1) Legal + Legal = Illegal?
Let's say someone takes a trip to Amsterdam. Once arriving, the individual visits a coffee shop, and proceeds to get blazed out of their mind. Nothing illegal has taken place.
However, there's still traces of cannabis in the person's system, obviously, and upon arrival back in the US, would then be in consumptional possession of a class 1 narcotic. The person could then apply for a job, or show up for a court ordered drug test (from a previous drug possession charge/whatever) and, despite having done nothing illegal or wrong, still be found guilty.
Do two 'rights' make a 'wrong?'
2) Clinton/Clinton '08?
Let's assume that Obama doesn't squash Hillary Clinton and she becomes the Dem nominee for prez. What happens if she picks Bill as her running mate, who's had 2 full terms as prez and constitutionally barred from running again?
Article II of the Constitution: "Requirements: Natural born citizen, 35+ years old, US resident 14 years. "
12 Amendment: "Anyone constitutionally ineligible to the office of the president shall be eligible to that of the vice-president."
22 Amendment: "No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice, and if they've served more than 2 years, can only be elected to 1 more term."
It seems to suggest that Bill would only be prohibited from being elected president a 3rd time, not from serving. However, it could also be seen that electing a vice president also means contingently electing him as president.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
on the first one, laws are governed by the nation youre in. just because something is or is not a law, doesnt mean it is or is not "right." by entering a nation, you are agreeing to withhold the laws of that nation. this is, of course, an implied agreement. you may be forced into a nation and have laws you do not agree with forced onto you. in this case, the laws can easily been seen as not a case of right or wrong, but the things that you must follow as to not be punished. on the second, you are entirely correct. he cannot be elected again, but he can probably still hold office, however unlikely.
that's fair. In an effort to be brief, I used "right" as an equatable meaning with "lawful" without clarifying.
With the second one, it ultimately comes down to what isn't specifically defined unlawful being, by default, lawful, or vice versa.
Post a Comment