Steps Being Taken to Ammend the Constitution

[Dreadsox]

[Q]February 25, 2005

ASSOCIATED PRESS

Washington D.C. (AP)

With all of the nation focused on the debate over homosexual marriage, a bill will be introduced to amend the Constitution of the United States in the Senate, not over gay marriage, but to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. The 22nd Amendment which says "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, " is being called outdated by many Republicans who that feel it would be unwise to change leadership in the executive branch in the midst of the war on terror. 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 is believed that with the Republicans gaining ground in both the House and Senate, as well as in state governments in November’s election, that the bill would receive wide spread support throughout the nation. There has been no comment from the White House or from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tennessee) who was questioned about the rumored bill when he spoke in Cleveland on Thursday.[/Q]

My prayers have been answered

 

[deep]

Bring back Bill Clinton

 

[Dreadsox]

Clinton Vs. Bush

yes!!!!!!

 

[DrTeeth]

Bring back Bill Clinton

That's what I was thinking but I wasn't sure if Clinton was allowed to run again because of the impeachment.

 

[deep]

he was not impeached

 

[Dreadsox]

Yes he was......

Impeachment is bringing him to trial.

-----------------------------

Way to edit your post so mine made no sense....Deep.!!!

 

[deep]

right

repealing amendment would open door for
3rd term

 

[deep]

i say pass the damn thing

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


they wanted to repeal it for Reagan



unintended consequenses is a bitch


we could have Hillary for 4 terms

 

[U2democrat]

(bill) clinton vs. bush....now wouldn't that be fun!!!!

 

[DrTeeth]

Way to edit your post so mine made no sense....Deep.!!!

no shit

 

[STING2]

i say pass the damn thing

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


they wanted to repeal it for Reagan



unintended consequenses is a bitch


we could have Hillary for 4 terms

Hillary does not have a good shot at being elected President, although she could win the Democratic nomination in 2008 which is the dream of many Republicans.

 

[deep]

sting


not too sure about your prognosticating

you are the guy that thinks W won a land slide



truth is

he won by the closest margin of any 2nd term President in the last 50 years

 

[U2democrat]

amen, deep!

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Hillary does not have a good shot at being elected President,

Actually, I heard something somewhere recently that said that she would.

Anywho...if Clinton were allowed to run again, especially against Bush, hell, yeah, I'd have no problem with that .

Seriously, I'm not sure what to think about this whole thing-there's some positive and negative aspects to it all. Positive: a president I like has mulitple chances to run, and the people get the full say of how long they want a person in office. Negative: a president I don't like has multiple chances to run, and the person in office for numerous terms could get a power complex about them.

I dunno.

Angela

 

[unosdostres14]

I would love it....but there's no way that Bill Clinton would run for President again.

This is just a move by the right-wing to keep their guy in power.

 

[BVS]

I find it to be selfish and dangerous. Just like the party itself.

But it could bite them in the ass if someone like Clinton ran again, but then they'd probably make a move to change it again.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Not going to happen and nor should it.

 

[Do Miss America]

It's just goes to show my theory that Bush and his followers are power hungry zealots that have no clue how much potential danger they are inflicting this country.

 

[Pearl]

I don't like the idea of allowing a president to run as many terms as he wants. Then again, I don't agree with allowing a president two terms. I think a president should be given six years, and that's it. Move on, and let the next person in. Out with the old, in with the new, basically.

And I also feel this way about Congress. If there are term limits for presidents, governors and mayors, then there should be limits for members of Congress. Without term limits, it looks like the government is run by an elite class, like an aristocracy. I know it is the American people who allow them to stay for so long. But career politicians don't sit well with me.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I don't like the idea of allowing a president to run as many terms as he wants. Then again, I don't agree with allowing a president two terms. I think a president should be given six years, and that's it. Move on, and let the next person in. Out with the old, in with the new, basically.

I could deal with that.

My dad, who isn't a Bush supporter, still thinks this is a good idea, though, this lack of term limits, simply because it puts the full focus back on the public to decide how long they want somebody in office. I'm just curious to hear thoughts on that aspect of it all.

Originally posted by Pearl
And I also feel this way about Congress. If there are term limits for presidents, governors and mayors, then there should be limits for members of Congress. Without term limits, it looks like the government is run by an elite class, like an aristocracy. I know it is the American people who allow them to stay for so long. But career politicians don't sit well with me.

I agree wholeheartedly with this, too. My dad loves to quote from Thomas Jefferson, who said that we need a revolution every 20 years. He wasn't talking about a violent one, either...what he meant by that was that we need new blood in office every so often, because we get some people in there who get set in their ways and who still try to apply the politics of THEIR time period to the country of today...well, things change, the country isn't the same today as it was back when those people were younger and everything, so having new blood every so often is necessary.

Angela

 

[Ft. Worth Frog]

"power hungry zealots"? I think that could be said about both sides of the spectrum as most politicians like power once they taste it. Those of us who say we would be different are only kidding ourselves.

 

[Sheltie]

I am not a member of any political party but I could not take another 4 years of Bush. On the other hand, another 4 years of Clinton would be good

 

[XHendrix24]

Pft. I was a Bush supporter this past election, but I wouldn't want him to have another term.

..Well, unless the Democratic party decides to put up another weak-ass candidate like they did last time.

Hillary =
Obama =

 

[STING2]

sting


not too sure about your prognosticating

you are the guy that thinks W won a land slide



truth is

he won by the closest margin of any 2nd term President in the last 50 years

Where did I say W won in a land slide?

I've consistantly stated that he won the first majority in an election for president since 1988. Thats a significant fact even if you choose to ignore it.

Hillary is politically to the left of her husband and that simply won't go down well with the majority of America.


If the Democrats want to have a shot in 2008, they need someone new who is not directly connected to the Democrats inside the beltway and shares many of the views of those that voted for W in 2004.

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.

 

[Do Miss America]

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.

That's funny, I know many conservatives who say they wouldn't vote for him.

 

[Do Miss America]

"power hungry zealots"? I think that could be said about both sides of the spectrum as most politicians like power once they taste it. Those of us who say we would be different are only kidding ourselves.

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.

 

[STING2]

That's funny, I know many conservatives who say they wouldn't vote for him.

Sure, until they see what the alternative is, which, if some Democrats have their way will be Hillary Clinton. All McCain has to do is secure the Republican base, and the campaign once, the nominees are chosen, will seem more like a victory march.

 

[deep]

.

All McCain has to do is secure the Republican base

no offense

but McCain would have to drink the koolaid first

and that would be a very said day

 

[verte76]

Good Lord, Clinton vs. Bush! What a circus that would be.

 

[indra]

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, " is being called outdated by many Republicans who that feel it would be unwise to change leadership in the executive branch in the midst of the war on terror.

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



(yes, I am cynical)