Silly Speculation

MSNBC has an article up about the possibility of Bill Clinton to serving as Vice-President in a future administration, and his ability to become President under the succession laws in the event that the President he serves were to become incapacitated.

My first response was that such speculation was utterly absurd, for the simple reason that Clinton wouldn't be eligible to serve, since he can't be President again. Things are apparently not so simple, however. The text of the 22nd Amendment bars an individual from being elected to a third term as President. The Constitution itself, of course, is silent on the issue - but it does say that a Vice-President must be eligible to serve as President. Of course, the rules require that an individual have reached the age of 35 and be a natural born citizen - Clinton obviously is eligible Constitutionally, since he's served as President before. The question, then, turns on whether the 22nd Amendment makes him ineligible to serve as President, or only ineligible to be ELECTED President.

A literal reading of the Amendment's text suggests that nothing makes Clinton Constitutionally ineligible to serve as President. As a result, he could likely stand as Vice-President, and succeed to the Presidency if necessary. Unfortunately, this would seem to be absolutely against the intent of the individuals who drafted and passed the 22nd Amendment, who by almost all accounts intended to prevent anyone from serving as President beyond two full terms.

Of course, language matters. If the intent was to prevent a former President who had served two full terms from serving as President in the future, they should have said so. If the statutory language is clear, it should be enforced - legislative intent is a convenient fiction, after all, for how can a body consisting of 535 members (the House and Senate) and the legislatures of at least 3/4 of the states, be said to have any "single" intent? The answer of course is that they didn't - different people voted yes for different reasons. Additionally, no record of legislative intent can possibly be complete, because not everything is recorded. It seems to me that you have to take the language at face value.

This doesn't mean, however, that Clinton should take the plunge and run for VP. Common sense should tell anyone that the purpose of passing the 22nd Amendment was to limit the amount of service at the pinnacle of the executive branch. That should be respected (although I disagree with it), and Clinton should put from his mind any thought of running for anything else. He has entered the "former President" stage of his career, and it should stay that way.

Finally, for anyone suggesting that Hillary should pick Bill as her running mate, that's not going to happen. For one thing, Hillary couldn't handle not being the center of attention in her own administration - no President could. But there's one more significant problem; the President and Vice-President can't have the same state of residency under the 12th Amendment. The two Clinton's may not have the best marriage (that's a cheap shot from me), but they do share a residence in New York. One of them would have to move out - and if that happens, I don't think that Hillary would be picking Bill as her VP.

Connecticut Senate

Quinnipiac has released a new poll on the Connecticut Senate race, and it has a surprise for those who thought Arthur Schlesinger won the debate and stirred up the race.

According to Quinnipiac, Lieberman has a 52%-35% lead over Democratic nominee Ned Lamont, with Republican Arthur Schlesinger polling at 6%. This result means that Lieberman has actually gained ground since the debate, which was, according to most of the Connecticut media and left-ish blogs, supposed to have the opposite result. Schlesinger was viewed as feisty and capable - and all those crazy Republicans who have been supporting Lieberman were supposed to suddenly realize the error of their ways and flock back to Schlesinger. Of course, this would have been great news for Ned Lamont, because every vote for Schlesinger is a vote Lieberman didn't get.

One poll doesn't necessarily mean anything, but Q-pac is usually a pretty reliable poll, especially for Connecticut. So why is Lieberman gaining ground? I think part of it is pragmatism, and part of it is resentment against Lamont and the Democratic establishment. I'll start with the resentment first. Lieberman is a popular Senator; he's been working for Connecticut for quite awhile, and they're happy with him. Along comes Ned Lamont, challenging Lieberman for reasons that the average voter just doesn't understand - and he gets support from the far left bloggers and some of the party establishment (mostly in the form of low enthusiasm on their part for Lieberman). I believe that a number of voters in Connecticut are supporting Lieberman just because they think that what Lamont did was unfair - and supported largely by those from outside of Connecticut.

As for pragmatism, this has been discussed by many. The Republicans know that Schlesinger isn't going to win the election. They look at Lamont and Lieberman, and they see a difference. Part of the reason why they see a difference may very well be the unabashed support for Lamont amongst the far left; if Daily Kos is supporting Lamont, there has to be a reason. As a result, even though Lieberman has, in truth, been largely in line with the Democratic Party on the majority of issues, he's been branded by the Left as the enemy. In effect, I think the far left shot itself in the foot on this one by branding Lieberman in such a way that would make him attractive to Republicans.

All of this indicates an easy victory for Lieberman in November, and grave disappointment amongst the far left, will result.

Pelosi Not a Shoo-In?

A very interesting article in the Washington Times today about Nancy Pelosi's possible problems in winning the position of Speaker of the House if the Democrats win a Majority in 18 days. Pelosi is an unabashed liberal, and there still exist quite moderate - and even conservative - Democrats within her caucus. Some of them may not support her in a bid for the Speakership.

The nightmare scenario for Pelosi is that the Democrats win the House by just 2 or 3 (or even 1) seat. There are very likely enough members of the caucus who won't vote for Pelosi that the Dems could find themselves letting Dennis Hastert be re-elected to the Speakership, at least for a time. This is because the candidate for Speaker who receives the most votes, regardless of party affiliation, wins the Speakership. The Republicans are typically disciplined in their support of a Speaker candidate, so a split Democratic caucus would likely mean a win for Hastert.

That wouldn't be the end of the matter - the Democrats could regroup and hold another Speakership election whenever they were ready. The problem for Pelosi is that she likely wouldn't be able to get enough support from those who already were opposed to her ascension to the Speakership to win later. The same would likely be true from whoever opposed her on the Democratic side in the first place, probably Steny Hoyer (the current #2 Democrat in the House). The result? I would expect a compromise candidate to emerge from the caucus (possibly John Murtha, but he has his own issues).

One last thought: Hastert may have been damaged enough by the Foley scandal to have fractured the party unity that Republicans are so famous for. If enough Republicans refused to support Hastert, and if Hastert nevertheless insisted on standing for Speaker again, then he could be challenged. I suspect Hastert would still retain the majority of the Republican votes, but the challenger could peel off enough support to hand the Speakership election outright to Pelosi.

So, things are a wee bit complicated, and are likely to remain so until at least mid-January.

Scalia at His Best

I love watching Justice Scalia speak; I think that he is by far the most articulate of the Justices on the Supreme Court, and even when I disagree with him, I at least know exactly how he is arriving at the decisions that he makes.

Tonight, in a debate with Nadine Strossen, the President of the American Civil Liberties Union, Scalia was at his best. He clearly and concisely laid out the reasons for his decisions, and while this wasn't a "debate" by any stretch of the imagination, Scalia would have won if it had been.

I can't do justice (no pun intended) to Scalia's points, and I encourage everyone to head to C-SPAN and watch this thing as soon as possible. But the most devestating and accurate point that Scalia threw down was this:

When challenged about whether Brown v. Board of Education (the opinion that brought an end to legalized segregation in schools) was correctly decided, Scalia stood his ground and said no. But he went further, and herein lies the genius of his argument; Scalia stated quite clearly that the social benefits of Brown were extremely positive, but that that didn't prove anything. Even a Court that was applying a wishy-washy version of the law could produce some truly positive and beneficial things. That didn't make their actions or reasoning correct, and it didn't mean that their actions were contemplated by the Constitution. That's exceedingly hard to rebut.

Scalia also rejected the label of strict constructionist, because he is willing to interpret the Constitution when it is the prudent thing to do. In other words, Scalia will look to the legislative intent to define what the meaning of Constitutional (or statutory) text means, not to the dictionary. He doesn't necessarily require the same meaning for the same words in different clauses; context, and history, matter. He would define himself as an originalist rather than a strict constructionist.

Scalia makes sense, and right now my head hurts because I'm having a hard time resisting the pull of Nino. Now, if only he'd be a little more polite when on the bench (or when writing opinions).

Races that Weren't

Every year, there are races which are supposed to be competitive, but which don't turn out that way. Here are my top 5 such races in this election cycle:

1.) Minnesota Senate - Amy Klobuchar (D) v. Mark Kennedy (R)
Mark Kennedy has been the presumptive Republican nominee in this race since before he won re-election to the House in 2004. At that time, it looked like he would be facing Senator Mark Dayton this November, but Dayton wisely realized that winning re-election would have been virtually impossible and chose not to run. That move opened the door for Klobuchar, who built a 10-15 point lead in virtually every poll. Kennedy has not caught fire the way that he was expected to, and is on his way to an ignominious defeat. This should have been a highly competitive race, the best chance for Republicans to pick up a Democrat-held Senate seat in 2006. Instead, it's an easy hold for the Donkey's.

2.) California Governor - Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) v. Phil Angelides (D)
There's a race for Governor in California? You wouldn't know it by looking at the polls. Schwarzenegger has maintained his popularity, and has been helped by the uninspiring Angelides, who has been unable to connect with voters. The biggest splash Angelides has made has been screeching at Jay Leno for equal time, since Arnie is being invited (yet again) to appear on The Tonight Show.

3.) Pennsylvania Governor - Ed Rendel (D) v. Lynn Swann (R)
Pennsylvania is a swing state, and Swann is a very popular former Pittsburgh Steeler, so this thing's going to be a barn-burner, right? Uhhhh, no. Rendel is popular enough that Swann has been unable to gain traction, and Rendel is leading by about 20 points. This thing isn't going to close, and Rendel will get a second term.

4.) Florida Senate - Bill Nelson (D) v. Katherine Harris (R)
This is a bit of a fudge; Harris was never going to be competitive against Nelson. The race for this seat, however, should have been very close. Nelson is a moderate, relatively weak Democrat. The Republican Party could not find a suitable candidate to challenge the woefully inept Harris, and the result is a complete non-race. Harris is going to be wiped out in November, and Republicans have to be left wondering what might have been.

5.) Connecticut Senate - Joe Lieberman (I) v. Ned Lamont (D)
How can I put this race on the "non-race" list? After all, Lamont just defeated Lieberman in the Democratic Primary back in August. Nevertheless, Lieberman has opened up a 10-12 point lead over Lamont, and this race has never developed into a truly competitive contest. Moderates and Republicans both support Lieberman, and that's going to be enough to secure victory. The folks over at Daily Kos were thrilled that Lamont won the primary, but this goes down as a "peaking early" situation that is much more likely to bite the Democrats in the rear thanks to frayed relationships with Lieberman than it is to result in a Senator Lamont.