NY Council Extends Term Limit So Bloomberg Can Run

NY Council Extends Term Limit So Bloomberg Can Run

abcnews.go.com

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Mayor Michael Bloomberg won the right to seek re-election as New York's City Council voted on Thursday to extend the two-term limit for elected officials as the city grapples with the global financial crisis.

Bloomberg, a former Wall Street trader and self-made billionaire who was elected in 2001 and in 2005, wants to run again on grounds that his financial experience will be valuable in guiding the city through lean fiscal times ahead.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is a VERY dangerous precedent to be setting, and I am fearful that we may see more of the same in even higher levels of our government. Once people are accustomed to abolishing state term limits, then it will be introduced on a national scale.

I bet Bush is kicking himself that this could not have been implemented sooner so he could have a 'legitemate' chance at being 'elected' into office again.

Once someone has power for a length of time, they think that they are the only ones who know how to handle the problems of the office. I bet it is hard enough to give up after one term, but after two, you have come pretty used to everyone doing what you want. I hope the people of New York show the nation that this is NOT what they want and overwhelmingly elect the opposition in the coming election.

abcnews.go.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

A dangerous precedent indeed, creates a dangerous president in need.

I see the stage being set for more of the big B. show.
As if global financial disaster was not a catalyst to spur this, the timing is perfect.
What better way to stay in than to declare emergency powers during a crisis.
If it happens, GOD help us all.


[edit on 23/10/2008 by reticledc]

How can this possibly be passed without putting it on a ballot or having a referendum???? Are you kidding me????

That's all I have for now. While it is odd, I am actually at a loss for words as I try to pick my jaw up off of the ground.

I honestly never thought I would see the day when things the founding fathers warned about, designed the constitution to avoid, come to pass. Giving away liberty for temporary security, nationalization of banks, term limits being abolished, a president losing a national election and remaining in office. The list goes on. There also seems to be nothing that can be down about it.

reply to post by ninthaxis


Unfortunately it's been going on for a long time. Since the New Deal in fact if I remember correctly, I believe there were some executive powers adopted by FDR that were not originally the domain of the executive branch. But yes, the last 8 years have been an absolute curb check to the Bill of Rights and the checks and balances. It'd be nice to get a surprise and have someone we actually legitimately elect shock the world and set the checks and balances back to where they should be. The first thing the next President needs to do is get rid of that ridiculous executive emergency powers action and preemptive use of the military on targets of opportunity nonsense.

It is interesting how very soon after Roosevelt completed his 3 terms, it became necessary to institute a term limit, and Roosevelt is considered one of the better presidents in my opinion. People still had the fear of a dictator or monarchy taking over and wanted to avoid that at all costs. Yet here we are, 5 years later, and people have forgotten what dangers lie in allowing a person that much power for a long period of time.

I may be in the minority, but I think this is a good idea.

I hate Bloomberg, but imagine if Ron Paul was in this position. Being forced to give up his seat due to a term limit, and then in steps a fascist replacement. If you don't like Bloomberg (he's a scumbag), don't vote for him. However, if a guy like Ron Paul runs, and then after his second time he's still obeying his oath of office, he should be able to run again.

I'm not gong to lie. I support Bloomberg and I support this extension of the term limits. The people will decide in 2009 when New Yorkers go the ballot to elect their Mayor. They will either vote out Bloomberg or usher in a new Mayor. Frankly, Bloomberg has done good for my city. Why shouldn't I have the choice to keep someone in power who in my opinion have done good. This is part of the reasons I hate term limits. It limits the people's rights to choose their leaders.

Oh great...the Geroge Soros of American meglomainiacs is getting another term because the NY city council is making decisions they have no legal basis for. Bloomberg is an idiot. I don't care that hes rich. He's running NYC like itsa his own personal fifedom and to hell with its citizens or the laws on the books. "live like I tell you or else" is his motto!!! He's the major reason I avoid NYC like the plague!!

Zindo

Quite unbelievable to let this happen. He served, he is out, lets find someone fit to do the job, as well.

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
Oh great...the Geroge Soros of American meglomainiacs is getting another term because the NY city council is making decisions they have no legal basis for. Bloomberg is an idiot. I don't care that hes rich. He's running NYC like itsa his own personal fifedom and to hell with its citizens or the laws on the books. "live like I tell you or else" is his motto!!! He's the major reason I avoid NYC like the plague!!

Zindo

"No legal basis"? In what way? This decision was completely legal. So what if the people did not vote on this. The people don't vote on Congress pay increase. The people did not vote on term limits for the President either. The fact is, the Council had the legal power to extend term limits.

If that the case why is it that twice it was on the ballot and twice the citizens voted to continue term limits?. If they could change at will why put it on a ballot that has twice been approved by the citizens? They where implemented in '93 by a ballot initiative. Seems to me it will take a ballot initiative to change the law. Not a caveat by Blomberg because he has the city council in his pocket? Besides, I believe he needs to be elected to a third term, not appointed!

Zindo

as a New Yorker and an American, I am disgusted by this. Bloomberg is an elitist pri#$ who only cares about the rich and Manhattan. He wants to keep new york very rich and very poor, with no consideration for the middle class. I will be campaigning heavily against Bloomberg when he runs again.
"Our Billionaire Mayor's now convinced he's our King"-from "New york I love you"- by LCD Soundsystem.

In Other News...

Chancellor Bloomberg has solemnly pledged to lay down his emergency powers as soon as this crisis has ended.

“The Council? I AM the Council!”

reply to post by Majic


Next step, US presidency bid coming fall of 2012 too lead the US through the end of the Mayan calendar and into the next stage of life. Just kidding about that 2012 stuff (though only kind of....).

Sounds very socialist to me, what about you guys. the news in the west where livid at the thought of putin running for a 3rd term, now this. The double standards, and just shows you how they control the press.

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
If that the case why is it that twice it was on the ballot and twice the citizens voted to continue term limits?. If they could change at will why put it on a ballot that has twice been approved by the citizens? They where implemented in '93 by a ballot initiative. Seems to me it will take a ballot initiative to change the law. Not a caveat by Blomberg because he has the city council in his pocket? Besides, I believe he needs to be elected to a third term, not appointed!

Zindo

Your logic is since a ballot initiative decided term limits there needs to be a ballot initiative to extend term limits? That is an extraordinarily flawed logic. The Council has the power to amend the law and that is what they did. There is nothing illegal here. Tell me, how many New Yorker's voted on the initiative? 10%? 15%? 20%? New Yorkers elected representatives to represent them in a Council. That's the way this Republic works. That is the way it has worked for years.

You're right, Mayor Bloomberg should NOT be appointed, and he WON'T. In November 2009, he would hear the will of the people when New Yorkers decide who their Mayor is. Where in the hell do you get the idea Bloomberg will be "appointed" as Mayor? The legislation simply extended term limits, it did not appoint the Mayor. Bloomberg and others will have the option to run or not run for a third term. The people will decide who their leaders are.

Soon others will follow. THIS IS DANGEROUS INDEED.

Another aborted constitutional process used for toilet paper. The man is insane.

WHY are the people of NY allowing this?????? What are they, morons? Do they not realize the implications of this??

ARE WE INSANE???????????????????????????????????????????



I dont care how good you are, Jack, times up according to the laws of the United States.

reply to post by dgtempe


The arguement someone above made, about Bloomberg not being appointed, but still must be elected can be seen from another angle. I would suspect that voters would feel somewhat pressured to vote for him seeing as though the New York Council specifically changed the term limit FOR Bloomberg. This goes farther than endorsement in my eye.