It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Ruled by two families for 2 decades.

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 09:39 AM
I am wondering if I am the only person in the world that is bothered by the following. We have had a Bush or Clinton in the White House since 1981. With the 2008 elections coming up and a Clinton possibly getting in the white house again doesnt something in the constitution need to be amended to prohibit family from running for presidency of the United States. Also there is the possibility of Jeb Bush running for office one day as well. To me personally this doesnt seem right.

Isnt the process of electing a president every 4 years suppose to provide some sort of change in our government? Instead we have been "ruled" by 2 families for technically just under 2 decades as of right now but if you consider George H.W. Bush as Vice president than it has been well over 2 decades.

Is it just me or does this bother anyone else?

posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 03:17 PM
it doesn't bother me one bit.

why? because the president doesn't really "rule" over a country in any sense of the word.

posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 03:28 PM
I wonder the same thing, sometimes. If you look at American history, there are several other father/son presidents and a grandfather/grandson pair, as well. If the people do a good job, it doesn't bother me at all, but when a total loser gets into office in large part because of his family influence and wealth, that really bothers me.

It would be very hard to word such a constitutional amendment, by the way. What, exactly, constitutes 'family'? Hillary Clinton is not blood related to Bill Clinton, for example, yet they are obviously a family. Would that case be included? What about if the Clintons got divorced, could Hillary run then? What about their kids? What about a family's stepkids, in-laws, third cousins? What about Abraham Lincoln's descendants, should they be barred because he is their ancestor?

Speaking purely mathematically, the odds of so many related presidents is pretty darned slim, assuming a random person becomes president. There is nothing inherently wrong with families in politics, it is when those families are doing things that damage the country that it becomes wrong.

posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 09:54 AM
The president DOES rule over the country, and by country I mean the people, show me an example where the people actually have a say in the daily operations of the country. My comment about ruling was mostly directed at the Bush family considering that they have been in the white house in one form or another for more than 2 decades. If that isnt ruling then I dont know what is, Father passes the throne to Son, son *maybe* passes to brother, etc.

I think if you stipulate in the constitution something like, direct family of X president is not allowed to run for for president until 2 unrelated presidents complete there terms after X president completed his term. I know that is rough but I am not a law maker. Radion stations do a similar thing when giving prizes out, no family of X radio station or employee is allowed to enter the contest and/or win the prize.

I think geneology and/or marriage would dictate who family is. So for example George HW Bush and his family (by birth, odoption, or marriage) and any of George HW bushes siblings and there direct family cannot run for the office until the situation stated above or something similar takes place.

I would like to think that the US was designed to provide change. That is why government positions expire, to provide a breath of fresh air. This doesnt seem to be the situation now. I dont think in recorded history that any family has been in the position of President or Vice President more than the Bush family.

Just doesnt seem right to me is all.

top topics

log in