Is it Ok for OUR President to be King or Dictator, but not other countries?
Just found this Document online.
This is another re-try to amend the Constitution and get rid of the 22nd Amendment.
In the first session of the 111th Congress, this resolution was introduced, again.
Dated January 6, 2009, and introduced by Jose E. Serrano, a Democrat from New York, the Joint Resolution was apparently approved by 2/3rds of both the
Senate and the House of Representatives, and was sent on to the Committee on the Judiciary. 3/4th of the States have to ratify this amendment
within 7 years.
Recently, Venezuela citizens voted on a referendum that would allow President Hugo Chavez and other politicians to stay in office indefinitely,
apparently and the referendum passed.
I found this article on line regarding that event, and the article is very telling.
Link to article
Quotes from linked article above:
Allan Brewer-Carias, a former Venezuelan legislator and an opponent of President Hugo Chavez, says the referendum held on Sunday that overturned
term limits on Chavez and other public officials will strengthen the country's authoritarian strain. But the result, he said, also showed nearly half
the country disapproves of Chavez's government. He says even though Chavez controlled the media and used pressure on officials and recipients of
public support to vote "yes" in the referendum, there still were 5 million people voting "no."
But 6 million people voting yes.
Venezuela had a referendum on Sunday, and the results of 54.4 percent for the amendment to the constitution and 45.6 percent against seemed to be
a strong victory for President Hugo Chavez, who wants to change the constitution so that he can run for as many terms as he wants. What was your
general impression of this referendum?
First of all, I don't consider it a 'strong victory.' The referendum was approved by six million votes, and the 'no vote' obtained five million
votes, so it was not a strong victory. It was a very close victory. The closest difference in percentage in Venezuelan elections in ten years---except
for the last referendum, which was an exception. This is a very important fact, because that means that the opposition has been growing, and these
supporters of Chavez have been diminishing.
Read this next part, it's very interesting:
Will this referendum result send the country towards a dictatorship? We are already in a totalitarian government. So we are adding one aspect,
one new aspect to a framework that the country and the government has been constructing, during the past 10 years. We have a country where there is no
check and balance, no separation of powers at all. The executive controls the assembly, and through the assembly it controls the Supreme Tribunal, the
attorney general, the prosecutor general, the defender of the people, the comptroller general. So all the branches of government are completely
controlled, and the power concentrated in the executive. e are already in a totalitarian regime. But democracy is not only elections. Democracy
is a lot more than elections. It is check and balance, it is pluralism, it is the respect of human rights, freedom of expression, and a lot more
aspects that are in, for instance, the Inter-American Democratic Charter. So we are already in a totalitarian regime, and this is one step more that
will allow the people who are governing to continue in government, to be reelected, using without limit the resources of the government in order to
obtain reelection. And this is then one step more in this process of consolidation of an authoritarian regime.
You could almost switch "Venezuela" to "America" and the article would still make sense. What do you think?
Is American media and government hypocritical when they imply it's bad for Venezuela but say nothing about the same thing being put in place here?
Should Americans be worried about the Resolution above?
Should we at least get to vote on it like Venezuela did?