eligibility which is determined by Article Two, Clause 5 meaning that the requirements for vice president are that he/she must be at least 35 years of age, have been born a citizen of the United States, and have been a resident of the U.S. for at least the 14 years preceding election. The basis for the 22nd Amendment's irrelevance would be that it specifically refers to being elected to office rather than the order of succession.

While it's true that the specific language leaves room for that interpretation, the spirit of the constitution is pretty clear to anyone who understands that the legislature's intention with this amendment was to prevent a permanent president. The interpretation of course would then be left up to the Supreme Court where 7 out of 9 Justices were appointed by Republicans.

Naturally the next contention would be that even though most of Justices were appointed by Republicans, the majority of whom have liberal voting records. Of course that must mean that they'd side with the Clintons if our country was actually faced with this issue, right? Not really, when you consider that some of the liberal Justices go for context over literal interpretation (textualism). Breyer, the second most liberal Justice, once wrote that he looks "more to purpose and consequences" of the text. In fact, it is the minority of conservative Justices who tend to adhere to textualism, lending more substance to the argument that G.W. Bush could do this instead of Bill Clinton.

The only writing from people who study Constitutional Law to support literal interpretation of the 12th and 22nd Amendments come from Michael C. Dorf, a Columbia law professor who clearly idolized Bill Clinton, writing that "we, as a people, thrive on him" in a 2000 article on cnn.com.

However, even in his ardent support that Bill Clinton be Al Gore's running mate in 2000, Dorf's only defense against the spirit of the constitution was that Republicans "lack moral standing to invoke the spirit of any constitutional provision, in preference to its plain language" because "George W. Bush proudly calls himself a "strict constructionist" who hews to the letter of the Constitution".

That argument is weak at best, especially with most Justices in favor of reading into the spirit of the law.

This whole scenario is a typical political ploy. Which if were possible or probable would cause Hillary's pole numbers to increase. Despite Bill's playing around our economy thrived during his presidency and our national debt began to decrease, something that seems out of reach today. Do people really think all other politicians are "angels" just because they don't get caught by the dress. When you see a 60 plus year old man with a 20 something girl does it not start to come together or is it a case of not seeing the forest for the trees?

I guess you are saying then that morals don't count for anything as long as we have money in our pockets and the trains run run on time. I guess the Democrat motto should be "Its ok to be corrupt as long as you balance the budget." The economy isn't bad now compared to other times in history but to hear John Edwards tell it we have soup lines in every city. Democrats have never presented a positive picture about anything and go to great lengths to convince everybody they are dirt poor even though thats not true. Democrats are more about government reliance rather than self reliance. You never hear Democrats talk about whats great about America. Its always gloom and doom and the checks in the mail for you honey.
Yeah I know we got a war in Iraq going on that cost billions.