Bush for President in 2008

WASHINGTON – One thing is certain about the 2008 presidential election campaign that begins in one year: It won't involve George W. Bush as a candidate.

But bipartisan legislation to repeal the 22nd Amendment restriction of two terms for U.S. presidents could change that certainty for future presidents.

Two of the most passionate congressional advocates of such a move – Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-MD, and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-WI – have teamed up to sponsor a resolution that would represent the first step toward that change in the U.S. political system.

"The time has come to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, and not because of partisan politics," explained Hoyer. "While I am not a supporter of the current President, I feel there are good public policy reasons for a repeal of this amendment. Under the Constitution as altered by the 22nd Amendment, this must be President George W. Bush's last term even if the American people should want him to continue in office. This is an undemocratic result."

Until President Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to his fourth term during World War II, there was no such restriction in American law. A tradition of presidents serving two terms only began with George Washington.

"We do not have to rely on rigid constitutional standards to hold our Presidents accountable," said Hoyer. "Sufficient power resides in the Congress and the Judiciary to protect our country from tyranny."

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52246

Yes, that's right people. After winning the popular majority in 2000 and then an uncontested election in 2004, it is now time for us to change the law so we can vote this guy into office again. Don't worry because the Republican-controlled Congress and the Supreme Court will protect "our country from tyranny" just like they have been doing from the USA PATRIOT Act and the new detainee bill that theoretically also applies to US citizens. Even Steny Hoyer and Jim Kill-the-Patriot-Act-Opposition Sensenbrenner are saying it will be okay, so it must be, right?

Ask them if this change should also apply to Bill and/or Hillary, and you'll see them change their tune real fast.

.

the 22nd Amendment should be repealed?

I think we need term limits in the Senate, too.

We have three branches. There has to be one that can remain constant - stable. SC Justices are supposed to be beyond partisanship. We know that's impossible, but still we need the consistency that lifetime appointments give.

I wish I knew better how to articulate what I'm trying to say.

And next time, it will be worse than what Bush did because they will have learned from his mistakes, whereas the American people will follow blindly.

IMO, it is definitely not a good idea. I think there should be term limits on the Senate and House also.

Did we (i.e., the American voters in general) follow FDR blindly? He was re-elected three times. Most DUers would say we Americans voted wisely in the 30s and 40s.

Did we follow WJC blindly?

Yet we DUers say we followed Bush blindly. And Reagan.

Is it not all just a matter of political perspective?

I agree with the first two words: "Remove Bush."

but the upside would be that Big Dog could run again.

No way the States would ratify such a stupid idea.

even though there are some Dems who are also for it. Like Steny Hoyer and the guy in post#2. Did you look at post#2? The thing is, though, that if there is some kind of other terrorist attack, it will have legs.

We don't need to help people build dynasties, regardless of the party to which they belong. I did notice some Democrats who are for it. Count me as one who is not.

..and even if they would, I doubt it would be in time for the 08 Election.
But let's say it would happen - Bill Clinton could run again, andmost likely beat the pants of George.........:evilgrin:

You make a good point but things are going to be different, starting in January.

All in due time.

The 22nd amendment is very clear cut in that it sets a limit on how many terms can be served as president.

There is absolutely no way, short of a constitutional amendment to change this fact.

Regardless of what one may think of some SC decisions, this is 100% not open to interpretation.

Can we please find something else to worry about.

This can not happen fast enough to matter for 08.

I come here a lot and have never seen such a thread? Can you point to two threads from the last 2 weeks?

Who the (bad language) are the Democrats in favor repealing the 22nd Amendment, and why the (really, REALLY bad language) are they still allowed to call themselves "Democrats?"

and he's the guy that said this stuff...

"We do not have to rely on rigid constitutional standards to hold our Presidents accountable," said Hoyer. "Sufficient power resides in the Congress and the Judiciary to protect our country from tyranny."

Am I allowed to call him a (link), or are Democrats still immune from criticism no matter how well deserved?

But one person happy to set up a dictatorship does not bipartisanship make. Who are the other Democrats? Does anyone know?

What a knothead! And if sufficient power does exist without the 22nd Amendment, it is provided by "rigid" constitutional standards. You would hope he could go for longer than 2 sentences without contradicting himself.

A check on unfettered presidential power. After Maggie and Tony, I really wish that the UK would introduce something similar.

We need more term limits in our system, like in the Senate, too.

Yeah, that works very well UNTIL it faces an ACTUAL tyrant in the executive.
Then it doesn't work at all.

it is a completely insane argument.

The most important reason to limit a president's terms is one most people don't understand or care about: courts and judicial nominees. Serve long enough and you appoint all the Justices who oversee you.

Yes, a Constitutional amendment to repeal the 22nd Amendment has been proposed. Guess what. It was proposed in the last congress, too. And probably the one before that. And its not going anywhere. In the 109th Congress (which convened Jan 2005), there probably have been 100 constitutional amendments proposed, including amendments to repeal the 16th amendment, to abolish income, estate, and gift taxes, to require a balanced budget, to redefine citizenship, to guarantee everyone a right to a home, to impose term limits, and of course all of the old standbys: marriage, voluntary prayer, flag desecration, official language, etc etc.

:bounce:

I would suggest limiting the President to two CONSECUTIVE terms. After a one-term hiatus, he could then run again. This would enable a popular President to be elected to a third and fourth term.

Why all the fuss since Jeb is in the wings!

the Florida election, if that is the case.

Look at Britain. Margaret Thatcher started out as a very popular prime minister only to quit in dishonor in her 4th term. Now Tony Blair is also putting his tail between his legs & running in his 3rd term. Democracy is a good thing. It must not be allowed to be a dictatorship. Term limits should be instituted for Congress & the Senate as well. The supreme court needs to be elected by popular vote. Bush being given 2 appointees during the "congressional rubber stamp era" (which will end with the 109th congress) is going to hurt this country in the long run.