No more 22nd?

"Robert P Holley" wrote in message

>
>
> Fred Liken wrote:
>> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH:
>
> A bunch of democrats so desperate for the White House they want Bill
> Clinton to run again?
>
>

Well don't you think some Republicans are gonna jump on that bandwagon for
the sake of keeping Hillary out.
 >> Stay informed about: No more 22nd? 

Mattinglyfan (deez nuts) wrote:
> "Robert P Holley" wrote in message
>
> >
> >
> > Fred Liken wrote:
> >> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH:
> >
> > A bunch of democrats so desperate for the White House they want Bill
> > Clinton to run again?
> >
> >
>
> Well don't you think some Republicans are gonna jump on that bandwagon for
> the sake of keeping Hillary out.

Not at all.
 >> Stay informed about: No more 22nd? 

"Mattinglyfan" wrote in message

>
> "Robert P Holley" wrote in message
>
>>
>>
>> Fred Liken wrote:
>>> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH:
>>
>> A bunch of democrats so desperate for the White House they want Bill
>> Clinton to run again?
>>
>
> Well don't you think some Republicans are gonna jump on that bandwagon for
> the sake of keeping Hillary out.

Republicans would welcome a Hillary nomination. Even Quayle'd beat her in a
landslide.
 >> Stay informed about: No more 22nd? 

"Mattinglyfan" wrote in message

>
> "Robert P Holley" wrote in message
>
>>
>>
>> Fred Liken wrote:
>>> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH:
>>
>> A bunch of democrats so desperate for the White House they want Bill
>> Clinton to run again?
>>
>>
>
> Well don't you think some Republicans are gonna jump on that bandwagon for
> the sake of keeping Hillary out.

I would hope not - that would be a very un-Republican thing to do.
 >> Stay informed about: No more 22nd? 

It's way too hard to get an amendment passed for this to just blow
through.

Check the constitution, there are two ways to add a new amendment...

First it has to pass by a 2/3rds majority in the House and Senate then
it's turned over to the states. 3/4 of the states have to vote for it.
That means 38/50.

Alternatively 2/3rds of the state legislatures could call for a
Constitutional Convention and re-do as much of the Constitution as
they'd like, but it would still be subject to a vote of 3/4 of the
states (plus such a move would be unprecedented, nobody knows how to do
it or what the ramifications would be.)

In short, the founding fathers made it hard to screw with the
constitution intentionally. It shouldn't be modified willy nilly (flag
burning), for a specific person (Bush, Clinton or Schwartzenegger), or
based on popular social morality of the time (18th amendment).

- Jordan
 >> Stay informed about: No more 22nd? 

"Mattinglyfan" wrote in message

>
> "Robert P Holley" wrote in message
>
>>
>>
>> Fred Liken wrote:
>>> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH:
>>
>> A bunch of democrats so desperate for the White House they want Bill
>> Clinton to run again?
>
> Well don't you think some Republicans are gonna jump on that bandwagon for
> the sake of keeping Hillary out.

There's another election before this would ever be ratified, so what are you
trying to say? You must be confused.
 >> Stay informed about: No more 22nd? 

"Jordan" wrote in message

> It's way too hard to get an amendment passed for this to just blow
> through.
>
> Check the constitution, there are two ways to add a new amendment...
>
> First it has to pass by a 2/3rds majority in the House and Senate then
> it's turned over to the states. 3/4 of the states have to vote for it.
> That means 38/50.
>
> Alternatively 2/3rds of the state legislatures could call for a
> Constitutional Convention and re-do as much of the Constitution as
> they'd like, but it would still be subject to a vote of 3/4 of the
> states (plus such a move would be unprecedented, nobody knows how to do
> it or what the ramifications would be.)

States can decide how it's voted for, though. It doesn't necessariliy mean
a popular vote, no?

> In short, the founding fathers made it hard to screw with the
> constitution intentionally. It shouldn't be modified willy nilly (flag
> burning), for a specific person (Bush, Clinton or Schwartzenegger), or
> based on popular social morality of the time (18th amendment).

Shouldn't? That's tough to say.
 >> Stay informed about: No more 22nd? 

"Xbot" writes:
> Republicans would welcome a Hillary nomination. Even Quayle'd beat her in a
> landslide.

Not clear. Despite Republicans' bizarre primitive fear of her, surely
you've noticed the constant stream of news stories on how she's been
winning over many of them simply by working hard and being honest and
straight-forward?

-Miles
--
`Cars give people wonderful freedom and increase their opportunities.
But they also destroy the environment, to an extent so drastic that
they kill all social life' (from _A Pattern Language_)
 >> Stay informed about: No more 22nd? 

"Miles Bader" wrote in message

> "Xbot" writes:
>> Republicans would welcome a Hillary nomination. Even Quayle'd beat her in
>> a
>> landslide.
>
> Not clear. Despite Republicans' bizarre primitive fear of her, surely
> you've noticed the constant stream of news stories on how she's been
> winning over many of them simply by working hard and being honest and
> straight-forward?

A "constant stream of news stories" written by the liberal media. Sorry, I
don't buy into the latest talking points media onslaught, particularly when
it deals with as fictitious a subject as an "honest and straightforward"
Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hard-working I'll give her, but for all the wrong
reasons.
 >> Stay informed about: No more 22nd? 

"Miles Bader" wrote in message

> "Xbot" writes:
>> Republicans would welcome a Hillary nomination. Even Quayle'd beat her in
>> a
>> landslide.
>
> Not clear. Despite Republicans' bizarre primitive fear of her, surely
> you've noticed the constant stream of news stories on how she's been
> winning over many of them simply by working hard and being honest and
> straight-forward?

Hmmmm... not too hard when you lock out the media from your appearances when
they wouldn't be flattering.

Free press?
 >> Stay informed about: No more 22nd? 

States can decide how it's voted for, though. It doesn't necessariliy
mean
a popular vote, no?

This is true and in fact I'd expect it to not be a popular vote. The
founding fathers weren't big on popular votes, that's why we have the
representative system and electoral college.

- Jordan
 >> Stay informed about: No more 22nd? 

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Miles Bader wrote:

> Not clear. Despite Republicans' bizarre primitive fear of her, surely
> you've noticed the constant stream of news stories on how she's been
> winning over many of them simply by working hard and being honest and
> straight-forward?

A politician who works hard, is honest, and is straight-forward?

No wonder the Republicans fear her so much... :p
 >> Stay informed about: No more 22nd? 

"Doug Jacobs" wrote in message

> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Miles Bader wrote:
>
>> Not clear. Despite Republicans' bizarre primitive fear of her, surely
>> you've noticed the constant stream of news stories on how she's been
>> winning over many of them simply by working hard and being honest and
>> straight-forward?
>
> A politician who works hard, is honest, and is straight-forward?
>
> No wonder the Republicans fear her so much... :p

See, typical BS from Doug that he'll spout but when it's pointed out that
he's wrong, he yells TROLL!

Oh well.
 >> Stay informed about: No more 22nd?