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.

 

Three Terms for Barack Obama?

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Riviera
 


I agree with you completely. I didn't want the 22nd amendment repealed last time they tired to do it and I don't want it now.


A star for agreeing with you, too.

However, I'm still convinced all the obama hype won't survive reality and he'll last only one term (just like his mentor jimmy carter).




posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


The stuff about a mock birth certificate is rubbish. The state did produce it. Why oh why do you read this mess on these alterantive sites and take them to be true? It is just a bunch of negative minded folks working to keep everyone at each other's throats and producing more negativity. He could not have received a social security number without a valid birth certificate. Don't believe me? Contact them and say you lost your's and see what they ask you for to prove your identity. He could not have received financial aid for college, been admitted to college, or gotten a passport without these two documents. Think, use logic. Energy is needed from folks to do far more productive things than putting their heads to a bunch of nonsense like the stuff you guys are feeding into.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
No, I don't look poorly because I stated they produced the document, because they did. They did to several courts when the law suits were filed. The courts had to examine it in order to make a ruling on the case. The state of Hawaii even spoke out about it. Further, whatever document was submitted to the courts went before the Supreme Court of the United States for review and they dismissed the whole thing because under the laws regarding citizenship, he is a citizen and he has a valid birth certificate according to their review of his. Futher, it was given to the valid news agencies when this stuff began. More obvious, he would have had to have produced it long ago, long before he ran for any election in this country, just to get a social security card so that he could work in this country and to get a passport. Common sense is a lot easier to put into practice than going around searching for theories like this. Just because some nutso news organization printed something wacky doesn't mean anything. Also, if a state wants to refer to Blacks as Africans, it can do so. We call African American a race nowadays. We call Native American a race. It is up to the state to determine things like that. Believe what you want. What indeed does it change? Nada.

[edit on 18-1-2009 by Little Star]

[edit on 18-1-2009 by Little Star]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Honestly... I thought the same about Bush, but then Kerry showed up. I would say, even if Obama does a meh job... don't bring Giuliani or some other Kerry-like loser.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Little Star
 


Are you talking about the proposed one or the current amendment? The current amendment is a 2-term limit regardless of order.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
The proposed amendment has been introduced repeatedly by this guy. It gets referred to a committee and dies in the committee as it never gets any consideration. No one with any sense in their heads is going to mess with the original amendment. The only reason FDR served so many terms was because of what was going on in the country at the time.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
A state can call a birth certifcate whatever it wants. My father's birth certificate says "Certificate of Live Birth". So, yes, they are the same thing. It depends on how a state determines it wants to refer to it. Since you guys are such experts on the Constitution, check the rights given to states. It gives them the freedom to control almost everything that goes on in the state as long as the laws of a state do not contradict a law enacted by the federal government. So, it can call a birth certificate a "Certificate of Live Birth" if they want.

Here is a link to a story from a valid news source on the subject.
www.huffingtonpost.com...

[edit on 18-1-2009 by Little Star]

[edit on 18-1-2009 by Little Star]

[edit on 18-1-2009 by Little Star]

[edit on 18-1-2009 by Little Star]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
I think that this is a bad idea.

Eight years as the president is long enough. In some cases it's too long.

I don't think that this will be very popular. Although you might like your representative to be in power for longer than eight years, just imagine if it's the other parties candidate that is in power.'
'



Exactly, let the man get sworn in before and actually be the president before we decide if we want him for more than eight years.

As for reps and senators from states, I wish they had stricter limits on their number of terms and how long they can be in office.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Honestly... I thought the same about Bush, but then Kerry showed up. I would say, even if Obama does a meh job... don't bring Giuliani or some other Kerry-like loser.


Hmmm. You (unfortunately) could be right. Exactly which Republican could step forward now to challenge obama in 4 years? Unless, of course, obama really tanks. Then almost anyone could run and beat him. Exactly what happened to carter. And then we won the cold war ...


[edit on 1/18/2009 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by Riviera
 


If he does a really good job, then should he deserve a 3rd term? If a president doesn't do a good job, then he/she is voted out.


Nope. Not even is he does a really good job. The whole reason it's like that is to ensure we never have a monarchy. Even a little bit of give on this position is setting us up for disintegration of that principle.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I'm just surprised they didn't do this for ol' Dubya.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
What is up with the people here? Okay one more time, this guy did not do this for Obama. He has introduced this legislations, including during the Bush administration, for years and years. It is referred to committee, in this case, the Judiciary committee, and dies in committee. This has nothing to do with Obama. Do research before you come on here, read the title of a thread, and take it to be the absolute truth. Is there a problem with actually researching something and reading everything out there on the subject, this is how research is conducted, before actually accepting something as true. The people here rally about how mindlessly the public goes along with the government and then you come on here and mindlessly accept the truth of something that can be shown to be false after doing five minutes of research on the Internet. As my father would say, please use your head for something besides a hat rack.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Little Star
 


Aren't you the one who thought Bush and Clinton can be reelected?



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


The founders knew that the complexity of society and government would change with the times; therefore, they allowed for the provision of adding amendments to reflect and allow for the changes that would occur, while keeping the basic framework (as a frame should be) concrete and rigid (separation of powers, for one). Look where we'd be if they hadn't allowed for amendments: look at the amendents (not the bill of right) and and see where we'd be if those hadn't been allowed for.

Heck, i don't think anyone should be allowed for more than two terms. FDR did a great job, sure, but we could have had a third Bush (or Reagan) term (and not via McCain) by the rigging of the voting system (again?), and then we would be in about as bad a shape as if McCain was elected and died and we got Palin. *wipes brow*

Even if Obama does an outstanding job, we do not need dynasties of any shape or form in this country. The limits are fine with me (i think).



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Little Star
 


Well it's clear to me that he's chosen to ressurect this dead policy at this time, at a time when the public is much more likely to find such a proposal palatable.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Given that he has proposed it every two years or so for a long time, you cannot tie this to Obama. No one is going to give Obama that type of control given that he hasn't set foot in office as of yet. I guess I just have to accept that people will believe whatever they want to believe and will connect dots even if the logic to connect the dots is non-existent and even if the dots are not on the same page, and even if the evidence that contradicts their view is given to them.

[edit on 18-1-2009 by Little Star]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Little Star
 


I think you're underplaying how much this is connected. Looks to me like he's striking while the iron is hot, and all that, and riding the wave of Obamamania.

You're being pretty vague too, you say he tries to ressurect this thing every couple of years? Any sources for how many times he's tried and when?

Well anyway, we'll keep our eye on it this time. Anyone wanna take any bets?

[edit on 18-1-2009 by Lazyninja]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
I know it because I been around awhile and have seen where it was introduced before. It started when Reagan was President. But, I can't, at this point in time, provide you with one source that has all of the facts in it that I have given you. You have to search around on the Internet and you will find the other instances when it came up.

Here is one article from the NY Times. It doesn't specifically deal with this guy though.

www.nytimes.com...

I found one that shows Serano also introduced it in 2003. Bush was President then:

www.mapcruzin.com...

Here is an article about when it was introduced in 2005:

liberty.hypermart.net...

Now, while I am all for term limits, there is an argument to be made to repeal it. If the people like a President, why not allow them to decide to limit his terms in the ballot box? Wouldn't that be more of a democratic way to determine it? This is was Reagan's argument.

[edit on 18-1-2009 by Little Star]

[edit on 18-1-2009 by Little Star]

[edit on 18-1-2009 by Little Star]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Lazyninja
 


Same thing from 2007

Here it is again in 2005

Seems like he proposes it once every two years or so. Want me to keep going? I might be able to find more but I'm bored of it.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Irish M1ck
 


I made a mistake on that. I went in and read the 22nd amendment and an application of its provisions and discovered that I was wrong. Although, I have heard that it would only apply to consecutive terms. But, what I read today clearly says that they can only be elected twice. This would eliminate the possibility of more than two terms consecutive or not. So, I was wrong. I have no problem admitting when I make a mistake. But, you see, I will go on and double check myself and do real research.

[edit on 18-1-2009 by Little Star]

[edit on 18-1-2009 by Little Star]







 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join