Is Hillary even constitutionally eligible?

OK, I've said many times on here that a vote for Hillary is a vote for "Stay with your man and you can achieve anything".
I thought about what would happen if she divorced and actually think now that she may need to, to be eligible.

The constitution mentions 2 terms only for a person.
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice..."

Hillary has mentioned previously that she believes marriage to be sacred.
So if we look to the sacred definition from Genesis 2:24 we get ...
"Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh"

I don't believe that "one flesh" should be able to serve more than 2 terms.

So I guess the question is does she reject the constitution or does she reject god?

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I hate Hillary as much as anyone, but this is asinine.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I thought Christians didn't follow the old testament. If they are supposed to we have bigger issues to talk about. That OT stuff is pretty brutal and we need to guard against it same as Sharia law.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Going by this logic, Trump wouldn't be "eligible" either because his wife isn't a natural-born citizen.

a reply to: watchitburn

So you would be fine with a couple serving 4 consecutive terms? (I realise this isn't the case here)

Shouldn't we all be stoned if we eat a cheeseburger as well?

Milk of the mother, meat of the calf and all that ....

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Going by this logic, Trump wouldn't be "eligible" either because his wife isn't a natural-born citizen.

True, so 2 birds 1 stone then.
Although you could also argue that the marriage makes Melania eligible, it can cut both ways.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I thought Christians didn't follow the old testament. If they are supposed to we have bigger issues to talk about. That OT stuff is pretty brutal and we need to guard against it same as Sharia law.

Can you tell me what country allows Christians kill those with rocks due to adultry?

I am asking about TODAY......where?

P.S. Islam came approx 500 years after Chrisitianity and they still kill with rock and stones. So the Islam religion is approx 1500 years old and Christianity is approx 2000 years old and since both follow the same God why is it that one is still killing people who sin with rocks and stones??

Who has evolved Christianity or Islam?

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Chrities don't need to get their panties in a bunch. If they don't follow the OT then don't worry about it, but if they do then they have no business pointing fingers.

Came in here expecting something different...

a reply to: Thoren

Cheers for the input.

I was hoping for some constitution experts to explain that there isn't a loophole which allows someone to serve as president 4 yrs, as first lady for another 4 and then remarrying every 4 years to maintain their position of influence.

That scenario is unlikely however if there was a president every one loved we could vote for their new partner every 4 yrs knowing they will be the "real" ones in power.

Nice try but no. She will be the POTUS. The elites have picked her and us proles just have to live with it. Voting is for ZOMBIES! Democratic process? Don't make me laugh.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: watchitburn

So you would be fine with a couple serving 4 consecutive terms? (I realise this isn't the case here)

You say that word consecutive, but I don't think that it means what you think it means.

Standards of Constitutional law are not found in the Bible.

... and even if they were, "one flesh" doesn't mean "one person."

a reply to: 200Plus

Shouldn't we all be stoned if we eat a cheeseburger as well?

That's usually the reason I go out of the house, looking for a cheese burger in the first place!

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

First off I would like to apologize for a making an idiotic post in your thread. It was actually an experiment to test the state of mind of the people of ATS as of lately. It seems that simply posting a humorous gif garnered 4 stars quite quickly considering how late it is for a good majority of atsers. In fact it garnered more stars than the other posts that actually have input in this thread. As someone who has been reading ats almost daily since 2009 I am rather disappointed that Atsers seem to promote short snarky one liners and humorous troll posting rather than actual input and thought provoking posts.

Once again I apologize for the post with no substance and hope you did'nt take too much offense of my using your thread for an experiment.

originally posted by: watchitburn
You say that word consecutive, but I don't think that it means what you think it means.

www.dictionary.com...

1. following one another in uninterrupted succession or order; successive:
six consecutive numbers, such as 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

I'll rephrase the question, please accept my sincerest apologies for using big words.

Would you be happy if after Bill/Hillary 1993-2001, it was Hillary/Bill for 2001-2009.

a reply to: Thoren

hehehe all good. I just put you up to 5.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

But even if Sid is right and some of these documents were at some point sent to Clinton, there is nothing in any of these emails that is remotely new or interesting. Indeed, none of these 16 emails are qualitatively different than the dozens of others that Hillary already produced to the State Department. So it is completely ridiculous to suggest that there might have been any nefarious basis for her to want to delete any of Sid's correspondence.

Source : podesta-emails/emailid/9272

Reminder :

Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Source : 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

There are probably reasons for ineligibility ... as of US law, not the Bible.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

I don't believe emails are considered legal documents, any more that phone conversations would be.