New Bill Could Make Bush President For Life

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,397
94
48
jjw1965 said:
A House bill has been introduced that would change the 22nd amendment and enable George Bush to remain President for the rest of his political life.
Needless to say this is like the Enabling Act, which allowed Hitler to officially declare himself dictator.

Click here for actual house bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH:

Click here for the Enabling Act
http://cghs.dade.k12.fl.us/holocaust/enabling.htm

this is very scary......for the world at large.

( another parrallel between bush and Hitler is that they both suffer from "mood disorders".-----and the megalomaniac complex. HItler too , was prone to highs, and dark depths of depression with underlying paranoia. Seems this is comparable to the article you posted on another thread. It is the degree that matters ......so far. Don't think Hitler was treated for his illness. If bush is being treated as your article indicates...... that could make a difference.

but one has to wonder about the wisdom of retaining a mentally unstable person in office. Unless of course he is just the "figure head". Interesting situation........that bears watching. A lot can be determined from the coming speaches he makes. His tone etc. If he starts to adopt a gentler , more reasonable stance .....then the treatment might be working.

an aside but in keeping with his mental status: recall his laughing and looking under his desk for those WMD. This is psychologically/behaviorally inappropriate behavior. No matter how it was spun in the media.

but back to the Prez for life. This has been mentioned before.......but obviously has resurfaced. Will he then be re-writing the entire constitution???? Yikes.
 

manda

Council Member
Jul 3, 2005
2,007
0
36
swirling in the abyss of nowhere la
Ocean Breeze said:
jjw1965 said:
A House bill has been introduced that would change the 22nd amendment and enable George Bush to remain President for the rest of his political life.
Needless to say this is like the Enabling Act, which allowed Hitler to officially declare himself dictator.

Click here for actual house bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH:

Click here for the Enabling Act
http://cghs.dade.k12.fl.us/holocaust/enabling.htm

this is very scary......for the world at large.

( another parrallel between bush and Hitler is that they both suffer from "mood disorders".-----and the megalomaniac complex. HItler too , was prone to highs, and dark depths of depression with underlying paranoia. Seems this is comparable to the article you posted on another thread. It is the degree that matters ......so far. Don't think Hitler was treated for his illness. If bush is being treated as your article indicates...... that could make a difference.

but one has to wonder about the wisdom of retaining a mentally unstable person in office. Unless of course he is just the "figure head". Interesting situation........that bears watching. A lot can be determined from the coming speaches he makes. His tone etc. If he starts to adopt a gentler , more reasonable stance .....then the treatment might be working.

an aside but in keeping with his mental status: recall his laughing and looking under his desk for those WMD. This is psychologically/behaviorally inappropriate behavior. No matter how it was spun in the media.

but back to the Prez for life. This has been mentioned before.......but obviously has resurfaced. Will he then be re-writing the entire constitution???? Yikes.

I wouldn't really worry about it...if he tries to enact it, he'll be dead in days...not all america loves him you know
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
JJW1965

Interesting thought you wrote - however even if the House Bill to Repeal Amendment 22 of the Constitution were to be passed by a majority (I believe 2/3ds is required), it would take another seven years for it to become a part of the Constitution and Law.

George Bush will have expired his term limit by that time and therefore would not be eligible to continue his Presidency. If the Repeal were to become legal, he could however campaign again to run for the Office. This is all speculation.

Someone questioned the fact that the proponents of the new Bill were Democrats and I wanted to write why:

Clinton Eyes 22nd Amendment Repeal - Again
For the second time since he left the White House, ex-president Bill Clinton has engaged in open speculation about repealing the 22nd Amendment barring presidents from seeking a third term.
"I think since people are living much longer ... the 22nd Amendment should probably be modified to say two consecutive terms instead of two terms for a lifetime," Clinton told an audience at Boston's John F. Kennedy Presidential Library on Wednesday.
"There may come a time when we elect a president at age 45 or 50, and then 20 years later the country comes up against the same kind of problems the president faced before," he said, according to a Reuters report. "People would like to bring that man or woman back but they would have no way to do so."
In Sept. 2001, Clinton told reporters in Las Vegas that "some constitutional experts think it is possible" that he could run for a third term regardless of the 22nd Amendment prohibition.
"I would probably do well," he added, in comments picked up by the Las Vegas Weekly. Clinton said he thought he could have won a third term based on what he said was his 65 percent job approval rating when he left office.
"Clinton had obviously researched the subject," the paper observed, reporting that he spoke "for five minutes about constitutional law and academic studies about the prospect" of revising the 22nd Amendment.
Others have suggested that the best way for Clinton to win a third term would be to have him run as Mrs. Clinton's vice president, then "inherit" the Oval Office upon her death.
"The other day, someone lofted a weird proposition that bears thinking about," Clinton friendly gossip columnist Liz Smith mused last May.
"This scenario posited that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton would eventually run for president and her vice presidential candidate would be Bill Clinton." Smith said the hypothetical pairing raised "an interesting constitutional question. Should the hypothetical President Hillary die in office, would her husband be allowed to ascend to the Oval Office again?
"Several smarties I know say it would be "legally possible," the gossip maven claimed.
Removing Hillary from the picture is a popular theme with some of the ex-president's biggest supporters.


Hope this clears up the strange inner workings of the political minds in Washington for you.

Wednesday's Child
 

jjw1965

Electoral Member
Jul 8, 2005
722
0
16
Serious attack on the United States by "terrorists" could result in the suspension of the U.S. Constitution
 

manda

Council Member
Jul 3, 2005
2,007
0
36
swirling in the abyss of nowhere la
Re: RE: New Bill Could Make Bush President For Life

jjw1965 said:
Serious attack on the United States by "terrorists" could result in the suspension of the U.S. Constitution

I like the "terrorist" in quotations...like how bush warps the interpretations to meet his needs too, still I don't worry that much about it...he'll leave the office on his own accord, or with help from those who wish him harm. As long as he stays out of my sandbox...We can start to rebuild as soon as he's gone
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Re: RE: New Bill Could Make Bush President For Life

jjw1965 said:
Serious attack on the United States by "terrorists" could result in the suspension of the U.S. Constitution

Hi Again JJW1965....

Were you thinking back on FDR and his four terms in office? I believe that extension was repealed after his death and I doubt
with all those in line to take the Presidency over, it would happen in our time - even with a "serious attack" on the U.S.

Do you mean more serious than 9/11? I thought that was more serious than Pearl Harbour - but I don't know all the figures.

I doubt either party will invite George Bush back for another run.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Re: RE: New Bill Could Make Bush President For Life

jjw1965 said:
Serious attack on the United States by "terrorists" could result in the suspension of the U.S. Constitution

How much worse are you expecting beyond 9/11?
 

jjw1965

Electoral Member
Jul 8, 2005
722
0
16
It's like this, If you buy a raffle ticket theory is you can win a prize.
Once you buy the ticket, it goes from theory to a possibility that you can win a prize.
Buy 100 tickets and it goes from being a possibility to a probability.
Theory is the government had envolvement in 9/11, find one piece of evidence and it goes from theory to possibilty, find pages and pages, then you go from possibility to a probabilty.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,397
94
48
I think not said:
jjw1965 said:
How much worse are you expecting beyond 9/11?

I hope i'm wrong, but very worse!

Well I certainly hope you are.

What is amazing is that some nation (S) have not considered doing a "regime change" in the US........the way US has done in Iraq.

Should a bill like that come to fruition/reality....... that might be a grave consequence of it. So hoping this "new possible bill" just a passing idea.
 

zenfisher

House Member
Sep 12, 2004
2,829
0
36
Seattle
Hmmm... new bill could make Bill President for life. Their isn't a Bush alive that can beat Bill Clinton. I would be more concerned if they did away with the voting machines. If the war goes on another four years...it won't matter who the Republicans put up. They will be defeated. If Osama's still out there ..The Republicans will be defeated. While generally , the American public, has a short term memory...They do not have a short term memory when it come to how much this war is costing. Both in lives and the amassing of the debt to pay for this war.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,397
94
48
The whole notion of leader for life is a backwards step. Can one imagine for a moment if this were to happen and a nation is stuck with someone until he dies. Leadership of a nation is not the same premise as being the pope or the British Royalty. Part of living in a dynamic , changing society is the fact that leaders change , new blood comes in, new concepts are brought forth. etc etc. One leader for life is a quick way to get entrenched in a path that is no longer progressive.
 

zenfisher

House Member
Sep 12, 2004
2,829
0
36
Seattle
I was being facetious. Well sort of...I definately want that thought out there ...If George II can run again...so can teflon Willy. It is more important to defeat the ideology and outright lies, that the current Republicans are ( quite succesfully ) deceiving the American population with. Slick Willy scares the Republicans. Even if they change the laws so Arnold can run against him. There is a great doubt that even Schwartzenager's (sp) appeal won't be enough to defeat him.

One leader, provided that leader is forward thinking is not always a bad thing. It when that leader gets mired in corruption and complacency that trouble arises. Ideally we as a society would prefer to have changes in the leadership to help prevent one party from being entrenched in power for to long. Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen, even in a democracy. If that were the case I'm sure Martin would have been sent packing long ago.

The problem is, for Canadians at this point in time there is no viable alternative. You have Harper, yeah right!!! You have the Bloc, which is for tearing the very ideals of the country apart,Then you have the NDP. Which for some unexplicable reason, Canadians seem to be terrified to elect. Then you have a bunch of smaller parties and individuals, which have some great ideas, but just don't have the clout to form a majority government.

This leaves you with the Liberals. ( How many years have they been in power?) As you have pointed out ...not a lot of creative thinking coming out the party headquarters lately. They have become a stagnant party, much as you suppose an individual would become. I am not saying your wrong about that. I too see it, as more of a probability, than a possibility.

But I digress.My goal is to merely point that this could indeed be a grave tactical error on the part of the Republicans.