Presidents aren't immune to the law. But it's theoretically possible that she would be convicted and impeached, and then pardoned by Vice President Bill Clinton after he takes office.
This whole thread is a case study for why we just shouldn't host discussions like this on HN. There are a million better places to do it than here.
Clinton is probably not legally eligible to be Vice President --- a position that, were he to occupy it, would give him no authority over any prosecution (except possibly an impeachment trial --- over which he would preside, but not control).
Clinton is definitely not eligible to serve as President, even if he is the Vice President at the time his President is impeached. The next in succession after VP would be sworn in as President.
You'll have to verify your phone number to sign up, which will make moderation more effective (hard to make an additional account after getting kicked out).
If it grows and that isn't enough to keep it respectful, I will add a $1-2 signup fee for new users.
I'm also going to be spending most of my time recruiting quality people to join the discussions.
Feedback from one potential user: I won't sign up if I can't do it anonymously. 1) I don't like being tracked, 2) the bad behavior of others who track users has made me resent the practice, and 3) people need to be able to express political opinions without thinking they will be tied to their phone numbers. It threatens the civil rights of unpopular minorities, and I've come across several studies which conclude that people self-censor in those situations.
But how to promote quality? One thing I would like to see is a forum that cracks down on thoughtless posts, especially hyperbole ad rants. It's not only a waste of time but that kind of behavior spreads like a virus.
While I empathize, anonymity makes moderation very hard. Most people I've talked to prefer the tradeoff of reduced anonymity for improved moderation. If you email me at [email protected] I can set you up with a pre-verified account that you can use anonymously.
Quality is hard. I don't think there's any silver bullet, but you can check out the community guidelines at discoverboard.com/about which hope to curtail the thoughtlessness you're talking about.
Subsections (a), (b), and (d) [every succession category] of this section shall apply only to such officers as are eligible to the office of President under the Constitution.
That all applies when there is no Vice President to act as President. None of it applies to the scenario here, which is wholly covered by the 25th Amendment.
"In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President."
There are a couple ways to become president, and only one of them is through an election. Article 2 talks about "eligibility", but says nothing on term limits. Amendment XII only says "eligible" again. Amendment XXII brings up term limits, but only says "elected", never "eligible".
There's a "but obviously..." reply to be made, but I see plenty of opportunity to play word games here.
