They really ARE trying to have Obama be our permanent Dictator!

Originally posted by 200Plus

If you honestly think Obama will leave office after eight years you are crazy. No later than 2014 they will be pushing for laws to do away with the two term limit. His plans require more time bear fruit and look around at his actions thus far.

I called it months ago. Maybe I have a gift................... it was probably just too obvious.

reply to post by FirstCasualty


The big deal is that only people from certain families are allowed to be president, it's a myth that anyone can become president. So what you want is what exactly, a king? Emperor?

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
reply to post by CaticusMaximus

 

I don't think it's so much that people WANT him in office as it is that the Republicans haven't been able to procure a single decent candidate.

I would have voted republican if Romney didn't suck so much.

edit on 5-1-2013 by DestroyDestroyDestroy because: (no reason given)

But this is exactly what you are supposed to think. That you voted for the lesser of two evils. The Republicans are not this stupid. Romney was not a real candidate. They didn't want to win. If they wanted to win, they would not have deliberately done things to upset as many people as possible before the election. Politicians who actually want to win don't operate that way. They lie about what they're going to do if they know telling the truth will alienate a lot of people they need to win.

Every politician knows that they can do anything the please once they're in so there was no reason for the Republicans to be making as many enemies as they could.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


For something that would never even make it to the floor for a vote, why would someone propose such a thing? Is it for a bit of notoriety and hopefully better book sales after leaving office? I can't imagine why someone would commit political suicide for something with no chance at all.

Like the idiots who were trying to make it so any citizen (born US citizen or not) could be president after Schwarzenegger became CA governor, clearly angling for The Terminator to become president on day. Unbelievable. The absolute last thing we need in the US is a permanent president. Unless you're going to bring back Jefferson and JFK, my vote is NO.

I can tolerate a lot of change, except with laws that poke around the Constitution. Trying to make the country obsolete a line at a time bothers me.

It's an expiration date law, to keep our Presidents fresh.

We grew up with that law, expecting it out of our leaders, and it's fair for everybody who tries to run for the job. There are plenty of other US jobs out there that go on for as long as you can handle it, or until you are retired, impeached, or die, whatever comes first. It's one of those American constants that the whole world can rely on; if it were ever changed I'd believe that this country was in a state of dictatorship.

Who had time to think this one up again? Making laws just to keep the country trendy? Meeting a law-making quota? What next, making a law that the flag have 49 stars and 12 stripes? That the White House be painted grey? To move congress to Hawaii, which shall henceforth be called Capitol 2.0, put an electric fence around the place, and start naming states after the reigning Governors? Oh, and from now on, it's Your Royal Highness President? Don't touch that law, it's a reminder of lawmakers limits.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Here we go again.

This US Rep, a democrat- of course- is trying once again to bestow kingdom on the usurper.

www.popvox.com...

H.J.Res. 15: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

Remove the term limits, hack the voting machines (completed), and you too can have perpetual rule, even in America. Amerika. The end.

Not going to happen. I do like your clever use of buzzwords though. Like America with a "k." It just goes to show you can be both clever AND ignorant. Sure you don't want to throw a "socialist" in there for good measure?

I digress...

The 2-term Presidency only became official in the early 1940's because a republican used cheap tactics to secure a third term. I don't really care that he was republican, nor would I care if he was a democrat. I'm just saying it because clearly you care, and the irony is oh so sweet.

From wiki -

The two-term tradition had been an unwritten rule (until the 22nd Amendment after Roosevelt's presidency) since George Washington declined to run for a third term in 1796, and both Ulysses S. Grant and Theodore Roosevelt were attacked for trying to obtain a third non-consecutive term. FDR systematically undercut prominent Democrats who were angling for the nomination, including two cabinet members, Secretary of State Cordell Hull and James Farley, Roosevelt's campaign manager in 1932 and 1936, the Postmaster General and the Democratic Party chairman. Roosevelt moved the convention to Chicago where he had strong support from the city machine (which controlled the auditorium sound system). At the convention the opposition was poorly organized, but Farley had packed the galleries. Roosevelt sent a message saying that he would not run unless he was drafted, and that the delegates were free to vote for anyone. The delegates were stunned; then the loudspeaker screamed "We want Roosevelt... The world wants Roosevelt!" The delegates went wild and he was nominated by 946 to 147 on the first ballot. The tactic employed by Roosevelt was not entirely successful, as his goal had been to be drafted by acclamation.

Note "his goal had been to be drafted by acclamation." That means he wanted to change how the political system worked. He wanted to get rid of term limits all together.

So suck on that, you socialist.

Originally posted by HairlessApe
The 2-term Presidency only became official in the early 1940's because a republican used cheap tactics to secure a third term. I don't really care that he was republican, nor would I care if he was a democrat. I'm just saying it because clearly you care, and the irony is oh so sweet.

A "Republican"?!

Roosevelt was a registered Democrat.....but I also digress as this isn't about a particular party. It is just you have a bad source or are misinformed. Or are you suggesting that someone in the opposite party helped secure Roosevelt's presidency for the the 3rd and 4th term? Some clarification here would be nice.

reply to post by Sandalphon


But it was a "law" amended and thus can be repealed. No term limit is not a bad idea if the populace is well-informed and well practiced in politics. Sadly, neither of those can be attributed to the American public.

We don't want to be political; even though self-governance requires it.
We don't want to be trifled with the affairs of the country either; even though a republic requires it.

Originally posted by Sandalphon
I can tolerate a lot of change, except with laws that poke around the Constitution. Trying to make the country obsolete a line at a time bothers me.

But the USA was founded with the idea that we would be different from other countries because we COULD change our constitution. That's why amendments exist.

I'm not saying I'd like 3+ term presidents. I wouldn't. Except if it was Teddy Roosevelt, and even then it wouldn't sit right with me.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Here we go again.

This US Rep, a democrat- of course- is trying once again to bestow kingdom on the usurper.

www.popvox.com...

H.J.Res. 15: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

Remove the term limits, hack the voting machines (completed), and you too can have perpetual rule, even in America. Amerika. The end.

I had to read this twice. You have GOT to be kidding! I know there was talk of this during G,W's second term, but this is actually pretty surprising

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by HairlessApe
The 2-term Presidency only became official in the early 1940's because a republican used cheap tactics to secure a third term. I don't really care that he was republican, nor would I care if he was a democrat. I'm just saying it because clearly you care, and the irony is oh so sweet.

A "Republican"?!

Roosevelt was a registered Democrat.....but I also digress as this isn't about a particular party. It is just you have a bad source or are misinformed. Or are you suggesting that someone in the opposite party helped secure Roosevelt's presidency for the the 3rd and 4th term? Some clarification here would be nice.

Common misconception. I'm not denying he was a liberal...
But parties change about every 60 years in America.

How FDR created today's Republican Party.

Knowledge:

The fact that today’s Republican Party is mainly a coalition of former right-wing Democrats explains its curious relationship to the past. Based in the former Confederacy, its leaders understandably do not play up Abraham Lincoln or the long line of Yankee Republican presidents who succeeded him. At the same time, the anti-New Deal rhetoric that today’s Republicans inherited from their conservative Democratic precursors prevents them from acknowledging the paternity of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Unable to claim either the Republican past or the Democratic past as their heritage, today’s ex-Democratic Republican constituencies have settled on pretending that their party sprang into existence out of nowhere in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan. Who, it should be noted, told Dan Rather that Franklin Roosevelt was his favorite president, and who voted for FDR four times.

reply to post by HairlessApe


Leading to the creation and being part of it are two different things. His ideals and ideology are in direct contradiction of the opposite way of thinking of the time. His politics are that of Woodrow Wilson, save he was able to implement them more effectively. They are highly "progressive" in nature that pushed the envelope of American government to be the primary focal point of power; rather than the People and the States.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by HairlessApe

 

Leading to the creation and being part of it are two different things. His ideals and ideology are in direct contradiction of the opposite way of thinking of the time. His politics are that of Woodrow Wilson, save he was able to implement them more effectively. They are highly "progressive" in nature that pushed the envelope of American government to be the primary focal point of power; rather than the People and the States.

No. They really aren't.

You're thinking that the two main political parties of the 1930's had the same ideologies as the two main political parties today.

They didn't.

They used the name "Republican" and "Democrat" but the meaning of those words was ENTIRELY different than the meaning of those words today.

Republicans then had some of the views that republicans today commonly have, but they were far more democratic by today's standards. And vice versa. While he was for social programs which are considered STAUNCHLY "anti-republican" today, he was otherwise utterly republican by today's standards. Arguing about what he called himself is just schematics.

Originally posted by HairlessApe
No. It isn't.

You are playing semantics here. President Roosevelt's view upon governmental powers were in excess of what was generally held to be the proper role of government at the time. His views were that government should be handle far more than what it was designed to do and he implemented it via Congress and the Supreme Court.

So while we can argue "Republican" this and "Democrat" that, he wasn't a "republican"; as none of the measure fit a republican stance in terms of how a republic is ran.

Republicans then had some of the views that republicans today commonly have, but they were far more democratic by today's standards. And vice versa.

What?!

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by HairlessApe
No. It isn't.

You are playing semantics here. President Roosevelt's view upon governmental powers were in excess of what was generally held to be the proper role of government at the time. His views were that government should be handle far more than what it was designed to do and he implemented it via Congress and the Supreme Court.

So while we can argue "Republican" this and "Democrat" that, he wasn't a "republican"; as none of the measure fit a republican stance in terms of how a republic is ran.

Republicans then had some of the views that republicans today commonly have, but they were far more democratic by today's standards. And vice versa.

What?!

If this is news to you then perhaps you should research how political parties evolve over time.

For instance...

The Democratic-Republican Party, was the political party organized by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1791

It split due to the 1824 presidential election into two parties: the Democratic Party and [not important]

Most contemporaries called it the Republican Party. Today, political scientists typically use the hyphenated version while historians usually call it the "Republican Party" or the Jeffersonian Republicans, to distinguish it from the modern Republican Party, which was founded in 1854 and named after Jefferson's party.

The party selected its presidential candidates in a caucus of members of Congress. They included Thomas Jefferson (nominated 1796; elected 1800-1, 1804), James Madison (1808, 1812), James Monroe (1816, 1820). By 1824 the caucus system practically collapsed. After 1800, the party dominated Congress and most state governments outside New England. By 1824 the party was split 4 ways and lacked a center. One remnant followed Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren into the new Democratic Party by 1828.

The Democratic Party is often called "the party of Jefferson,"[22][23][24] while the modern Republican Party is often called "the party of Lincoln." ----- The modern Republican Party was founded in 1854 to oppose the expansion of slavery; its name was chosen in reference to Jefferson's earlier party. Many former Whig party leaders (such as Abraham Lincoln) and former Free Soil Party leaders joined the newly formed anti-slavery party.[25] The party sought to combine Jefferson's ideals of liberty and equality with Clay's program of using an active government to modernize the economy.[26]

Hopefully that clears some things up for you.

So is today's Republican Party -really- the "Party of Lincoln?" Don't make me laugh.

reply to post by TrueAmerican

Would it be better for the country if the legislators, POTUS and VPOTUS were all limited to a single term? If nothing else, they would have time to "work" (like passing a budget) instead of spending the last two years of each term campaigning and raising money.

What do you all think about starting a petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions for that??? There does not seem to be one.

Originally posted by Oleman
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

Would it be better for the country if the legislators, POTUS and VPOTUS were all limited to a single term? If nothing else, they would have time to "work" (like passing a budget) instead of spending the last two years of each term campaigning and raising money.

What do you all think about starting a petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions for that??? There does not seem to be one.

That is the point here.....start a petition with the White House? As if they can effect change because you started a petition? Stop looking to the executive for the changes needed....

Also, Congress and the president have term limits but the People fail to execute them by continually putting them in office; even in light of an anemic approval rating. So the problem isn't "term-limits" its a population that cannot for the life of them, be involved in their self-governance.

reply to post by 200Plus

Ket's see what happens with the next election for the House of Reps.

reply to post by HairlessApe

Teddy Roosevelt was the Republican (cousin FDR the Democrat) but he lost as the Bull Moose Candidate. The 22nd Amendment is one of those that CAN (not should) be changed....unlike the First Ten Amendments (The Bill of Rights) which were inalienable individual rights.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
....unlike the First Ten Amendments (The Bill of Rights) which were inalienable individual rights.

Which brings us to the fear of James Madison in even including those (the bill of Rights). Not because he didn't think those were held exclusively by the People, but because merely listing them would be give ammunition to the Government on acting upon them.

If we are to truly look upon the Constitution, we could see that it only applies to what the Government can do. Therefore, what is not listed, they cannot infringe upon. That is why Madison included the Ninth Amendment (a completely overlooked, yet all important amendment!)

Post Script: The fact that the "Bill of Rights" is amended into the Constitution, they very well can be repealed! Not likely, but they can.