From nauplion@charm.net Sat Dec 30 11:44:36 2000 Received: from mxu4.u.washington.edu (mxu4.u.washington.edu [140.142.33.8]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.05/8.9.3+UW00.12) with ESMTP id LAA50048 for ; Sat, 30 Dec 2000 11:44:35 -0800 Received: from fellspt.charm.net (root@[199.0.70.29]) by mxu4.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.02/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id LAA06116 for ; Sat, 30 Dec 2000 11:44:35 -0800 Received: from charm.net (coretel-116-158.charm.net [209.143.116.158]) by fellspt.charm.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA12618 for ; Sat, 30 Dec 2000 14:43:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A4E3955.D8CC3611@charm.net> Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 14:36:57 -0500 From: Diana Wright X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,el,tr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: classics@u.washington.edu Subject: Re: There Goes the Neighborhood References: <000701c071e0$22830a00$c300000a@psicorp.com> <012501c07297$b9c99d40$b4cb64a8@jfgannon> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "J.F. Gannon" wrote: > True enough, but the Prohibition amendment was repealed! So why not the > undemocratic--because it deprives the puiblic of free choice--twenty second? > > J.F. Gannon Perhaps I might just whisper here that we have not got a democracy, & that free choice does not appear to be a Constitutional value. If there was anything we learned about public & free choice in this recent Gush & Bore imbroglio, it was that free choice is what we haven't got -- there is no Constitutional right for citizens to elect the President at all. Helma Dik was concerned about the grocery situation in the CHS/Clinton neighborhood: it would be a very short and pleasant walk through the woods behind the house to go to the Safeway, & they wouldn't have to contend for parking. The woods have pileated woodpeckers, several kinds of thrushes, deer & foxes, though I never had the impression that Bill & Hill were into nature. DW > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "P. T. Rourke" > To: > Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 4:41 PM > Subject: Re: There Goes the Neighborhood > > > > No matter. He will be running for the White House in 2004. The kid has > > > a lot of spunk. > > > > Sorry, Elias, but if you did mean to say that there was nothing in the > > constitution to prohibit William Jefferson Clinton from running for > > president again, they got you: there is no reference to "consecutive" in > the > > 22d Amendment. It clearly states that he cannot be elected again. > > > > US Constitution: Amendment XXII > > > > Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more > > than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted > as > > President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person > was > > elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more > than > > once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of > > President when this article was proposed by the Congress . . . &cet.; > > > > (reference: US LOC website). > > > > Patrick Rourke > > ptrourke@mediaone.net > > .