The first thing I thought when I saw the "Lawsuit argues Clinton ineligible for state post" headline was, "what group of wingnut wackaloons suffers from a case of Clinton Derangement Syndrome severe enough to cause them to file this suit?" The very next thought to cross my mind was "gotta be Judicial Watch." Surprisingly enough, I was right.
More like this
I am utterly undecided. Feel free to make a suggestion.
"Trump's chance of victory have doubled over the last two weeks," notes FiveThirtyEight, and this is in accord with what I've been saying.
UPDATE (Tuesday Morning):
In the Democratic Caucus, Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders by an amount so small that the caucus results have to be regarded as tie.
Clinton: 49.86%
Sanders: 49.57%
O'Malley: 0.57%
The Clinton Foundation started as a very successful post-presidency foundation of the type that is normally formed under the leadership of an ex president, in this case, Bill Clinton.
It's a legitimate question. The "fix" that's been used (IIRC twice) before in similar cases has never been tested, and the Constitutional prohibition is pretty straightforward.
Just because it's motivated by spleen doesn't mean it's worthless. Let's admit that a lot of last November's election results were motivated by spleen, too -- which doesn't make them any less desirable.
Saxbe fix is well suited and established I would think.
There as a so called fix instituted for a Republican and a Democrat.
My opinion is that you can not establish or institute a fix for the Constitution. If you want to change it or clarify it, then go ahead. That is going down a slippery slop. The Constitution trumps all politics.