1
   

Constitutional question

 
 
rayban1
 
Reply Fri 25 Mar, 2005 10:12 am
There are rumblings of a movement for Cheney to run for Prez in 2008. Would it be unconstitutional for Bush to run with him as VP?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 977 • Replies: 7
No top replies

 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Mar, 2005 10:24 am
Constitutional or not, it ain't gonna happen.

More sense to run Jeb as VP, IMO.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Mar, 2005 10:33 am
No, the XXII Amendment only bars a sitting President from being elected to more than two terms. If a two term President were elected in some succeeding term as Vice-President there appears to be no impediment to his succeeding to President in appropriate circumstances.

More practically, I'm sure that that the Democratic Party would like for the Republicans to mount such a foolish and cynical slate. Cheney would be a terrible choice for top of the ticket. Even as VP his health problems give many of us serious concerns, as President ... never. Even with his health problems aside, Cheney would probably have great difficulty running a vigorous campaign against even a moderately attractive Democratic ticket. Even among the most partisan Republicans, Cheney's public record would be hard to sustain in a really tough political brawl. The left and the conspiracy nuts would have a field day painting Cheney as a puppet whose real service would be to die in office. A Cheney-Bush ticket just isn't in the cards when there are so many other stronger possible candidates out there.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Mar, 2005 10:54 am
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Mar, 2005 10:55 am
In the immortal words of Jesse Unruh, "two weeks is forever in politics". The only people with shorter memories than elected officials are the voters who elect them. Today's hero may not be able to get a job selling pencils on the street corner tomorrow. Unknowns have been known to vault from total obscurity to the People's Choice almost overnight.

The next Presidential election is so far in the future, that no predictions/forecasts made today are even remotely reasonable. The two fundamental issues, the economy and foreign affairs, are both fluid and might change radically more than once between now and the next campaign. No one can really predict what the public mood will be three years from now. If things continue as they are in the War on Terrorism, I believe that the Democrats will be hard pressed to counter the Republicans in foreign affairs. My guess is that as of this time they would be better advised to concentrate on domestic issues, especially the economy. That may also be problematical if the current administration's policies are even reasonably effective. We'll just have to wait and see.

On the other hand, preparation for a national campaign has to start very early. Personally I'd like to see Colin Powell at the head of the Republican ticket, but he may not be willing. Rice has pretty much taken a "Sherman", and I don't think the time will be right for her anyway. Followers of the California Governor may have dreams that the laws may change to permit his running, but that is about as likely as the sun coming up in the South tomorrow. I don't think Jeb Bush has the stature, nor the Party backing needed. A strong mid-Western Governor, Senator, or war hero might be a good choice. I think the list of possibles may run to several hundred persons at the moment, with perhaps fifty or so that have a real chance later.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Mar, 2005 11:23 am
Chicago Joe,

Yes. The probability of Constitutional challenge to a Cheyney-Budsh ticket, whatever its outcome, is not a gamble that any reasonable politician would likely take. I believe that the XXII would rule out over the apparent conflict with the XXVth. I think the Supreme Court as currently constituted would see it the same way. However, different folks might indeed see it differently.

I also agree with you that Amendments to the Constitution have a very checkered history. Both XXII and XXV have problems. The XXI was an explicit recognition that the XVIII was a national disaster. I truly dislike the XVII as disturbing the balance between Federal and State government and between those with property and those without that was set forth in the Constitution. The powers given the Federal government in the XVI Amendment are implicit in the main body of the Constitution, and the XXIII in my opinion was un-necessary.

Few of us take serious issue with the Bill of Rights, nor Amentments XI through XV. Of the following ten Amendments, at least half are in my opinion flawed to some extent. This should give serious pause to those who want to rush through Constitutional Amendments to enshrine their favorite hobby-horses in the document. Don't discard or try to fix what isn't clearly broken.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Mar, 2005 11:28 pm
Thank you gentlemen for your valuable contributions. I can now advise the President and the VP on a course of action. :wink: Seriously....those were serious answers to a serious question. What an ingenious method of driving the rest of the world crazy.
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Mar, 2005 02:35 pm
Damn, you guys are good. Well played ! Thanks for the interesting read.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Constitutional question
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/18/2019 at 02:43:35