Ending Oligarchy

[UtahApocalypse]

What do you all think of changing it so Families cannot run for the same office in future election? this would have prevented Bush Jr. and Hillary from running. It could be limited to exclude: Parents, Sibling's, Spouse, and others to the 1st generation.

[ChrisM]

I think this is a bad idea. While it can be seen in history that a relative often carries on the policies of another (due to politics tending to run in families), it cannot be seen that this always has a negative effect. John Quincy Adams would not have been able to run if this were a part of the original Constitution. I would think that if it was not an issue with the Founding Fathers when John Quincy Adams ran after the presidency of John Adams, that they did not think that this was an issue.

Furthermore, this limits the power of the people and College to choose whom they believe will be the best president in much the same way that the Twenty-second Amendment limits the terms that a president may serve.

[RonPaul4President]

What do you all think of changing it so Families cannot run for the same office in future election? this would have prevented Bush Jr. and Hillary from running. It could be limited to exclude: Parents, Sibling's, Spouse, and others to the 1st generation.

The dilemna boils down to the rights of those family members. Should their inherent rights be limited because they are related to someone that has attained such a position? If so, this would need to be dealt with prior to a family member becoming elected -- ie; signing a waiver, et cetera. Another option would be to place a time limit between family members being elected.

Personally, I believe that George Jr. is a puppet for George Sr. to play with. So, in affect, Sr. is still president, indirectly.

[SeekLiberty]

As much as that may sound like a good idea due to recent history, it violates the rights of progeny.

I want only SINGLE-term presidencies.

That way they only get FOUR years to screw up our Country. :rolleyes:

FYI, this is also what Thomas Jefferson wanted. This keeps a power from getting a stronghold.

- SL

PS: Senators terms should probably be FOUR years, if not cut in HALF to THREE. They've proven themselves too unworthy for long terms. This is aside from the fact that state legislatures should vote for their senator, and we repeal the 17th amendment.

We got our work cut out! Whew! The answers are there. It's the ACTION that's needed.

[questioner]

What do you all think of changing it so Families cannot run for the same office in future election? this would have prevented Bush Jr. and Hillary from running. It could be limited to exclude: Parents, Sibling's, Spouse, and others to the 1st generation.


Husband and wife are ALREADY one person in law. Eg a spouse cannot testify against a spouse. Hillary cannot legally run -- in fact she could not file papers to run for the Senate while she remained married to the President. If she had divorced him, she could have. Her candidacy is illegal.

[SeekLiberty]

Husband and wife are ALREADY one person in law. Eg a spouse cannot testify against a spouse. Hillary cannot legally run -- in fact she could not file papers to run for the Senate while she remained married to the President. If she had divorced him, she could have. Her candidacy is illegal.

Besides Hillary being a CRIMINAL Senator that's running for Presidency, (She should be in prison for not upholding her oath of office and it resulting in massive deaths, genocide, of 10's of thousands of innocent people) can you expound a little more?

Is what you're suggesting then is this "one person in law" is running for more terms of Presidency that our Constitution allows, and that would be a THIRD term in effect.

Is that what you mean? Very interesting! It makes sense because she has the coaching of a former President who knows the inside out. Now that makes a lot of sense as to why that should be illegal!

Hasn't any Ministry of Truth on-the-ball reporter asked about this yet?

Thank you for bringing this to my attention! Wow!

- SL

[ChrisM]

As much as that may sound like a good idea due to recent history, it violates the rights of progeny.

I want only SINGLE-term presidencies.

That way they only get FOUR years to screw up our Country. :rolleyes:

FYI, this is also what Thomas Jefferson wanted. This keeps a power from getting a stronghold.

- SL

PS: Senators terms should probably be FOUR years, if not cut in HALF to THREE. They've proven themselves too unworthy for long terms. This is aside from the fact that state legislatures should vote for their senator, and we repeal the 17th amendment.

We got our work cut out! Whew! The answers are there. It's the ACTION that's needed.

A single term would be interesting too. I'm not too hard-line when it comes to a president's term limits. It is as it is.

I disagree with reducing the term of Senators. With the direct election of Senators, then sure, but Senators were originally intended to represent State interests over popular interests. The Senate was supposed to be the "seasoned" and "wiser" house of the two and not be so influenced by popular movements and the such. I think the better option would be repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.

[UtahApocalypse]

Husband and wife are ALREADY one person in law. Eg a spouse cannot testify against a spouse. Hillary cannot legally run -- in fact she could not file papers to run for the Senate while she remained married to the President. If she had divorced him, she could have. Her candidacy is illegal.


I would like to see more information about this.

[SeekLiberty]

A single term would be interesting too. I'm not too hard-line when it comes to a president's term limits. It is as it is.

I disagree with reducing the term of Senators. With the direct election of Senators, then sure, but Senators were originally intended to represent State interests over popular interests. The Senate was supposed to be the "seasoned" and "wiser" house of the two and not be so influenced by popular movements and the such. I think the better option would be repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.

I totally understand what you're saying! I know that's what our Founders intended. It makes sense ... however ...

... if we keep Senators at their 6-year terms, then we better damn well get some better Senators! :)

I'm so tired of the majority whom are Constitutional CRIMINALS. They have not proven to be the "seasoned" and "wiser" house of the two. But I believe that's VERY likely to be caused by the stupid 17th amendment!

- SL

[questioner]

[QUOTEIs what you're suggesting then is this "one person in law" is running for more terms of Presidency that our Constitution allows, and that would be a THIRD term in effect. Is that what you mean? Very interesting! It makes sense because she has the coaching of a former President who knows the inside out. Now that makes a lot of sense as to why that should be illegal!Hasn't any Ministry of Truth on-the-ball reporter asked about this yet?Thank you for bringing this to my attention! Wow!
- SL[/QUOTE]

Hi, I told the head of the top Republican thinktank this as soon as Hillary -- WHILE STILL FIRST LADY IN THE WHITE HOUSE -- said she was filing papers for the Senate. He didn't get it (it did not enter his brain, maybe as they were then beginning to plan Iraq).

It was unconstitutional on its face for her to run for the Senate as it was mixing Executive with Legislative. If she had divorced Bill Clinton, she would have been okay. But she didn't. She has wanted her cake and to eat it too.

Now it is unconstititional on its face again for a different reason for her to be running for President because she is still married to a President with whom she is "one" in the law. (Imagine Mrs Carter or Mrs Nixon or Mrs Johnson running for President; Mrs Roosevelt could have done so because she was a widow.)

Hillary's whole candidacy is illegal. A federal judge should be asked to rule on it asap. Can Hillary testify against Bill in any court of law? NO. Why not? Because she is one and the same with him in the eyes of the law until and unless they divorce.

Or is marriage meaningless in the law?

[LibertyEagle]

As much as that may sound like a good idea due to recent history, it violates the rights of progeny.

I want only SINGLE-term presidencies.

That way they only get FOUR years to screw up our Country. :rolleyes:

FYI, this is also what Thomas Jefferson wanted. This keeps a power from getting a stronghold.

- SL

PS: Senators terms should probably be FOUR years, if not cut in HALF to THREE. They've proven themselves too unworthy for long terms. This is aside from the fact that state legislatures should vote for their senator, and we repeal the 17th amendment.

We got our work cut out! Whew! The answers are there. It's the ACTION that's needed.

Nope. The problem is that we keep electing people from the same big government pot. You could change the term of the presidency to 1 year and the direction of our country is not going to change unless we change who is being put in the pot for us to choose from. Ever read Quigley?

Dr. Carroll Quigley, said in his book, Tragedy and Hope:

"The chief problem of American political life for a long time has been how to make the two Congressional parties more national and international. The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so the that American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy." Quigley, 1247-1248


The election of senators needs to go back to state legislatures. It's not their term length that is the problem.

[ChrisM]

Hillary's whole candidacy is illegal. A federal judge should be asked to rule on it asap. Can Hillary testify against Bill in any court of law? NO. Why not? Because she is one and the same with him in the eyes of the law until and unless they divorce.

Or is marriage meaningless in the law?

If marriage were meaningless in the eyes of the law, we wouldn't have this whole debate over the legal definition of marriage nor would there be marriage licenses.

As a result of common law tradition, a judge can only rule on cases presented to him. If you really want to make a case and make a big ruckus (only after she gets the nomination, of course ;) ) then sue her and the Democratic Party.


Nope. The problem is that we keep electing people from the same big government pot. You could change the term of the presidency to 1 year and the direction of our country is not going to change unless we change who is being put in the pot for us to choose from. Ever read Quigley?

Dr. Carroll Quigley, said in his book, Tragedy and Hope:

"The chief problem of American political life for a long time has been how to make the two Congressional parties more national and international. The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so the that American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy." Quigley, 1247-1248


The election of senators needs to go back to state legislatures. It's not their term length that is the problem.

You put it very well. I knew there was a reason term limits were not in the original Constitution. Obviously, the Electoral College isn't very good at its job of keeping us in check, is it?

Dr. Quigley is implying that the Parties adopt the Big Tent Theory, which I think is needed most and most practical in a two-party system. However, I feel that the Parties should be opposed, yet represent the entire spectrum on their respective halves. For example, the slightest right-leaning centrist would be welcome among the Republicans and the same for the left-leaners with the Democrats. That way, our two-party system would work as it should: more moderate and less polarized. It's something that we have only mastered for a few years at a time over these last 231 and it would do wonders to unite this nation. The advantage to this extreme polarization, which grows worse by the election cycle, is that it requires compromise in order for any progress to be achieved. Think back to all the compromises that have been made in the past and especially how compromise managed to keep this fragile young nation together for over eighty years.

[questioner]

If you really want to make a case and make a big ruckus (only after she gets the nomination, of course ;) ) then sue her and the Democratic Party.

No, in good faith it should be taken to a federal judge now, as soon as the legal position has been recognized, not after she gets the nomination. If she is barred from running because her candidacy is illegal on its face, her party has enough time to choose someone else. She also has enough time to get divorced from Bill and then maybe file again if it was not time-barred.

[ChrisM]

No, in good faith it should be taken to a federal judge now, as soon as the legal position has been recognized, not after she gets the nomination. If she is barred from running because her candidacy is illegal on its face, her party has enough time to choose someone else. She also has enough time to get divorced from Bill and then maybe file again if it was not time-barred.
Do you really want her running? If she is as destructive as I believe she could be to this nation, you would do everything to keep her from running and it would be in better faith than suing now.

Either way, if you truly believe this is a case to be made, then contact a lawyer.

[questioner]

Do you really want her running? If she is as destructive as I believe she could be to this nation, you would do everything to keep her from running and it would be in better faith than suing now.

The point about good and bad faith is that this is an issue of law not of politics. Hillary might have been an angel who was good for the country but still legally barred from running because she and Bill Clinton are, in the eyes of the law, the same legal person. If someone took her to court after nomination, a judge could say, well, all things considered, it's too late.

Now there's still plenty of time. Her candidacy is illegal. A judge could tell her, get divorced, then re-appy legally. There would be no unfair political disadvantage against the Democrats at this early stage.

[UtahApocalypse]

Has anyone asked any legal council about this issue? or sent in this to Alex Jones, or any other sites with bigger resources? This seems like something that could be absolutely HUGE.

[questioner]

Has anyone asked any legal council about this issue? or sent in this to Alex Jones, or any other sites with bigger resources? This seems like something that could be absolutely HUGE.

Yup, it's HUGE. I told the top Republican thinktank head as I said way back when she first was going to run for the Senate while still being First Lady, but he just didn't get it.

Notice also that if she does get divorced and then is legally able to run as a single candidate, she can't bask in the glow of being the married woman who was wronged by Bill's indiscretions. She is either single or married in the law, can't have it both ways. If she is single, she may be able to run legally, if she is married she cannot. Period.

(Maybe time for her and Bill to fly to Reno for a quickie divorce.)