Is Bush going for a 3rd term?

Source

Just months into his fourth term, Roosevelt died and, with him, the idea of unlimited terms for presidents. An amendment, promoted heavily by the Republican party and by others nervous at the idea of a permanent presidency, was passed in 1947. It was ratified by the states four years later. The amendment limits a president to two four-year terms.

George Washington could have been elected to a third term, but declined it, suggesting two terms of four years were enough for any president. In 1797, he quietly returned to Mount Vernon. His two-term example became an unwritten rule in the realm of presidential politics until 1940. That was when Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who steered the nation through the Great Depression of the 1930s, decided he wanted to run again. Newspapers railed against the breach of tradition. His Republican opponent, Wendell Willkie forced the incumbent to run a hard campaign, which Roosevelt won. He then went after, and received, a fourth term in office, explaining that he could not leave the helm at a time he was guiding a nation through the Second World War.

Hope that helps to answer your question.

It has long been a Republican's dream to run forever....Not a chance in hell, not legally anyway.

Our forefathers knew that would lead to dictatorships. This is not what America stands for.

Originally posted by dgtempe
It has long been a Republican's dream to run forever....

That was when Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who steered the nation through the Great Depression of the 1930s, decided he wanted to run again. Newspapers railed against the breach of tradition. His Republican opponent, Wendell Willkie forced the incumbent to run a hard campaign, which Roosevelt won.

FDR is the only US president to serve for more than two terms. He was not a Republican.

Originally posted by Janus
"The two-term tradition had been an unwritten rule ...
did he some how circumvent the constitution

You answered your own question. It was an UNWRITTEN rule. In other words
it was just traditional. It had NOTHING to do with the constitution so he didn't
'circumvent' anything. He was a very popular guy so the country didn't follow
TRADITION and they elected him for more than two terms.

To answer the question of this thread - of course not!! Bush isn't going
to go for a third term.

- The law doesn't allow it.
- No overatures have been made to change the law.
- It would take an act of congress to change it and it would take a long time.
He doesn't have the congressional support or the time to implement anything
before campaign season for 2008 opens.
- America itself wouldn't support the change.
- Even if it were to change he doesn't have the support of the American people
to be elected for a third term.

The notion that he's going for a third term is unfounded. And for those who
think he'll declare martial law and take over ... the same thoughts were running
through conservative camps about Bill Clinton 8 years ago. I'm sure that the
same thing will be said about Hillary in 8 years too when her two terms are up.
The left and the right don't trust each other. It is supposed to be that way
because that's what helps keep politicians honest (or should I say 'helps keep
politicians less corrupt'??)

Originally posted by dgtempe
It has long been a Republican's dream to run forever....

Tell us that again in 8 years when Hillary balks at the notion of leaving
the Oval Office.

Bush is a broken down lame duck. He couldn't win. He can't take over even if
he wanted to. I don't think his mental health could take another term anyways.
Hillary ... well ... we will see in eight years if she 'goes softly'. MY guess ... she's
going to leave kicking and screaming and only because the security guards will be
carrying her out and tossing her on her butt onto Pennsylvania Avenue!

dg .. the good ol' days of honor in politicians is gone. Washington was offered to
be KING of America and turned it down. Can you see any of the 'top' names in
either party turning that down today? King Bush .. Queen Hillary ... King Kennedy
... King Jeb ... They'd all scarf it up.

God Help us if the Bush administration finds a way to stay around a third term. I mean, with his approval ratings now, does he really think a third term (even if it were legal) would be likely? If he does, then he is crazier and more stupid than we make him out to be. If it IS possible, then God save America.

I think I found out how he could do it... it's at the bottom... If it works Bush had better can Alberto and make me Attorney General.

The term limits were merely a custom set by George Washington, somewhat in the tradition of Cincinnatus: A Roman farmer who on two separate occasions accepted appointment as dictator to respond to a crisis. It had to happen twice because the first time he defeated the Aequi and Volscians in just 16 days and immediately stepped down and went home to his farm.

FDR was dead and in the ground before the 22nd Amendment made term limits a requirement of law as opposed to a social custom.


I have heard, from a source who from time to time makes it obvious that he stopped paying attention to the world in 1967, that the British have an interesting convention of not changing their governments (or doing much of anything else) when there is a serious war on.

Convention plays a significantly less important role in American government, because we know that our nation has ADD and accordingly we write down the really important stuff so we won't forget (and even that has occasionally left some uncertainty about the order of succession, at least in the mind of Alexander Haig).

Nobody even seems to notice when conventions of US Government are ignored. For instance the compromises usually made in district court nominations in states which have one senator of each party have pretty much gone out the window since 2001.

Unfortunately for Bush though, people did notice when FDR broke the term limit convention, and the result was exactly what usually results when someone ignores a convention anywhere else- they wrote that part down.


Now, here’s the tricky part: How could a president theoretically beat term limits?

Well, it would have to come from the constitution of course, or at least be allowed by the silence of the constitution on the issue in question.

The Constitution very clearly states in Article II that

He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

The 20th Amendment says

The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

This wording together with the following clauses of the 20th Amendment which deal with cases wherein successors are not ready, make it clear that George Bush and Dick Cheney will cease to hold office at precisely noon on January 20th, 2009 (assuming nothing happens to them before then).

What happens then?

the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified

Is there any way around this? Not without Congress. There is however a very small loophole if there is no President elect and Congress plays ball. Basically, they’d have to kill the President elect and Vice President elect or otherwise make them unable to assume office. Then, if congress stayed in recess between January 3rd and Janauary 20th of 2009, they could use a recess appointment to make basically anyone Vice President until 2010, and that person would automatically become Vice President at noon January 20th when the other guy’s term ended.

The congress we elect in 2008 is required by the 20th Amendment to hold session on January 3rd, 2009, however it hypothetically could choose to adjourn immediately and begin session at a later time of its choosing.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3rd day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

It could be argued, though I don’t think the SCOTUS would stand for it, that the 110th Congress (which we elect in 2006) can by law appoint for the 111th Congress (to be elected in 2008) to meet AFTER January 20th. This would mean that Congress would be in recess when the Presidency became vacant.

If such a coup were successful to that extent, George Bush has an opportunity. On the last day of his term, he can do one of two things.
1. He can resign, and have Cheney appoint him Vice President without the advise and consent of the Senate as a Recess Appointment, and that, if the SCOTUS didn’t strike it down, would last until the end of the next session of congress, meaning that when the Presidency became vacant at noon that day, George Bush would again become President and that would last until January 3rd, 2010.
2. He can have Cheney resign, then reappoint Cheney, so that Cheney becomes president automatically. This would be the easier option, since Cheney is qualified to be President (by constitutional standards that is).

The catch there is that it would all be in the hands of the SCOTUS, and there is no way they could allow it to stick.




Now this whole thing may technically be 100% legal, I think, EXCEPT for the term limit part. But to use it on George Bush, despite term limits, would require a very interesting SCOTUS ruling.

In order to make it stick, they would have to rule that because the text of the 20th Amendment explicitly says “Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a Presidentelect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified” that the appointed VP who is ascending to President doesn’t have to meet qualifications such as term limits.

Follow me?

Now here are the hangups:

#1. The 25th Amendment provides reinforces advise and consent independent of Article II, and the SCOTUS can therefore rule, if it so chooses, that this supercedes the power of recess appointment. This would mean that a VP can't be recess appointed.

#2. There is probably nothing in this world that could keep the congress and senate from being in session on January 20th... except for maybe a bird-flu quarantine or the death of the entire congress and senate.

#3. There wouldn't be a VP after the appointed VP ascended at noon January 20th. There is nothing in the constitution to indicate that cabinet terms end at noon. This means a majority of the cabinet, sans VP, could hypothetically declare the president incompetent immediately. The President could sack the cabinet before they sacked him, but then the senate could essentially shut the government down by refusing to take a recess and refusing to approve a new VP or cabinet, and if he attempted to run the government with an unappointed cabinet, they could outright legislate the shutdown of the government or even call a constitutional convention, and within a matter of days the President would have to abandon any facade of legitimacy.


So when you get right down to it, yes there may be some wiggle room, maybe, but the congress and SCOTUS would have to refuse to exercise checks and balances.
You could keep that government legally in power with 5 Supreme Court Justices, 34 US Senators, and a Majority in 13 State Legislatures if all of those people hated democracy and wanted the same man to be in power.

You couldn't actually get anything done with that government though unless you had majority support in both houses of congress, because you couldn't pass a budget to spend even a single dime, which means ruling by executive order would eventually break down, in theory.

And even after all that mess, whoever you put into power that way is out of office in just 2 more years, and there's no way to get him out of that jam legally.


All told it would make a lot more sense to just call a press conference and burn the constitution right before their eyes. At the end of the day, loopholes and executive orders and fema and martial law are all completely irrelevant. It all comes down to men with guns. Nothing has been more influential in human history than men with guns. The men with the guns aren't illuuminati, theyey aren't skull and bones, and they aren't fascists. They're our neighbors, our personal friends, my brothers in arms. And in the words of my hero, Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC, "If you raise your 500,000 for any cause smelling of fascism, I'll raise 500,000 more and lick the hell out of you!"
Fear not- the men with the guns are on our side. For that to change, we'd have to go through some serious and very confusing trouble. A massive civil disturbance, a pandemic, a nuclear attack... those kind of things could complicate matters, but one way or another, if America ever went overtly authoritarian (they've already got us on a limited, subtle basis), most of us would never live to see it.

Resources:
Article 2, United States Constitution
20th Amendment
22nd Amendment
25th Amendment
Recess Appointments

Edit to nominate myself for Atty General and add 22nd Amendment to resources


[edit on 10-7-2006 by The Vagabond]

photo hosted by photobucket.com


Darkelf, i was kind of asleep at the wheel this morning- i did quote that article wrong. Turns out FDR did so much for the people, the people did not mind....i would still object. To me, anyone who stays one extra day is a dictator. I dont care if you are Jesus himself. :shk: With Bush's agenda, the thought of it, is really scarey to say the least.

[edit on 10-7-2006 by dgtempe]

In all fairness... an extra day would technically make you a usurper. You're not really a dictator unless somebody does what you tell them to. As I've pointed out, if Bush got an extra day, it would take an act of God to get anything done with it.

On the bright side, that opens the door for him to be both a usurper AND a dictator if things go his way... two insults for the price of one.

Would anybody be upset if I pointed out the irony of the fact that some people here would apparently prefer to lose their liberty than to find out that they were wrong?

I don't know about everybody else, but when I'm the one doing the doom-saying, I like to hope that I'll be dead wrong.

Originally posted by dgtempe
Darkelf, i was kind of asleep at the wheel this morning- i did quote that article wrong. Turns out FDR did so much for the people, the people did not mind....i would still object.

Ha dg, I was just messin with ya. I am aware of your great distain for the current POTUS. I'm not real happy with him either. I just don't often get a chance to catch you at a slip up.

Just wanted to point out that FRD was not a Republican.

Originally posted by dgtempe

photo hosted by photobucket.com


Darkelf, i was kind of asleep at the wheel this morning- i did quote that article wrong. Turns out FDR did so much for the people, the people did not mind....i would still object. To me, anyone who stays one extra day is a dictator. I dont care if you are Jesus himself. :shk: With Bush's agenda,

the thought of it, is really scarey to say the least.

What is your assessment of FDR's policy on the Japanese-Americans being put into detention camps in times of war? But then as you said he did sooooo much for the people.

Just because he did so much good, doesnt mean he wasnt a corrupt politician. He just happened to help immensley in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and its people. Read the article posted and learn.

Here is my answer to this question, as well as a vast majority of other Americans I am sure....

"....over my dead body...."

And I am sure, if the current regime has this plan in mind, then they will not hesitate to make the above statement a reality.

I'm with Benevolent Heretic though....Bush probably won't try for another term, but we will probably get another puppet.....

I'm just a toy
Just a funny boy,
Who makes you laugh when you're blue...

I'll do anything...do just what i'm told, i'll do anything for you...
I'm your puppet.

Teddy Roosevelt also broke the convention, running under the independent Bull Moose Party for a 3rd time, comming in second and not winning the presidency though. His case was interesting because he had assumed his first term because Mckinely, the president, had been assasinated. Roosevelt had previously announced, at the end of his Second term, that he did infact consider it to be his second term and keeping with Washington's example he would not seek a third term but Tafts Presidency proved a dissapointment to him apparently and he threw his hat into the ring to defeat Taft's re-election.

As an aside, because TR split the right vote, Woodrow Wilson won that election. He was the main push behind the League of Nations. Perhaps if TR hadn't ran, we wouldn't have a UN today, by extension. Or, imagine if TR won multiple presidencies, and he was the president during WWI! We might've jumped right into it Rough Rider style, OR, since he was a personal friend of the Kaiser, maybe we'd be on the other side!
It'd be BULLY either way!

dgtempe
out FDR did so much for the people, the people did not mind....i would still object

That is not why. There was no such thing as a presidential term limit until after FDR's presidency. FDR could've continued to run for the office each and every election year until the day he died.
Actually, that IS what he did.
Its pretty amazing actually that only two people have, to my knowledge, even attempted having more than two terms as president, in all those years since washington and before the 22nd ammendment. Both Roosevelts, amusingly enough, and both of different parties!

Originally posted by The Vagabond
The term limits were merely a custom set by George Washington, somewhat in the tradition of Cincinnatus

Indeed, he was hailed as Cincinnatus because of it, and there is even a statue of washington as Cincinnatus, handing over the fasces, celebrating it.
www.holycross.edu...

the President elect and Vice President elect or otherwise make them unable to assume office

Or, say, have a long standing court battle over just who won the election, whether there is going to be a recount, or have state officials not certify election results. If Gore had been able to keep the court issue going to the 20th and beyond, and Florida hadn't certified the recount, then congress could've kept Clinton in Office. However, he still could'nt be elected to a third term.

[If such a coup were successful to that extent, George Bush has an opportunity

Bush can be appointed to remain as president for a third term, the 22nd ammendment states that he can't be elected via an election to a third term.
www.usconstitution.net...
The 22nd doesn't contain any mention of the 20th, so the 20th would still hold, I'd expect. IOW, in a republican controlled congress, with the democrats stalling the installation of a GOP victor to the presidency, congress could appoint Bush to remain as president (or, of course, could appoint the blocked GOP victor into the presidency, but THAT might be even more controversial).

I think that in your scenario, with the 20th passing and still no certified election victory (or an assasinated victor, etc), AND with no congress in session, then Bush et al still loose the office of the presidency, and it sits un-occupied. Until congress meets and appoints, OR the election dispute is settled.
If you think about it, there isn't much reason for why the office of the executive can't be unoccupied for a period of time. The Founders made the executive office as a presidency, like a bank presidency, not a prime minister or 'dear leader', so the function of government could go on without someone in the executive (though I suppose that office of the commander in cheif would fall to the highest ranking in service military officer in the inter regnum )

meaning that when the Presidency became vacant at noon that day, George Bush would again become President

?
But the Presidency and Vice Presidency terms expire on the same day.

that the appointed VP who is ascending to President doesn’t have to meet qualifications such as term limits.

The VP doesn't.

There is nothing in the constitution to indicate that cabinet terms end at noon.

The cabinet is merely a collection of peopel that advise the presidency. If there is no election victor, and no congress in session, and Bush and Cheney's terms expire, then the cabinent disolves along with them.

There wouldn't be a VP after the appointed VP ascended at noon January 20th.

?
Why? If a VP moves into the office of the President, he appoints, without congressional advise or consent, a new VP.
[quoite]You could keep that government legally in power with 5 Supreme Court Justices, 34 US Senators, and a Majority in 13 State Legislatures if all of those people hated democracy and wanted the same man to be in power.
And even then it would only legally be for a single term at most.

Hmm, what if, meanwhile, the previous election challenges were dropped, and a victor certified, would he/she would move into the office? Or is the person appointed by congress when there is no election victor serve out a full term?
I think that that might be a genuine consitutional crisis.

All told it would make a lot more sense to just call a press conference and burn the constitution right before their eyes.

It would probably have a better chance of working than a pseduo-legal victory! People at least yeild to power when its exercised, not to people babbling about legalistic minutia!
And then of course he'd have to announce "L'etate, c'est moi"

For that to change, we'd have to go through some serious and very confusing trouble

It does present a problem IF there was a dispute in the election (like the 2000 election), that lasted past the 20th, and on the 20th congress says 'bush can stay as president', which is perfectly legal, but THEN the legal challenge to the election was over AND the victor demanded to be in office. Legally, there might not be a right/wrong there and you could have elements of the military wanting to back up their choice.
OR, possibly, you have congress unable to appoint anyone on the 20th, the office of the presidency dissolving, and whoever the highest general is becomes the commander-in-cheif, and THEN he tries to exercise some sort of civilian powers (whereas he'd legally only be the commander-in-cheif and completely subservient to the civilian government, which here is just congress).

Either of those situations, I think, are possible, and you could reasonably have some divisions of the army going one way, other divisions refusing to comply with the 'usuper/pretender'.

Nygdan,

How DOES it feel to be betta than everyone else? (Just a reference to the Geico commercial, that's all)

You have your facts. My facts are that he did a lot to help the people of his own country. Check it out in Weikepedia, or your Funk & Waggonals.

I saw a bumper sticker that read "if voting really made any difference; it would be illegal"
Very cynical, but that's the way I feel.
The current president will not run for another term as
the new president has already been chosen by the Skull and Bones or some other
secret cabal that pulls the strings while we all watch the puppet show and clap
our hands with glee; or cry depending where our ideology lies.

It's a brave new world, welcome to the monkey house!!

Originally posted by Nygdan
If Gore had been able to keep the court issue going to the 20th and beyond, and Florida hadn't certified the recount, then congress could've kept Clinton in Office. However, he still could'nt be elected to a third term.

Very astute, but under the 22nd Amendment, that's only good for the duration of a fast-track to the SCOTUS. He needs congressional cooperation either way, so all the better if Congress uses the loophole in the 20th and goes into recess so that the president can appoint a successor who gets two years no matter what.

Since we are assuming congressional cooperation here, they may as well take the option that 1. sticks longer. 2. frees them from having to vote, allowing them to push most of the blame off on a lame duck and claim to have been duped.

Selection was nice, but now we're talking STEALTH Selection.

IOW, in a republican controlled congress, with the democrats stalling the installation of a GOP victor to the presidency, congress could appoint Bush to remain as president

That's both a true and realistically more relevant. The angle I'm coming from though operates on the assumption that the whole point of the song and dance is to ignore an election and keep Bush president.
So for that purpose we should assume a democratic president elect and a Republican senate. Under these conditions, if the Republicans can stall the election for even one day, they can give Bush 2 more years solid, no matter how fast the SCOTUS sorts the whole mess out, unless the SCOTUS makes a second decision as well to overturn the full-session mandate of a recess appointee.

The trick there is that while that is obviously the RIGHT thing for the SCOTUS to do in such a spot, it appears to technically be against the letter of the law.

I think that in your scenario, with the 20th passing and still no certified election victory (or an assasinated victor, etc), AND with no congress in session, then Bush et al still loose the office of the presidency, and it sits un-occupied.

You are exactly right in regards to the scenario as you understand it. The detail your missing is absentee apointments. There is a reason why I stress a recess of congress. The congress starts session before the president elect is inaugurated. This means that if the vice presidency is vacated between noon on January 3rd and noon on January 20th, whoever is appointed vice president has a mandate under Article II to sit until the end of that congressional session. This in turn means that only the presidency will be vacated at noon on the 20th, and consequently the appointed VP will ascend.

So basically, on the evening of January 19th, the senate takes a recess till the 21st.
On the morning of January 20th, the president resigns. The Vice President immediately ascends and appoints the resigned President as Vice President. At noon, if the president elect cannot take office, the former VP is out, but the former president (newly appointed VP) has his recess appointment mandate till the end of the session, and immediately reascends to the presidency. Even after the court case is cleared up then and the president elect is ready to take office, he is arguably unable to because the recess-appointed VP has a 2 year constitutional mandate.

If you think about it, there isn't much reason for why the office of the executive can't be unoccupied for a period of time.

All the more reason to attempt nailing it down for 2 years. Although there is one very unlikely circumstance where your idea is infinitely more relevant.

If a president had to contend with a hostile house of reps for his whole term, gained the house while losing the presidency, then the few days allowed by your idea would actually give the president a chance to wrap up his agenda in extra innings assuming he could avoid fillibusters in the senate (and hey, if you're walking the line that much already, you could always employ the nuclear option and just change the senate rules back again right after the other guy gets in)

But the Presidency and Vice Presidency terms expire on the same day.

I know I've already said it, but just for clarity, that's where the recess appointment provided for in Article II comes in. The recess appointment, doesn't expire on the 20th, it expires at the end of the congressional session, which is why the fact that a new session begins before the 20th makes the 2-year lockdown possible.

Hmm, what if, meanwhile, the previous election challenges were dropped, and a victor certified, would he/she would move into the office? Or is the person appointed by congress when there is no election victor serve out a full term?
I think that that might be a genuine consitutional crisis.

One appointed by congress wouldn't pose a constitutional crisis because of the wording of the 20th, but one appointed during a recess would present a constitutional crisis because he has the solid 2 year mandate, while at the resolution of the presidential challenge that person would have at least an equal mandate.

I suppose that the argument could be made that the recess-appointed VP never truly ascended, but was acting President, but then that leaves the same constitutional crisis over which VP is legit.

I think common sense comes down on the side of the people's elected, but this county's common sense died with Thomas Paine.

Either of those situations, I think, are possible, and you could reasonably have some divisions of the army going one way, other divisions refusing to comply with the 'usuper/pretender'.

Hey, that adds a real sum of all fears aspect to consider... what happens if the snubbed President Elect happens to be named Powell or Clark?

Even though they were technically in the right, and everyone knew it, if the military acted to rashly in their favor it could inspire a feeling of legitimacy among civilian supporters of the usurper- then you've got the makings of a real civil war- two sides that deep down in their heart believe they're fighting for life and liberty against a coup. John Titor's shotgun regiments versus Wesley Clark's marauding army of city boys... oh crap.


Thanks for bearing with me on such a far out scenario by the way.

[edit on 10-7-2006 by The Vagabond]

One more question

Who thinks he is going to a dictatorship-like goverment?

Originally posted by leo_infowarrior
One more question

Who thinks he is going to a dictatorship-like goverment?

I think you're kidding but anyway, its a valid question. Would that he had the power to stay, YES he would be dictator. If he leaves, he'll be kicking and screaming.

Lets hope he gets off of that cloud, because if he thinks he CAN, this country will truly revolt. UNLESS we cant revolt because we are not allowed and are in a police state by then. I'm no fortune teller, but it will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the end.