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.

 

Is Bush going for a 3rd term?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
and goes into recess so that the president can appoint a successor


whoever is appointed vice president has a mandate under Article II to sit until the end of that congressional session


Ah, I was confused a bit as to what you were saying before, with all the demotions and promotions. Now I see what you are saying.Thats a fascinating point.

Christ, they'd better never elect you, they'll never get you outta office!



but this county's common sense died with Thomas Paine.

All that and then you throw in a pun, nice!

John Titor's shotgun regiments versus Wesley Clark's marauding army of city boys

I should've known titor would pop up in some way!


dgtempe
If he leaves, he'll be kicking and screaming.

It will be interesting to see if he is as involved and in the public as W. Clinton in his post-presidency.




posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Thats a fascinating point.

Christ, they'd better never elect you, they'll never get you outta office!


I really am quite mercinary in my attitude regarding my abilities, but I'd like to think I'd use them responsibly. I'd reign, or see that my puppet reigned, for 10 or 20 years, make a few dollars in the process of leaving things better than I found them, then give the country back when I got bored.

I hope that when I mount my congressional campaign sometime down the road that nobody will be too afraid of me on account of this thread.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
It has long been a Republican's dream to run forever....Not a chance in hell, not legally anyway.

Our forefathers knew that would lead to dictatorships. This is not what America stands for.


Exactly where did you go to school to learn this kind of BS history? As someone has already pointed out (but you have missed), the only president to go longer than 2 terms was Franklin Roosevelt - a democrat

You know, I actually think this would be terrible for the country, but sometimes I think I'd like to see Hillary win in 2008. Why? For no other reason than to see the lot of you have to switch over to defense mode and start posting such drivel as "it was only a little lie" and "everyone else has done it" and "you're just being mean spirited". Or how about these, "I got my rights back!" and "When is HRC going to do something about all these terrorists?" and "I'm proud to pay my share of all these new tax increases" and "You know, a 2 day wait at the local government health clinic isn't really too bad - as long as you get there by Thursday morning."?

Refreshing thoughts, no?



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
...any way.

I thought I read a few years ago that there are provisions within the Federal Emergency Management Act to allow certain people to suspend congress and elections under certain Extreme Emergency situations.

I don't remember were I read that at, and I never did any research to convince myself whether this is true or not.

Has anyone else heard this?



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I'd like to offer a friendly reminder that the topic of this thread is not whether this country is going to go to hell in a hand basket if Hillary is elected. I think that it would be very worthwhile to have a discussion over what policies we can expect from Hillary and what people think of those prospects, and it would be wonderful if someone (maybe Centurion) started that thread. Just please not here.

As for Hlesterjerome's question, there is no provision for the suspension of elections in the US Constitution, except that congress may set the date of election by law. Congress is not given along with that power the constitutional authority to extend the term of the president so much as one minute beyond four years though. This creates yet another interesting potential for a constitutional crisis.

Congress has the power to push back election and inauguration day, causing the presidency to become vacant, in which case the congress would have the power to choose the president on its own per section 3 of the 20th amendment, although that president would only serve until the newly prescribed election date, which presumably would have to fall within the same year since they are only constitutionally given the power to affect the date. Therefore, the congress could theoretically have a president of its choosing for about 1 year only.

Back to the original question though, given that no real power to suspend elections exists beyond what I have described above, and even that rests with the congress rather than the president, any attempt to suspend elections under any pretense whatsoever would be put down by the SCOTUS, and it would almost certainly be ruled not that the elections could not be pushed back, but merely that the president had usurped the authority of congress by doing it himself.


The president's only standing at all is the faithful execution clause. He could theoretically take extraordinary steps to ensure that laws passed by congress were enforced, so if there was a joint resolution calling upon the president to put down a rebellion for instance, the president might then try martial law, delaying elections, or any number of things, but since congress could repeal it at any time, the executive gains no practical advantage here because if the congress doesn't repeal it when he delays the elections thats no easier than getting them to move election day back by legislation as they have the authority to do.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   
--------------------------
As for Hlesterjerome's question, there is no provision for the suspension of elections in the US Constitution, except that congress may set the date of election by law.
---------------------------

…Vagabond.

My question was not whether or not the Constitution provided provisions for suspending elections.

It was whether the FEMA act provided provisions for suspending elections.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by hlesterjerome
My question was not whether or not the Constitution provided provisions for suspending elections.

It was whether the FEMA act provided provisions for suspending elections.


And my answer was that just because it's written on a law doesn't mean that it can happen. Since no branch of government has the authority to suspend elections, nothing in the "FEMA Act" (FEMA was not created by an act of congress by the way, but by President Carter's Executive Order 12148) could allow for the suspension of elections. They could try, but having it written down wouldn't make a difference. The president could just make it up off the top of his head and it would have every bit as much credibility (zero) as an earlier president's executive order that contradicts the constitution.

That being said, Executive Order 12148 does not in and of itself provide in any way for the cancellation of elections. It merely changes which cabinet positions will be responsible for the execution of certain laws relating to emergencies.

That being said, FEMA has been involved in such shady business as Readiness Exercise 1984, better known as "Rex-84" or "Operation Gardenplot".

Subsequent executive orders have reitterated and reorganized FEMA's power, with the upshot of it all being that if the president declares a state of emergency, FEMA basically administrates over martial law with authority over all infrastructure and in some cases private property as well, and the Justice Department has to back them up. Site such as This one will gladly scare the hell out of you with grandiose decrees that the constitution and bill of rights will be "off the table" and that congress isn't allowed to review the president's declaration of a state of emergency for six months.

As I said, this is all very ominous on paper, but it has no standing. The entire thing is dependent on executive orders, which are an extra-constitutional device which basically amount to the president telling the people in his branch what to do, with the only constitutional end being to execute LAW.

Law comes from congress, within the scope of certain enumerated powers per Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. Nowhere within those enumerated powers does there exist anything relating to the cancelation of elections or the enactment of martial law. It does allow for the use of the military to supress insurrections, but that's it. You could make a necessary and proper clause argument for martial law and the postponement of elections, but let's face it, at that point we're talking blatant treason.

The executive authority which was delegated to FEMA by Executive Order 12148 is derived from quite a few laws, cited below in an excerpt from that order. Feel free to read them all. I'm not going to for one simple reason- they are all superceded by the constitution. The rest of America can do what they like, but the constitution stops being the supreme law in my neighborhood the day I run out of ammunition, and not a moment sooner.

As I've said before in this thread, there is no point in making a legal argument in favor of such an outrage. It would be just as easy (and just as legal) for the president to simply burn the constitution and tell us he was installing an unconstitutional dictatorship. Either way it is contrary both to the spirit and the letter of our constitution, legal wrangling or not, and it would come down to a fight, a fight that would make Vietnam or Iraq look like an unbridled success.

Is "Umm" your final answer?


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2251 et seq.), the Disaster Relief Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. Chapter 58 note), the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 143; 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), Section 4 of Public Law 92-385 (86 Stat. 556), Section 43 of the Act of August 10, 1956, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2285), the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1958, Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1973, the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 98 et seq.), Section 202 of the Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 581c), and Section 301 of Title 3 of the United States Code, and in order to transfer emergency functions to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, it is hereby ordered as follows:



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 04:27 AM
link   
If Bush ran for a 3rd term I'd vote for him again! I hope he does get a 3rd term! He's the best thing that has happened to America in a long time!



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Well Iguana, I think it's safe to say that several people will soon be lauding you copiously for your bold support of the President (/BS) but before you are beset on all sides by enemies I'll bite on that one and see if you care to articulate your position more fully.

Is it your opinion that term limits are a bad thing in all cases, or do you believe that Bush meets certain extraordinary qualifications either of merit or of circumstance?

We have a tradition in this country, what most nations would regard as a constitutional convention (in the sense of a tradition) which has stood for over 200 years, whereby presidents do not seek power for such a length of time that the checks and ballances upon their office might become decayed. For instance it is highly improbable that a President would ever be in a position to personally nominate a majority of the SCOTUS in only 8 years, which serves to protect the check that institution places upon the executive branch.

This is not only a guard against the man himself but against those around him. Afterall, a perfectly benign president might bequeath a loyal SCOTUS to a less virtuous successor of similar ideology, in which case we could find the constitution to become a mere matter of convenience for the president to set aside when he saw fit.

Let us suppose that you are right about Bush for instance, and suppose that he ruled with honor for 16 or 20 years, and that the passage of time showed that his policies in the war on terror were good and wise. Let us just suppose these things, and restrain the urgent need to laugh. Is it not possible that another neo-conservative might replace him, perhaps a VP who arranged an assassination even, and then take it too far- leading us into another war, this time for the wrong reasons?

Then of course there is the bias issue. Would you support more terms for a president you felt was destroying America, if that was the will of the people? What if we had an ultra liberal president who was leading a slow transition to communism, and you weren't sure that all of his steps were constitutional. Should he be able to face the people in another election if he had a good chance of winning, or would you want a new man to have to step up, to ensure that sound policy remained the issue? Afterall, term limits are a guard against the cult of personality which often accompany the death of freedom.

So I've gone on at length, and I appologize. I'd just like to hear your position in greater detail and have put up a few things that I hope will prompt you to explain when and why additional terms are appropriate.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
If Bush ran for a 3rd term I'd vote for him again! I hope he does get a 3rd term! He's the best thing that has happened to America in a long time!
Ahhhhhhh, yes, can you feel the love, can you feel the passion, can you? Yes, of course. This would be the best thing since apple pie.

It would not be dictatorship at all, just someone who wants to stay to save his people.


Centurium, i tried to explain things to you civilly before, you just dont get where i come from nor do you care. You are a diehard and so be it. I dont have an issue with you quoting me all over the place. Whatever floats your boat. I wonder just how much you know or care to know about dictatorships. I bet i know a hellof a lot more about it than you do, having lived in one.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Why on earth are people comparing Bush to a dictator? In a dictatorship you don't have the freedom to talk smack endlessly about our leader! So you liberals should think about that for awhile....I have supported Bush from day 1 and I believe he has done an incredible job as President despite all the leftist criticism.
Seeing that Bush has accomplished so much in just a few years, I would support a 3rd term in his name in order to finalize our efforts in the middle-east and throughout the world.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   
I'm all ears Iguana. I've got a few things I'd normally say to you, but you seem to mean this very seriously and I'm telling you that if you want to set me straight about this President I'll read every word you have to say on the matter and I won't tell you your wrong, though I may ask you a few questions.

I realize that text sometimes comes across the wrong way, so let me assure you I'm not mocking you- I'd like to hear what efforts we need to complete, what the middle east should look like when we're done, examples of Bush's success, etc...

Like I said, I won't even tell you if I think you're wrong. I honestly don't understand exactly where some of Bush's supporters are coming from and I see your decision to defend him here as a chance for me to learn something about the political landscape...
You don't have to, but I'd like it if you did.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I too would like to hear of this administrations accomplishments.
And like V. I have a lot of questions I need answered by an ardent supporter of the President.
Thank You!
whaaa



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   
There are a lot of people in the United States for whom honor and integrity are paramount.

These are no "keyborad warriors" but individuals (mostly men) who swore an Oath to Presereve, Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States from all Enemies, Foreign and Domestic.

If you have not sworn that Oath, I don't believe you are capable of understanding its importance to those of us who consider themselves bound by that Oath until death.

Many of those people, as much as they love life, would do WHATEVER IS NECESSARY to defend the Constitution.

George Bush -- or any other President -- may seek a third term, although I consider that possibility very small.

And another President might actually win a third term using some kind of chicanery; although I consider that possibility even less likely.

What I do consider likely to the point of certainty is that any such third term (in the extremely unlikely chance that it obtained) would be a short one.

[edit on 15-7-2006 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
Why on earth are people comparing Bush to a dictator? In a dictatorship you don't have the freedom to talk smack endlessly about our leader! So you liberals should think about that for awhile....I have supported Bush from day 1 and I believe he has done an incredible job as President despite all the leftist criticism.
Seeing that Bush has accomplished so much in just a few years, I would support a 3rd term in his name in order to finalize our efforts in the middle-east and throughout the world.
Good for you
Stand up for what you believe. I dont agree with you, because, well, there are a lot more implications to this than you know. In any case, start a petition that Bush stay!!!!! You should get a few signatures, a few odd looks, a slashed tire or two.....but do it , because that's what you believe!!!

Good luck.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Hum . . . I always knew and heard about fanatics and faithfully followers of their preferred personalities.

But . . . this is the first time I am on a thread that it goes beyond that.


No offense occurs.


I voted for bush in 2000 but I hated what he stood for in 2004, I will never give my undeniable faith to nobody.


That kind of trust clouds the mind.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   
^Sure.... even though the majority of America voted for Bush! Anyway I would have to write up a whole report about Bush's accomplishments and frankly I don't have the time right now. But I believe he has accomplished plenty. What I don't understand is how some leftist individuals are incapable of seeing them. First of all our military has severed the taliban, done away with Iraq's tyrant, and now in the process of establishing democracy in that country.
Thanks to the Patriot Act intelligence agencies and law enforcement can work together without the bureaucracy of federal courts that delay the progression of removing all terrorist activity within the United States.
That alone makes me quite appreciative of what Bush has done. And yes, I would be more than willing to vote Bush in for a 3rd term in order to complete all the tasks at hand.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   
laiguana

I will be very glad to see such report and I hope you don't mind anybody refuting anything in it.
or just agreeing with it.


Thats what good political discussion should be about.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Those are fair points you bring up laiguana, and I won't ask too many questions so that you'll be able to respond if you choose without having to spend too much time (I decided to take a break from school for the summer so I got nothing but, but I still sympathize).

My question is about our victory over the Taliban. Although there is no denying that we did well in a nation that historically has proven difficult to do well in, would you agree at all with the idea that we might have captured more of the Taliban and Al Qaida senior leadership there if we had sent more troops?
If so, why did we use only the force we did, and do you think the president might have had a better alternative on the table and missed it?

In other words, I understand supporting someone who screws up now and then, because everyone does from time to time, but Bush's supporters aren't under the impression that this administration has been perfect are they?



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   
oops doubled...

[edit on 15-7-2006 by The Vagabond]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join