Steps Being Taken to Ammend the Constitution

[verte76]

I could definitely live with a one-term limit for presidents and Congress. That way first termers wouldn't chronically be running for re-election. On the whole there would probably be fewer political shenanigans and such. The one disadvantage to this is we couldn't keep a Senator or Congressman in office that we like. I hate to think who'd represent me in Congress if it weren't for Spencer Bachus, who, although on the whole is too conservative for me, is principled and intelligent. This is not true of many Alabama politicians, I'm sorry to say. I say keep Bachus there until he's ready to retire; that's a big disadvantage to the one-term idea. I'm already getting tired of Roy Moore nightmares.

 

[ImOuttaControl]

Yes power hungry zealots, when was the last time you saw the Democrats make moves to keep a president in longer, ammend the constitution based on their bigotry, claim the moral ground of America? I'm curious.

Democrats, including Bill Clinton looked into amending the constitution so he (Bill) could run again. Problem was that in the late 90's, with a Republican Congress, such an amendment would have never passed. I smell hypocrisy...if a Dem were in power and was someone you liked, I bet you wouldn't be putting up this fuss.

When have Democrats tried to ammend the constitution based on bigotry? First off, everyone knows that the proposed Consitutional amendment doesn't have a chance at being passed--it's nothing but political posturing to keep the religious right content (like throwing a dog a bone). Secondly, do should do a little studying on American history if you want to compare bigotry in the political parties.

 

[ImOuttaControl]

the only reason we have it is because it was a GOP answer to FDR

It was the U.S. Congress's response to the fear of 1 person cosolidating power and abusing it(think Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin)...Being that the U.S. had just found that little war with these dictators a couple years before the 22nd amendment, it's no wonder why Americans didn't want the possibility of the same thing happening in america.

 

[Do Miss America]

Democrats, including Bill Clinton looked into amending the constitution so he (Bill) could run again. Problem was that in the late 90's, with a Republican Congress, such an amendment would have never passed.

When Clinton was asked about ammending the 22nd ammendment:

In his formal interview with the Sun, Clinton said, "I would have probably done the job forever, if I could have, if we didn't have a two-term limit. But on the other hand, I respect the system we have, and I've actually very much enjoyed having a private life."

And no I wouldn't have supported it, I think it's very dangerous.

When have Democrats tried to ammend the constitution based on bigotry? First off, everyone knows that the proposed Consitutional amendment doesn't have a chance at being passed--it's nothing but political posturing to keep the religious right content (like throwing a dog a bone). Secondly, do should do a little studying on American history if you want to compare bigotry in the political parties.

The movement has already caused enough damage, it doesn't matter if it passes or not at this point.

Don't you dare insult my knowledge in American History. I'm well aware or many bigotries passed on by our government in the past. But I'm talking about the now, you would have thought that hopefully they would have learned from our previous mistakes. Unfortunately they haven't.

 

[pax]

Let's try to keep things cool in here, 'kay?

 

[verte76]

If McCain gets the Republican nomination in 2008, it won't matter who the Democrats put up, McCain will win in a landslide similar to Reagan's 1984 victory.

If we have to have a Republican president I want it to be McCain. The guy's honest, he's intelligent, he's courageous as heck, and he's a moderate, and he'd be a much better president than W. Giuliani is pretty cool too but I think McCain would be better.

 

[A_Wanderer]

One question, was the two term limit imposed to prevent there being a President for life ~ which would basically be a King. Did they make an exception for FDR due to wartime, what was the deal there.

 

[verte76]

Let's face it, there are "power-hungry" politicians on both sides of the aisle. Power is the only reason why some people are in politics. Some really want to help and serve their country and its people but some only want to control others.

 

[karls77]

If we have to have a Republican president I want it to be McCain. The guy's honest, he's intelligent, he's courageous as heck, and he's a moderate, and he'd be a much better president than W. Giuliani is pretty cool too but I think McCain would be better.

He would have been elected in 2000 if it hadn't been for the Bush smear-machine. I'd be willing to bet that the "war on terror" would have been a whole lot more effective and that the rest of the world would not have such a low opinion of the US.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

If we have to have a Republican president I want it to be McCain. The guy's honest, he's intelligent, he's courageous as heck, and he's a moderate, and he'd be a much better president than W. Giuliani is pretty cool too but I think McCain would be better.

I agree. If the '08 race was between, say, Obama and McCain...that would be a good one to watch, I'd actually have a bit of a tough time figuring out who to vote for, 'cause I like both those guys.

Angela

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

"A senior Republican Senate member will allegedly introduce the bill within the next month which would seek a repeal of the 22nd Amendment allowing President Bush to run for the office for one more term."




It's not April Fools yet, is it?

 

[BVS]

It's not April Fools yet, is it?

Everyday is fool's day in Washington.

 

[FullonEdge2]

I seriously doubt Republicans would nominate McCain. To many, he's simply a Democrat in sheep's clothing.

 

[Irvine511]

or a sheep in wolf's clothing?

 

[financeguy]

Aha! Now we know the real reason for the "War on terror".



(yes, I am cynical)

Cynical, no. Clear sighted, realistic maybe?

Guys, European countries have had problems with terrorism for decades and in recent history I have never, ever heard anyone seriously suggest that Consitutions be amended to allow heads of state stay in office for longer. A truly disturbing proposal, if true.

 

[Seeking Adam]

I smell hypocrisy...if a Dem were in power and was someone you liked, I bet you wouldn't be putting up this fuss.

What are you basing this conclusion on here

 

[namkcuR]

One question, was the two term limit imposed to prevent there being a President for life ~ which would basically be a King. Did they make an exception for FDR due to wartime, what was the deal there.

The amendment didn't exist when FDR was in office. He got elected to four terms, died during his fourth term. It was after that that the constitution was amended to not allow presidents more than two terms.

 

[namkcuR]

This is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. It is dangerous, it is selfish, it is what bullies and assholes do. I seriously cannot stand the right-wing these days. John McCain is the ONLY republican(in any kind of current office, that is) that I have any real respect for.

I want Obama to run in '08. You know what's sad? The top two current contendors for the '08 DNC nomination are Obama and Hilary, and I really can't picture a nation that voted a biggoted moron like W in TWICE voting a woman or a black man in. That's just my cynical side showing though. BOTH WILL happen sooner or later, hopefully sooner.

Go Obama!

And fuck this idiotic right-wing proposal.

 

[Irvine511]

Guys, European countries have had problems with terrorism for decades and in recent history I have never, ever heard anyone seriously suggest that Consitutions be amended to allow heads of state stay in office for longer. A truly disturbing proposal, if true.

while i totally agree with you on the pont about the Constitution, Europeans have not had to deal with apocalyptic, 9-11 style terrorism. to equivocate between, say, the IRA, Beider-Meinhoff, or the ETA, and radical Islamist fundamentalists is a massive underestimation of the problem. we are facing a new world with an enemy that the West as a whole really doesn't understand very much, nor do we seem to care to understand right now.