April 2024
« Nov    
Filed under: WHAT EVER
Posted by: @jphoganorg @ 9:25 am

This is “poetic” if about analysis as per “poetic license”:

“Here is the fun part of Hillary’s Constitutional problem
with 22nd Amendment
(not her’s with due process problems her’s):
One law is not supposed to
undermine another and yet
our marriage laws can be undermined by our 22nd
Amendment for term
limits when such is no longer “undecided Law”. The
Clintons have done
the hard part for such a deciding by insisting they are an
political “two
-fer” of a ‘buy one and
get the other’ by any election of
the other. The Clintons have cleared
the way then for a simple and not complex
ruling on the intent and
establishment of our Term Limits Amendment since
an election of one
spouse is then therefore do to the indivisibility of their union
then an
election of the other. That our law always has to separate between
something is say of “as by an electing” and “as by the electing” we
before getting to any of the “holding” concerns that for these
times Hillary
cannot now be elected with such then by their admitted and
sold “two-fer” inseparable
indivisibility in marriage that with such
then of the forbidden in the 22nd to a returning
“by election” of Bill
to any, all, or just some of the “holding” of such office. See it gets
funny and full of stuff to write about in many different ways when the
that our 22nd cannot undermine our marriage laws and that
“holding” of “office” is
too similar to “to have and to hold, in
sickness and in health” of marriage vows
and indivisible by our Laws
such that an election of a spouse regardless of sex
as a spouse in a
term limited First Couple union is therefore then and returned to
a shared
“holding” of marriage rights to full intimacy that a partial
ruling as
if of just “professional” duty objectivity would be inappropriate to
per such a unique and Powerful office holding of our Presidency.
Hillary you
can say cannot be elected President nor maybe be a legal
for such office without her spouse to be returned to some or
too much
“holding” by an electing of he as part of her indivisible union
in marriage
laws which cannot have the 22nd Amendment abridging even
for that which would
be spousal holding in sickness and in health.
Hillary cannot be President, by such
reasonable interpretation because
Bill then would not be allowed his full
marriage rights to a holding
spousally of his wife and as well for such would be
to having come about
by a returning of him post term limiting “by an electing” while
legally indivisible from being by their admitted “two-fer”ness as
inseparable and
legal to be also “elected” as Hillary was also to such
shared and intimate
executive holding by election in 1992.*

*Reposted Facebook status update of 3/21/2013
{Justification in above and the general structure some by ‘random’
reformation by computer from cutting and pasting - other parts
modified by poetic instinct.  Don’t know if it needs editing while
so much of a structure as from an original block of prose as a single
running paragraph now yet though much randomly pulsed in justifying.}

The real poetry of/in motion for such more of rhyming or not while of

rhythms their own together however would be that this consideration
of spouses under God in USA and not just under their President such
that a First Couple is only under themselves however is that a run now
of Clinton
“two-fer” necessitates a sexual positions book focused on the
bedroom and most intimate of their
moments not of a chilled “holding” as
per if their sexual position is itself “too much a holding
by election” of our
office of the President.  And, if they have more than one sexual position
how any addition sexual position might be for them of a full and transparent
analysis now of
a jurisdiction for a swearing of them in again due-ness as
per every moment of their two terms
of the years 1993-2001.  You can try
to figure if and how of any poetic license yourself - as such
now is of
your rights to know or at least try to discern justly and fully.

Two as one as of marriage is so set by USA as under God & not with
special that a joined soul by marriage union is turned off by the State
by the punching in on a time clock for “work.”  Right?

And, now with retired Madam Secretary of State Mrs. William
Jefferson Clinton’s recent remarks spoken about marriage and otherwise
directed contrary to hers as for union rights for same sex couples:  Mrs.
Clinton I guess you should tell us how your marriage is supposedly
legal about all this to the fullest range of detail and transparency fair to
differentiating what seems the contrariness in your interpretation of limits
of marriage union of souls as per yourself and that which seems more
idealistic and fuller as per the hopes of those wanting same sex marriage
rights.  It seems same sex couples don’t want the reworked convenient
interpretation of marriage that you practice as if is not is but when is by
whimsy and with your law degree seeming a power greater than your
joined wealth and souls, and one to supersede such of natural law animalism.

Comments are closed.