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.

 

New Bill Could Make Bush President For Life

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 03:43 AM
link   


A House bill has been introduced that would change the 22nd amendment and enable George Bush to remain President for the rest of his political life.

The bill would repeal limitations on a President holding office for a maximum of two terms.

An even darker scenario, Arnold Schwarzenegger is elected as President in 2008 and shorty after the 22nd amendment is abolished, making the Hitler admirer our permanent Fuhrer.

This is the modern day version of the Enabling Act, which allowed Hitler to officially declare himself dictator.


www.propagandamatrix.com...

I dont know what to make of this, im not American, but from looking around on the net i cant find a lot of this subject.

Ill see what i can did up




posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Although I'm in Australia, I'd still not want that to happen.
Can something like that actually be allowed though?

[edit on 15-6-2005 by Nventual]



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Pretty frightening stuff if it ends up being true. Though there are many that expected a move like this to come. This administration has not wanted to turn over any documents going all the way back to the Enron scandal pre-911, if a new administration got in there and opened the books, I am sure it would be bad for the outgoing group. Besides look at all the ground they have gained with the Patriot Act and the Real ID.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 04:16 AM
link   
This is pretty scary stuff...

im looking around on google to see if i can find anymore about this



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 04:17 AM
link   
This is already being discussed here: politics.abovetopsecret.com...

Believe me, it's not going to happen. This discussion comes up all the time during the second term of a President. Clinton actually still wants it changed so he can become President again...



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Surely, the American people would storm the streets if it became even the remotess possibility that this could happen? If this was to come to pass this would truly be the beginning of end..not only for the US but for the rest of world who rely on a strong and free US.

God help us...



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lady of the Lake
Surely, the American people would storm the streets if it became even the remotess possibility that this could happen? If this was to come to pass this would truly be the beginning of end..not only for the US but for the rest of world who rely on a strong and free US.

God help us...


People would go out and riot because they'd be given the opportunity to vote for Bush again? I don't think so...if he was that bad and there was no 22nd Amendment, he'd lose the election.


You know it wouldn't be the end of the world if it happened, the 22nd Amendment has been in existance only since 1951 so the U.S. got along fine it without for over 150 years. Plus, it is somewhat undemocratic since it restricts who the people can choose for president...

That being said, it will never happen, neither party really wants it and a Constitutional Amendment is extremely hard to pass.

[edit on 6/15/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Yeah,
i remember Clinton wanted to do it aswell.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 05:39 AM
link   
I'm sorry, but the statements quoted in the original post from that website are gross misrepresentations of this bill.

From the bill text itself:



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--


From the remarks stated by Hoyer:



The time has come to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, and not because of partisan politics. While I am not a
[Page: E303] GPO's PDF
supporter of the current President, I feel there are good public policy reasons for a repeal of this amendment. Under the Constitution as altered by the 22nd Amendment, this must be President George W. Bush's last term even if the American people should want him to continue in office. This is an undemocratic result.
Under the resolution I offer today, President Bush would not be eligible to run for a third term. However, the American people would have restored to themselves and future generations an essential democratic privilege to elect who they choose in the future.


You may access all details, remarks, text and status here.

In no way, shape or form would this "allow Bush to remain president for the rest of his political career". It won't take effect until 7 years after its ratification.

I'm actually okie-dokie with the repeal of the 22nd amendment because the restriction shouldn't have been placed on the american people in the first place. And I think that Mr. Hoyer stated it very well when he said:


Under the resolution I offer today, President Bush would not be eligible to run for a third term. However, the American people would have restored to themselves and future generations an essential democratic privilege to elect who they choose in the future.

I believe we denigrate ourselves as an enlightened people, and our political process as a whole, in imposing on ourselves still further disability to retain tested and trusted leadership.


So this isn't some attempt by either party to "keep the guy in office", but an attempt to withdraw the restriction on the american people to vote for whom they choose, even if whom they choose has already served two terms.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 05:48 AM
link   
Actually Valhall, I think the seven year thing is just an expiration date, a time limit on when it would have to be ratified. This way, the amendment would die unless ratified within 7 years so it doesn't sit out there forever and could end up being ratified years, decades, or even centuries later. That happened with the 27th Amendment that was originally part of the Bill of Rights and passed by Congress in 1789 but never received ratification from enough states until 1992.

I actually see nothing in the text of this bill that would prevent Bush from running again, however practically I doubt there would be enough time to get it passed for 2008.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 05:52 AM
link   
You're right, dj. I misread. Just as when they tried to get this done while Clinton was in office, I think they should put conditions in that restrict it from being applicable to the administration that is in office at the time of the ratification. If for no other reason than perception. It would most likely get passed doing that as well.

Thanks for the correction.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 06:02 AM
link   
There are probably a lot of americans that would actually support this so people like arnie can become prez (it'd be so cool, the terminator crushing all resistance as US prez
:lol


I have nothing against presidents running longer than two terms as long as the elections are fair and legitimate. We haven't got term limits on our prime-minister and they've all left office once they got kicked out or stepped down. You got nothin to worry about


I think that many americans hate it because they would just hate to have to bear another term with a president that isnt on their side of the fence (like all the bushies and neocons hating the evil clinton, and all the clintonites hating bush)


[edit on 15-6-2005 by drfunk]



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 06:05 AM
link   
This wouldn't affect Arnie, he has an Article II problem, not an Amendment XXII problem...

He would need a different amendment to pass for him to become eligible.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 06:06 AM
link   
I don't see anything good comming from this if some how bush and pals could pull that off. we'd be all screwed. but on the other hand there would be massive riots. and then theres the begining of the end for the U.S. (i.e. police state, military in the streets - running ops in the U.S., an a civil war, and if it really turns bad it could go nuclear.)



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by blindtothetruth
I don't see anything good comming from this if some how bush and pals could pull that off. we'd be all screwed. but on the other hand there would be massive riots. and then theres the begining of the end for the U.S. (i.e. police state, military in the streets - running ops in the U.S., an a civil war, and if it really turns bad it could go nuclear.)


WTF are you talking about? Did you swallow the "propagandamatrix" twisted crap or something? (nice psychological effect tying the false statement that this is how Hitler became a dictator - lmao) Massive riots from what? The only thing this bill would allow is the american people to regain a freedom of choice that was taken away from them. Yeah - let's riot over that.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   
hmmm

I don't know how much of a difference really would this change make, if it actually comes to that, because essentialy we vote for parties, not candidates.
Most people always vote for republican or democrat candidate, regardless of his campaign, issues, solutions, etc, etc.
These candidates simply represent a certain party and their party line.

The effect is more psychological, in terms that anyone who stays in power for more then a decade does appear dictator-like, not to mention that it is not only the president who stays in power for so long, but also others who are apointed by the president like secretary of state, defense secretary, etc, etc, who theoreticaly could be that for life then too.... am I wrong about this? Is there a limit for these functions too?

In any case, if this passes through it won't affect GWB but it will affect the presidency of his successor, Jeb Bush



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   
I'm a little torn on this...

On one hand, I agree with Valhall. The American people should be able to vote for whomever we want. If we decide that Bush should remain in office for the rest of his natural life, then that's our decision. Not necessarily one I would make, but it should be an option that's available. Let us have the ability to shoot ourselves in the foot. And if a great president comes along, someone that puts Lincoln or JFK to shame, then why restrict him to just eight years of service?

Another potential benefit to repealing the amendment would be that you'd no longer have the 2nd term "Well, no need to please anybody this time around" syndrome. The president would still be wanting to get into office for the next term, and would probably think twice before making drastic changes.

At the same time though, the original amendment was passed to prevent stagnation. It was enacted to force change on the people, and even someone with the best intentions will most likely end up getting lethargic and apathetic after a few years. We'd get into a rut, and unless things are really bad, we've proven that we don't really like changing things ourselves.

I do think the subject of this post--albeit eye-catching--is a little misleading. The bill is not refering strictly to Bush, and it's not talking about making anyone "President for Life." While that is an outcome that isn't too far-fetched, its most definitely not a given. I was coming into the thread expecting a bill discussing something more along the lines of Hitler's Enabling Act.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Somebody frame MCory1's post



Did you really expect blindtothetruth to actually get it Val, especially with a name like 'blind to the truth'?



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
``

it boils down to 'term limits'

for some reason, the present ammendment was enacted to avoid
another ~16 year reign like Roosevelts extended stay

as far as unexpected consequences...
didn't J Edgar Hoover (appointed to FBI position)
have a checkered history, as it was later found out?
so...there's another reason for term limits...oligarchy & fifedoms!

~~

if GW Bush, really, really wanted another two or three terms
there is a way to do that....
run as the Veep, have the 'proxy' president step-aside and , viola,
GW Bush, the elected VP, fills the vacated office
he therefore was limited to the 2 terms as 'elected president' as the
law states...

common now, i think you all forgot about all the maschinations which a
diabolical character might resort to...remember the "depends on what the definition of IS, is" contortions of a elitist, player??



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I'm somewhat appalled by the number of people here who think electing a president indefinately is a good thing.

There is a whole lot of power concentrated in the office of president - the very reason why the founding fathers created checks and balances. IMO, it's not a good idea to give that kind of power to the same person over and over again. Voter apathy can overlook an enormous amount of wrong that could be done before a 'familiar' president could be ejected from office.

I say let the checks and balances remain as they are. We're safer that way, and a president still gets two terms to enact whatever the heck he wants.



new topics




 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join