It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush's third term. A reality?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Can someone clarify the outcome of Amendment 22 of the constitution been repealed?
thomas.loc.gov...:2:./temp/~bdhmjl::
Are they trying to get rid of it?

Just in case you don't know :Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice. Link




posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I'm glad i wasnt the author of this story today.

No. Cant happen. no no no. He's out in 2008.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   
If memory serves me correct they tried the same thing when Clinton was in office AND when Regan was in office, both a LOT more popular than Bush.

It wont happen



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   
dont scare me man I almost spit out my whiskey on the screen



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   
that link is not working.

there are no current attempts to undo the 22nd ammendment.

ammendments can't be repealed. A new one has to be made to 'override' it.

bush is not eligible for a nother term, and the republicans aren't going to remove that ammendment just so he can run again.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
I'm glad i wasnt the author of this story today.

No. Cant happen. no no no. He's out in 2008.


I'm amused! (You got my vote for way above for your admission on that other thread, dg. Not many people would have the courage or honor to do what you did.)

People of the opposing party always fear something like this will happen, and it never does. FDR is the only president to sucessfully run for a term beyond the second, though many had tried before him. During the Clinton years, I feared he would bomb some country and declare a national state of emergency and negate the election. Didn't happen. I'm sure people thought the same things about Reagan, but I was only 9 at the time I don't know for sure.

Let not your heart be troubled, my friend. Republicans should know that if this ammendment were repealed, Bill Clinton would be running against GW, and Bill would flatten him. The guy is just too charismatic, knows how to play the politics game, and is a fantastic public speaker.

[edit on 2-18-2005 by junglejake]



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
that link is not working.

there are no current attempts to undo the 22nd ammendment.

ammendments can't be repealed. A new one has to be made to 'override' it.

bush is not eligible for a nother term, and the republicans aren't going to remove that ammendment just so he can run again.


Im sure it can be overridden. If there is a good enough reason to do so it will happen. If the Bush family feels that it is absolutely necessary to stay in power because of unforseen circumstances they will find a way. Just look at the 2000 election.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   
if it happens im out of this country.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
that link is not working.

there are no current attempts to undo the 22nd ammendment.

Spooky.
I found the link over 14 hours ago and its been fine until now.
Its either very busy or someone doesn't like people knowing what's happening.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by dgtempe
I'm glad i wasnt the author of this story today.

No. Cant happen. no no no. He's out in 2008.


I'm amused! (You got my vote for way above for your admission on that other thread, dg. Not many people would have the courage or honor to do what you did.)


[edit on 2-18-2005 by junglejake]
thats awful nice of you, i dont have a problem in admitting i'm wrong..we all make mistakes. thanks.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
If memory serves me correct they tried the same thing when Clinton was in office AND when Regan was in office, both a LOT more popular than Bush.

It wont happen


amuk, you never know. There's alot of people out there that still praise him his work in iraq, what is everyone going to do when the 4 years are up? There's many people out there that think he's the son of jesus or another king arthur. I personally wouldn't be surprised, didn't the majority vote get him in the second time? Hey we all need another depression right? Food shelters for all!



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Now that I think about it, Bush wasn't elected to his first term, he was appointed by the supreme court after Florida screwed up the election process.

That means he's only been elected once, in 2004.

Oh dear god...he can run for another term.

I don't see it happening, but if the republicans decide to argue the matter before the supreme court, They've already shown who's side they're on.

God save us all


Love and light,

Wupy



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   
mrwupy,

Bush was elected by the Electoral College in 2000 without incident and on time, as far as the Constitution is concerned nothing unusual happened.

But, even if your premise was correct, he'd still be unable to run again. If you would bother to read the actual text of the 22nd Amendment:



Amendment XXII - Presidential term limits. Ratified 2/27/1951.

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, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.


you'd know that.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   
I found 3 pages relating to this and now all of them say"Temporary file open error. Display failed.".
Is this a conspiracy?

Luckily for those who didn't get chance to see it here's a copy and paste of the text.
"2. H.J.RES.24 : Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.
Sponsor: Rep Hoyer, Steny H. [MD-5] (introduced 2/17/2005) Cosponsors (4)
Committees: House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 2/17/2005 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to
the House Committee on the Judiciary."

It was there honest.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
If memory serves me correct they tried the same thing when Clinton was in office AND when Regan was in office, both a LOT more popular than Bush.

It wont happen


I have to agree here and I do not like the idea, I was for it under Reagan and we all know how that would have turned out...

Even for Bush ----> Bad Idea.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Third term not necessary. He should be able to fix everything in two. If he can not he should hire me.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Found it, again.
Click on the link and search for "H.J.RES.24" and you should find it.
Someone's up to something.
If it is revoked there's nothing stopping him.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Event Horizon
Im sure it can be overridden.

Sure, the constitution can be ammended. There is no way that bush has enough support to do this, even if every republican in the country supports it, whcih they wont. Heck even vehemently pro-bush supporters wouldn't all support it, becuase it would allow a multi-term democrat to come around. The limit was created, by republicans, as a reaction to FDRs 4 terms.

Just look at the 2000 election.

Yes, look at it , and you will see that there is not enough support for bush to have this happen. It requires much more than a majority to get an ammendment. THe 2000 election shows that bush just barely has a majority of electoral votes, let alone popular votes or congressional support.


That means he's only been elected once, in 2004.

Not, it does not. He was not appointed, he was elected. He's been elected twice. This is his last term, short of a constitutional ammendment that removes presidential terms limits.

but if the republicans decide to argue the matter before the supreme court

Its not something that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over. They interpret constiutional law, the president administers the government, and congress creates that laws. Only congress, via an ammendment, can give bush a third term.


Found it, again.

There is nothing that comes up if you search that term.
Yes, there wouldn't be anything stopping him if there was an ammendment to the constitution, because it'd be perfectly legal. THere were no presidental term limits by law until after FDR had 4 consecutive presidencies.


here is a house bill to repeal the 22nd ammendment.

It is house resolution 9 "H.J.RES.9", it was introduced by Congressman Serrano, he's a democrat from NY. here is the text


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.'.

It was proposed in january of this year, its sitting in comitee, ie it not going to happen.

edit:
As far as I can tell its working now, but the link might be something created on your own computer when you search that bill data-base. It may not be viewable on other computers and may even 'die' after a while, I don't know. I searched under the text 'Twenty-second Ammendment' in that database and got this bill.

[edit on 21-2-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 04:53 AM
link   
You must have to be quick to catch them.
No I didn't make them on my computer, but luckily for you I saved them in HTM.
If anyone can let me know the best place to host them Ill put them up.
I'm not suggesting they will get in I was just pointing out that there was reference to the 22nd ammendment made on the 2/17/2005.
I can't explain why they seem to keep moving the pages.
There's a list of 4 cosponsors also republican.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   
I suppose it is possible...... If.....

2/3rd's of both houses of Congress were to vote for it...... then
3/4 of all the states were to ratify it.

While possible, I highly doubt that you could get 2/3's of an almost equally split highly partisan congress to agree to it, especially if it meant that Bush could be re-elected.

But even if you could somehow get congress to pass the bill, it still would not be an amendment yet, you would need to somehow get 38 of the 50 states legislatures to ratify it. Considering how split the country is, good luck with that as well.

Quite frankly, in todays political climate, I just don't see it happening. Especially if it meant that Bush could be elected to a third term.



new topics




 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join