I am confused, does Obama stand down next elections?

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Asking Congress to vote on Congress term limits sounds tyrannical!

It is tyrannical!! They vote for their own increase in pay too! They also conveniently ignore passing campaign finance reform that would control how much corporations can donate to a campaign and limit the amount that can be spent on a political campaign. They ignore their constituents demands everyday!

Although Obama Care is not the answer for our American healthcare problems, republicans spend more time trying to repeal it rather than working with the rest of congress to try to fix it or offer a better plan! Our congress and senate is composed of rich, pompous, corrupt and self serving politicians. They want to cut any safety net program that helps hard working Americans. Yet they'll ignore any cuts to military and black project spending. While they feast on the back of their constituents and ignore their oath to protect the constitutional rights of Americans, the citizen's of the U.S. continue to be spied upon, they're subjected to illegal searches, 25-30 percent of American's incomes is taxed, and the court systems continue to rule in favor of the elite and corporate interests.

The 9/11 investigation was even conducted internally! The U.S. is no longer by the people and for the people. It's by and for the elite, corporations, government and politicians. The United States has certainly lost its way. Our representatives are too busy positioning themselves for power and filling their pockets.

a reply to: IntroduceALittleIrony

It's called MARTIAL LAW.
And he would lose control shortly after announcing it.
He have to go into a bunker for the rest of his life. The Secret Service would be a speed bump other wise.

a reply to: Ahabstar

You mean TWICE?

Up until FDR it was just a tradition. After FDR it became law. Of course when you see how the job ages them you can be sure they want out. When you have a job for 8 years and a day off is an 8 hour day, it kind burns you out.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

No. He can never run again.

Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution

...

Unless the constitution is amended to allow it.

You will notice that this is an AMENDMENT to the constitution - it wasn't always like this - before this there were no term limits.

There's no particular reason why it might not be so again some time in hte future.

But probably not in my lifetime - such things require massive social change and I don't see that happening in the US any time soon.........unless the 2nd coming stands for Pres....then the religious right will suddenly think it's a natural idea!

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: kayleighkitty

Nope, two terms max for President.
We need term limits for the Senate and Congress too. And a few other rules, like being part of a large corporation and other disqualifiers

This man speaks the truth.

originally posted by: kayleighkitty
Im in Europe and here things are different
but i am a bit unsure
i was convinced maximum president reigns are 2 consecutive runs right?

is there anyway obama can over-rule that and run for a third one

if he did and was succesful it would be a disaster


this guy is so out of touch with the reality of extremist islam that he should be fired
can he even be fired?

he single handedly is causing thousands of deaths by withdrawing troops and releasing terrorists all the time!

If things work according to the law Obama is out. One can only be president for a maximum of 10 years or two terms whichever is less.

However, a law passed by our previous esteemed president George W Bush allows for the president to declare a state of national emergency due to terrorism and indefinitely suspend elections with no congressional oversight. So while Obama can't legally win another election he can prevent one from happening. Most likely however, if he were to do such a thing Congress would change the law with a near unanimous vote and then if he didn't leave office they would impeach him and throw him out. If he still held the office the military would force him out.

So the bottom line is, no. There is no realistic way for him to remain in office.

a reply to: kayleighkitty

Whatever Obama does is not him

But what the Western Cabal demands

Federal Reserve, Pentagon etc

I can't believe this thread is 4 pages long.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
By the way, he can't be fired. Only impeached and impeachment requires criminal action. There is no evidence that Obama is complicit in breaking the law though, so he can't be impeached.

Impeachment doesn't necessarily require criminal activity and the debate regarding the word use in the original convention is evidence of such. It still hasn't been tested in a manner as to exactly what is an impeachable offense; but in context, you are partial right as that is what we have determined it to be; criminal.

Consider this:
President Tyler was attempted to be impeached because of what was claimed to be "excessive use of veto powers". (failed miserably).
President Johnson's was quite similar and it was more a matter of political divide than criminal.
President Nixon's, while having an obstruction of justice charge levied, was more about misuse of public trust; same with President Clinton.

Precedents has shown it does not need to be criminal to impeach; to charge maybe, but impeachment can be whatever Congress declares it to be in a sense.

Two terms left undefined are "high crimes" and "misdemeanor" in context of Articles of Impeachment.

ETA:
And to answer the OP; No. There will be no "suspension of elections" or any other nefarious actions. We have, since the birth of this nation, defied one of the axioms of political power (and struggle) and that is we peaceful transfer it from one to another -- freely and without bloodshed. It will continue.

He cannot run for another term, HOWEVER, under Directive 51 snuck into the Patriot Act, he can remain in office to assure there is a stability in government in the event of a large war or any event where there is an enormous loss of lives (asteroid,plague,etc) or martial law is declared.

originally posted by: dreampsi
He cannot run for another term, HOWEVER, under Directive 51 snuck into the Patriot Act, he can remain in office to assure there is a stability in government in the event of a large war or any event where there is an enormous loss of lives (asteroid,plague,etc) or martial law is declared.

That was news to me so I look the full directive up. I could not find any reference to a unlimited term for a current sitting president. Could you help me out?

To me it looks like most of it refers back to the 1947 continuity of government agreement.

directive 51

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

No. He can never run again.

Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution

...

Unless the constitution is amended to allow it.

You will notice that this is an AMENDMENT to the constitution - it wasn't always like this - before this there were no term limits.

There's no particular reason why it might not be so again some time in hte future.

But probably not in my lifetime - such things require massive social change and I don't see that happening in the US any time soon.........unless the 2nd coming stands for Pres....then the religious right will suddenly think it's a natural idea!

Yes, but if the second coming stood for president, no one on the secular, atheistic left would have anything to do with him.

Although ... Trey Gowdy did pose an interesting question:

Given that we have a president who is so fond of picking and choosing what he will and won't enforce and to what degree or simply attempting to write EOs to create laws where he wishes they would exist ... what would happen if he "failed" to enforce Federal election law? Who would stop him?

I haven't seen a whole lot of pushback for any of his behavior so far beyond a lot of griping and lawsuits.

originally posted by: Aazadan
However, a law passed by our previous esteemed president George W Bush allows for the president to declare a state of national emergency due to terrorism and indefinitely suspend elections with no congressional oversight.

Care to show a valid source to that "law"?

originally posted by: ketsuko
Although ... Trey Gowdy did pose an interesting question:

Given that we have a president who is so fond of picking and choosing what he will and won't enforce and to what degree or simply attempting to write EOs to create laws where he wishes they would exist ... what would happen if he "failed" to enforce Federal election law? Who would stop him?

I haven't seen a whole lot of pushback for any of his behavior so far beyond a lot of griping and lawsuits.

If elections for some reason don't happen Congress would be able to force him out through impeachment, I'm pretty sure staying in office past your term would be an easy case to make. At that point the president would have no legal standing and would be out unless the military kept the person in office through force.

originally posted by: hellobruce
Care to show a valid source to that "law"?

Not offhand, no. I think it was part of the Patriot Act. It was one of the things passed in all of the post 9/11 events, which gave the president the ability to suspend elections temporarily (though it never defined a maximum time frame) due to a vaguely defined national emergency. In theory Obama could use that law, but in practice Congress would never let him do it, which makes it largely pointless.

a reply to: ketsuko

Given that we have a president who is so fond of picking and choosing what he will and won't enforce and to what degree or simply attempting to write EOs to create laws where he wishes they would exist

You betray your biases with that statement completely bereft of any truth what-so-ever.

... what would happen if he "failed" to enforce Federal election law? Who would stop him?

The President and the Feds don't run elections. States do. This whole discussion is ridiculous.

a reply to: Aazadan

Not offhand, no. I think it was part of the Patriot Act.

If you cannot link to the provision, then it is the same thing as "it doesn't exist" as far as the credibility of your comment goes.

Certainly there is nothing in "Directive 51" as linked above that comes anywhere near providing for cancellation of elections or whatever. Certainly if the nation is attacked and the legal government is crippled, the various branches of Government and authorities that survive need to be able to identify who is left to be in charge and what their future actions should be in order to restore Constitutional government. Don't you think that is a contingency plan that all Governments should have organized in detail, whether Federal, State, or Local? I remember helping update one such plan when I worked for a city government in the 1970's - are you saying that that is something beyond their authority they've just taken up responsibility for recently?

The Patriot Act is a dogs breakfast without doubt, but it is better to get upset about what is actually in it than to lie about it. People who lie about what is in the Patriot Act will not be believed when they talk about crappy stuff that really is there.

Please do your homework first, then think about your homework, then, and only then, post. Thanks.

a reply to: rnaa

The states run the election, but the feds verify the results.

If he simply fails to legally acknowledge them as valid?

I don't think he does it, but the point is that he has been allowed selectively pick and choose what laws and statutes he will recognize for long enough without pushback that who can say for sure what he will and won't try? And if he did, what would the reaction be?

I'm not sure I could trust Congress as a whole to move to block him.

I do think the Union would dissolve into chaos with states leaving it.

originally posted by: ketsuko

I don't think he does it, but the point is that he has been allowed selectively pick and choose what laws and statutes he will recognize for long enough without pushback that who can say for sure what he will and won't try? And if he did, what would the reaction be?

What you are suggesting is on a totally different level than what he has been selecting and choosing to enforce. He hasn't attempted anything close to what you are suggesting and it would be easy for Congress to stand up to him if he did.

Your situation is on fantasy level and won't happen.