Dubya for President in 2008?

[Pale_Rider]

Apparently a "joint resolution', H.J. 9, has been introduced to the House Judiciary Committee on January 4th, which would repeal presidental term limits.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.+Res.+9:

Like a thief in the night. Even though this is probably a dead fish, still the thought of Bush as president for life, is enough for me to start considering packing my bags.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NMDemDist2]

4. not a good or smart thing to say Kiko

very bad juju

[beam me up scottie]

5. Rule like a fascist dictator

end up like a fascist dictator.

[David__77]

2. The author is a Democrat

Rep. Serrano. I wonder if he had Clinton in mind...

[latteromden]

7. Probably, but it's still a BAD FUCKING IDEA. :X

[Auntie Bush]

8. He must have been thinking about Clinton...certainly not Bush!

[Pale_Rider]

20. Apparently Serrano did this last year as well ...

with Barney Frank, Alcee Hastings and Chris Shays as co-sponsors.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d108:4:./temp/~bdActT:@@@L&summ2=m&

[Ladyhawk]

3. I expected this, but I hope it doesn't float. n/t

[Mountainman]

6. We could run Bill Clinton again

[Emboldened Chimp]

11. If he's healthy...

Big Dog doesn't look so well lately...

[KansDem]

30. Now that's a matchup I'd certainly like to see!

Clinton vs. BushII...

Just imagine the debates!

[Eric J in MN]

9. Almost every Senator regards himself as a possible

president. There is no way 2/3 of them will vote to put off their chances to run.

[Dookus]

10. Good

the two-term limit is supremely stupid. We should be able to vote for whomever we want.

[coloradodem2005]

13. I can't say I agree entirely.

I think that it is good to have these limits on Presidents and governors. It would smack too much of a dictatorship without these kinds of limits. 8 years I think is a reasonable amount of time. For example, I am sooo happy that Colorado Governor B.O. can't run again. I think that after that amount of time, we need new blood. However, it would be better if they wouldn't elect an idiot after a good President.

[Dookus]

14. The nation did just fine

for a very long time without this prohibition.

[coloradodem2005]

18. True.

And FDR was one of our greatest Presidents, however how would you have felt if Reagan got re elected for a third term, or for that matter, the current idiot in chief? I think all other things being equal that having the term limits is a good thing because in some ways things have been more dangerous in the post-WWII U.S. than before WWII. With the push to end communism and now (supposedly) terrorism. The fact that we have had a few leaders recently that have been bordering on scary.

Frankly, right now the only thing I feel comfortable about is that Bush cannot run again in 2008. This is a different world than we had before WWII.

[Dookus]

22. sigh

when I think about whether an issue is right or wrong, I do NOT make my decision based on the individuals it may or may not affect. Either the issue is right, or the issue is wrong.

I think it is wrong to not allow Americans to vote for whomever they want for President, whether that person has already served two terms, or whether he or she was born elsewhere. The fact that it MIGHT benefit Schwarzenegger or Bush has no bearing on it. That's a childish way to evaluate a proposition.

[coloradodem2005]

26. I don't think that one person should have a monopoly over the Presidency.

I think that in this world it is more potentially dangerous to not limit the time someone has as President.

[Dookus]

28. nobody is suggesting

giving one person a monopoly on the presidency. We have elections.

Personally, I'm EXTREMELY grateful that FDR was able to win a third and fourth term. It was an extreme time and an extreme case. If we don't trust Americans to vote for President, then we should stop the charade of elections altogether.

[Angry Girl]

12. Here's the text

HOwever, I'm still laying odds he's going to declare state of war emergency to stay in office....


HJ 9 IH
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 9

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 4, 2005

Mr. SERRANO introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article--

`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.'.

[Dookus]

15. no State of Emergency

can cancel elections.

[Angry Girl]

19. Maybe, maybe not. But read these articles

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/

Exclusive: Election Day Worries
By Michael Isikoff - Investigative Correspondent -
Newsweek
July 19 issue -

American counterterrorism officials, citing what they call "alarming" intelligence about a possible Qaeda strike inside the United States this fall, are reviewing a proposal that could allow for the postponement of the November presidential election in the event of such an attack, NEWSWEEK has learned.
.....
As a result, sources tell NEWSWEEK, Ridge's department last week asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election were an attack to take place. Justice was specifically asked to review a recent letter to Ridge from DeForest B. Soaries Jr., chairman of the newly created U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Soaries noted that, while a primary election in New York on September 11, 2001, was quickly suspended by that state's Board of Elections after the attacks that morning, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election."

However, when you read John Dean at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20020607.html, this all leads me to believe that they can and will postpone the elections.

PRESIDENTIAL POWERS IN TIMES OF EMERGENCY:
Could Terrorism Result In A Constitutional Dictator?
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Jun. 07, 2002

On September 14, 2001, President Bush declared that a "national emergency exists by reason of the terrorist attacks ... and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States." When the emergency will end, no one knows....

[Dookus]

23. yes

this was discussed heavily at the time.

The constitution would not allow delaying the election indefinitely - it would have to occur before January.

Furthermore, in case of a major terrorist attack in major cities whereby millions of people could not vote, delaying would be the RIGHT thing to do.

[Angry Girl]

27. I sure hope you're right! You sound like you know what...

you're talking about.... This Bush-monster creeps me out so bad!

[Dookus]

29. me, too

but I think people ascribe super-human powers to him.

A sizable contingent here believed THIS year's election would be canceled. They were wrong. Bush is bad. Very bad. But we still live in a constitutional republic, and will continue to do so long after he's gone.

People who think Bush is the very worst thing to ever happen to this country have a poor understanding of history. This is not the worst time in our history, not by a long shot.

[brettdale]

21. When does this get voted on

When does this get voted on?

[zcbta]

16. He would never get elected

Even if he was fairly popular by the end of his term (chances?) people would be unnerved by the thought of a president taking more than two terms. It wouldn't happen.

Did you say that a part of your constitution had ended up repealed? I thought the constitution couldn't be changed at all, that was the point of it..?

[Dookus]

24. umm...

yes, the constitution can be amended. Prohibition was an amendment - then it was repealed.

[complain jane]

17. I guess when the two-term limit was first written,

it was written with Diebold in mind. At least the way it is now the Repukes have to come up with new dimwit fascist puppet to buy a victory for.

[OneTwentyoNine]

25. It was written to keep Dems like FDR down to two terms....

But its bitten the Repukes in the ass at least twice. First was Ike,he could have easily won another term or two. And then Saint Ronnie,he might have served another term or two in a complete fucking daze but he would have gotten elected.