posted on November 9, 2000 06:24:41 PM new
I don't know how he orchestrated this snafu but we may just be looking at a third term for him. He's been hinting at it for some time now and what with all the talk about lawsuits over the present presidential election, on January 20th when the new Pres. is supposed to take office there may just not be anyone to take over as Pres. and then Clinton will have his third term. If I am correct I beleive that the constitution states that no one person can be President for no more than 11 consecutive years, so he would then have 3 more years as Pres.
posted on November 9, 2000 07:45:58 PM new
Hi Yellowstone - I usually vote as I wish, not by party, but my preferences turn out to be more of the Democratic party than the Republican.
Even so, the prospect you mention still scares me.
Course, I don't think Bush or Gore are great prizes either, but for a lot of years voting has been choosing the lesser of two evils.
posted on November 9, 2000 08:05:53 PM new
If by the 20th? nothing has been resolved, then the Speaker of the House becomes President. For FOUR years!!!
Since the speaker is Republican, the Bush camp could (if it looked like they were going to lose) just drag this out. It wouldn't be Bush, but it would be a Republican.
edited to add: I'm not sure if it's the 20th. It may be the first week in January.
[ edited by UpInTheHills on Nov 9, 2000 08:07 PM ]
posted on November 9, 2000 08:41:48 PM newIf by the 20th? nothing has been resolved, then the Speaker of the House becomes President.
UpInTheHills, I think you are correct about this, however, President Clinton has been hinting about a third term and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he were to make some sort of a powerplay if it should become advantageous for him to do so and get a third term.
the Bush camp could (if it looked like they were going to lose) just drag this out
I don't entirely agree with you on this. I think it's the Gore camp along with others in the Democratic party that want to drag this out. What I see the Bush camp doing in all of this is just waiting to see how it all plays out in Florida. Hey they have nothing to lose at this point, they are ahead so far. And as far as calling for recounts in other states and dragging the election out this way, I couldn't see the Bush camp going this far. I think if Gore pulls far enough ahead in Florida after all the votes are tallied then Bush will concede.
Even so, the prospect you mention still scares me.jada, this scares me as well and I have heard rumors about a Clinton third term for a few years.
posted on November 9, 2000 08:48:56 PM new
NOT. (sheeesh)
Amendment XXII (1951)
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.
posted on November 9, 2000 08:52:08 PM newJulsey He himself (Clinton) said during and towards the end of the campaign that Al Gore being elected would be allmost as good as a third term. I saw and heard this on the world news, I think it was ABC but all of the major networks carried the interview with Clinton.
posted on November 9, 2000 08:53:20 PM new
MORE NOT (more sheeesh)
Amendment XX (1933)
Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January,
of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not
have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his
term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law
provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act
shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
posted on November 9, 2000 08:56:58 PM new
Not quite. A radio host interviewing Clinton suggested to him that it would be great to have him for a third term, to which he replied that you can have the next best thing. That was a light reply to a light suggestion. That's quite different than him saying out of the blue that Gore would be the next best thing to a third term for him. He never suggested that he wants a third term (I'm sure he does, of course).
posted on November 9, 2000 09:24:31 PM new
krs--seeing as you are the US Election Almanac-----What happens if Bush is declared the winner and 2 of the 'Electors' abstain from voting in December giving him only 269 Electoral votes???
posted on November 9, 2000 10:00:46 PM new
I was watching David Letterman tonight and Cokie Roberts was the guest (very bright woman by the way).
She said that the Speaker of the House wouldn't want the appointment of President, and should he refuse, the apppointment would go to Strom Thurmond who is now 98 years old. The idea of Strom Thurmond being President, no matter what his age, scares me even more than Clinton.
Hope they get this settled soon, I'm gonna have nightmares.
posted on November 9, 2000 10:03:06 PM new
I'm not using any almanac. Those are amendments to the constitution.
But, since you ask, thirty five states have no law dictating that the electoral college electors from those states cast their votes with the majority in those states which means that they can vote independently if they chose to do that. I'm not sure if there's an allowance for abstention, but at this point any elector from any of those states can vote in accordance with his or her reading of the wishes of the populace at large.
It should be obvious what that means, but I'll have to await a talk show interpretation before I'll be willing to lay it out.
posted on November 10, 2000 01:22:23 AM new
Anybody know whether any elector has ever chosen NOT to vote for the candidate to whom his vote was nominally assigned? I know it's permitted in most states, but I'm wondering if there's any precedent.
posted on November 10, 2000 01:29:21 AM new"Anybody know whether any elector has ever chosen NOT to vote for the candidate to whom his vote was nominally assigned? I know it's permitted in most states, but I'm wondering if there's any precedent."
1976 was the last time it happened. An elector for Ford cast his vote for Regan. It had no bearing on the election, Carter had the votes. Basically it was a protest vote. I don't believe there has ever been an elector switch their vote and actually had any concequence on an election, but it has happened a few times.
posted on November 10, 2000 07:43:51 PM new
I believe that Clinton can/will/may declare a "National Emergency" to deal with this voter thingy, and by an already in place Executive Order, remain in the post of President until "He" removes the emergency..
Therefore, he could possibly remain president for ..???
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For every action, there is an equal
and opposite government program.
Visit: http://www.mrbucks.com
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
posted on November 10, 2000 07:57:34 PM new
actually, The most recent case was in the 1988 contest between Republican George Bush and Democrat Michael Dukakis. Dukakis carried West Virginia, so the electors chosen by the state Democratic party, and pledged to vote for Dukakis, cast their ballots.
One of the state’s electors, Margarette Leach, chose not to vote for Dukakis for president and voted for Democratic
vice-presidential nominee Lloyd Bentsen for president instead.
posted on November 10, 2000 10:23:59 PM new
Actually I do need to make a slight correction and I appologize. I did some checking on this and it wasn't an actual interview. What it was, was when President Clinton was campaining for Al Gore and he was visiting the black churches. It was during a speach to one of the congregations that he made the statement about Al Gore being elected President would be allmost as good as himself getting a third term. Granted he may have said it in a joking manner and he would probably never be so dumb as to make this sort of a statement to the national media but nevertheless he did make the statement.
A radio host interviewing Clinton suggested to him that it would be great to have him for a third term, to which he replied that you can have the next best thing.
jamesoblivion, I am not going to suggest that you are wrong about this statement. I'll go ahead and take your word on it so therefore I think that both yours and my recollections on this are correct and noncontradictory to each other.
