A constitutional amendment to avert another George W. Bush (Wash. Post)

Can Bush Save Bush?
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, October 3, 2006; A17

Not too long after Franklin D. Roosevelt died, Republicans insisted on what was to become the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. It was meant to ensure that never again would a president serve more than two terms. Now is the time for yet another amendment. This one would ensure that no child of a president could become president. This would avert another George W. Bush. The reasons for this amendment can be amply found in Bob Woodward's new book, "State of Denial." If ever a title was apt, this is the one. As if to prove that Woodward had it right, Bush reacted to the book's revelations about Don Rumsfeld -- intransigent, incompetent and intellectually intolerant -- by reaffirming his confidence in him. To Bush, and indeed to the rest of us as well, Rumsfeld has come to personify the conduct of the Iraq war. His leaving, especially his firing, would be an admission of the obvious: failure.

My proposed amendment comes to mind because from time to time Woodward would quote someone on why Bush ran for president in the first place and what determines his executive style: his father. He wanted to best his father but also even the score for him. This score was a twofold thing. George W. Bush wanted, in effect, to win the second term that George H.W. Bush had lost (to Bill Clinton), and he also wanted to finish the job his father had started with Saddam Hussein. If there is a better explanation for why Bush -- not necessarily the neocons around him -- so fervently wanted war, I cannot come up with it...

As with everything else I've read about the 43rd president, it's apparent that Bush had no reason to run for the office other than to satisfy some psychological compulsion -- and had no accomplishment to his name that did not stem from primogeniture. Especially in foreign policy, he was an ignoramus who smugly thought that his instincts trumped experience and knowledge. What's even more appalling is that over and over in Woodward's book, Bush sticks to his losing hand, refusing to challenge his own assumptions -- or, it seems, his steadfast belief that his is a divine mission.

The conventional script in Washington for ending the Iraq war is for Bush to approach key Democrats and seek bipartisan cover for a methodical American withdrawal. Maybe that will happen or maybe it will be Republicans such as James Baker, Bush senior's secretary of state, who will do the approaching. But given the nature of the problem, maybe it would be best if the father shed his reluctance and offered his son some sharp advice. After all, it is now clear that the finest service one president can provide another -- not to mention his country -- is to reassert a parental role. The kid's in way over his head.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/02/AR2006100200931.html

Let's make sure that there is a MANDATORY psychiatric examination, looking for psychosis and sociopathy in particular.... Otherwise, it won't be strong enough...

Dynasties are not helpful to anybody. It got the Kennedys killed and the Bushes.......not.

..the Japanese Internment in America and the dubious military trial of Nazis sent as saboteurs who turned themselves in, in America, were related to a sense of entitlement at being a president whose relative (Teddy Roosevelt) had been president.

FDR was bowing to the will of the vast majority of the people in the country when he allowed the Japanese to be interned. I wish that this were not so, but I believe that it is.

Although they were interred, and that was bad. Anti-German sentiment arose, just as it did in WWI, and it was very dangerous to be too German. Interestingly enough, anti-semitism was very much alive during the war and for a considerable time afterwards. In truth, it is still here, and I think, getting worse again.

but I may be wrong. Trof may know better than I since I moved when I was only four and only have my memories of what my parents told me to go on.

Armenian name and did not speak of the German side of our family.

Eleanor was more closely related to Teddy than FDR was.
Check your history.

I think he may have become too old, too tired, & too ill to handle the stress of World War II without diminished performance. But the American public overwhelmingly loved the man & insisted he be their wartime leader. I'm sure the old political warrior would've preferred to be fishing in that final 4 years of his life. And yes, he made several fairly tremendous mistakes.

It was simply that they figured out that if the democrats kept on propping populist presidents, like FDR... and to some extent Truman. That they may not have a chance in hell to hold on to their power base, although I believe that term limits are a good thing, it would be very naive that the GOP's motivation for the 22nd had anything to do with the well being of Japanese Americans during WWII.

...the internment of the Japanese and passage of the 22nd amendment.

And, lest we fall into Republican territory, let's not call them "excesses." They were failures at best, tragedies at worst. Either way, forgivable.

Certainly Shrub's successes don't outweigh his failures, though -- he doesn't HAVE any successes. Not a single one. Zero, zip, zilch, nada.

No human being, and certainly no president, is without mistakes, often of the tragic kind. LBJ inherited Vietnam (and pursued it, perhaps, from political pressure as much as personal vehemence), yet gave us the Great Society. Nixon has so many crimes that it's difficult to list them all, yet he signed (and therefore helped give us) the Dept. of Education and the Clean Air & Water Acts. Bush senior cut the military (which the wingnuts blame on Clinton), which arguably contributed to the economic boom of the 90s. Clinton was a great president, yet he inappropriately got a bolwjob from an intern and gave political enemies all the ammunition it needed to elect GW. Hell, go back a few years, and the Founding Fathers all owned slaves.

In some of these guys, the good outweighs the bad. In others, it's either the opposite case or not so simple.

GWB does not have one single success on ANYTHING to his credit. If he'd accomplished something, anything at all, I'd be more willing to cut the guy some slack.

Hell, at least we BEAT the Japanese and the Nazis.

That's the real scary thing about George.

I would say any first degree relative, plus uncle/aunt and 1st cousin.

even his Dad won't talk to him. That should give the rest of the country a real hint.

since his idiot son has made those of us who could not even stand the sight of Bush I yearn for the 'good 'ol days'. I mean, shit, that's bad.

Now that's bad. FUBAR.

FUBAR is right. :eyes:

http://www.usip.org/isg/members.html

Maybe that will happen or maybe it will be Republicans such as James Baker, Bush senior's secretary of state, who will do the approaching.

Baker's "Iraq Study Group" is trying to inject some late-stage sanity into the Chimperor's brain.

Really, with all the hoo-hah about his book and the articles/news stories it is inspiring, I would have to say he has more than made up for his earlier infatuation with the Bush administration. And yes, there definitely should be an admendment barring evil, smirking idiot spawns of mediocre Presidents and battle axes from ever holding Executive office.

branch of the "military-industrial-political complex". Take your pick who's he working for -- industrialists like the family that owns the Washington Post (huge oil and defense investments) or old intelligence portfolio (hired as a liason with the intelligence community to drop shoes on the administration to protect the investments of the Beltway defense industry, if the behind-the-scenes defense community decides that Bush's invasions cannot be stopped by other means.)

I used to read him all the time...and like him. But I read a couple of columns awhile back and he so completely pissed me off. Am I thinking of someone else?

...to Bush in person.

Richard Cohen claimed that he's funny and Stephen Colbert isn't.

But I don't recall Cohen writing that Bush is a good president.

I think.

They'd end up wrestling in the back yard - mano a mano

I have been saying all along that it's an outrage that in a country of 280 million people, supposedly the most upwardly mobile and democratic society on earth, we can't find anyone better than the son of the penultimate president.

Oligarchy, anyone...? Anyone...?

personally, i like Hillary Clinton - but I'd hate to see a 'battle of the dynasties' go on for a bunch of generations...

i mean, we might as well be feudal.

... but I'm wondering if it can all be attributed to "nepotism". If Cheney had got elected or drug in by some other idiot, perhaps the same crap could have happened.

I think we need to revisit the state legislature sponsored impeachment and revise it to be more like a "recall" or a no-confidence vote that can force a new election under extreme circumstances. Other countries have this. I'm not suggesting that we make this an easy measure to do, but I do think that the citizens shouldn't feel trapped to only vote in a 2 year window, where the gas prices, electoral processes, etc. are all manipulated to keep them from being accountable now. If there were an extra measure that say had a supermajority requirement of 67% of the electorate passing a national proposition for a no-confidence vote in the presidency, then perhaps with an overwhelming vote of no-confidence in that instance we could force such an election. Perhaps if half of the states gathered enough signatures to force a no-confidence election this could happen.

but I don't think anyone should be prevented from being President if they are qualified. Sons and daughters should not be kept from experiencing their full potential. There are far more important amendments that are desperately needed (which incidentally I am working on now.)

We should be very careful about any across the board restrictions on who can be president.

Dubya is a bad President, but not necessarily because he's another President's son. It is possible his emotion is clouding his judgement on Iraq (revenge for Daddy), but lots of other presidents have emotional reasons for doing things too.

Would we say let's not elect a short president (under 5'5' or whatever) because he will have a Napoleon complex? Or any woman, 'cos she'll go to war to prove she's not soft. Or, maybe FDR did some of the wrong things he did 'cos he was in a wheelchair and felt he had to "prove" he was still a man - so let's not elect any President who can't walk. OF course not, it would be absurd.

It should be no child of a Republican President - self-promoting slacker aristocrats with no job experience and a self-delusional god complex.

There are some excellent children of politicians out there - not all of them live in the shadow of their Daddy or Mommy. I know that Beau Biden is running for AG here in Delaware. His opponent is trying to smear Biden as "Inexperienced" even though Biden has 10 years working in criminal law. Both of Joe's kids have done pretty well on their own and to be honest, I expect one of them to replace Joe in the Senate, but then again this is Delaware nothing shocking here

Not in New Jersey, Massachusetts, Delaware, or Louisiana, or anyhwere else. OUR hereditary oligarchs have noblesse oblige, not like those slackers on the Republican side with their inherited wealth!

:eyes:

I have a simple corrollary to the Cohen amendment:

85% taxation on all inherited wealth (above the first $500,000)
generated from after the time the deceased was elected to office.

Every child should be born with the same rights, I don't care who there father is. Campaign finance reform on the other hand is a great idea.

Chelsea kicking ass in the Senate 30 or 40 years down the road and the Democrats not having any candidate that really stands out against a Republican incumbent (God forbid, but let's face it - lots of voters are ignorant and the media isn't really an ally of ours), but we can't run Chelsea because of Cohen's stupid fucking amendment?

but not on JFK Jr. He wasn't very bright.

guarantee a right to vote in elections for President, Senator, and US Representative to every American.

This right would be safeguarded by mandating minimum national standards for voting procedures in every State, no disfranchisement of "felons" who are not incarcerated, voting representation for the District of Columbia, and mandating an annual FEC report on the proporition of citizens 18 and over who voted in statewide elections, by income, age group, gender, ethnicity, and other demographics, for every state.

We need objective numerical benchmarks of the extent of democracy in every state, and mandatory national standards to maximize democracy. If we had the kinds of reports I'm advocating, many "Red" states would be exposed for what they are: bastions of undemocratic rule by a wealthy minority of voting-age citizens, and moving further away from democracy every year.

but he hasn't messed this up just because he was a previous president's son.

There were reasons the neocons wanted to go into Iraq apart from Bush's personal vendetta. Also, we now know that both Bush and Cheney are taking Kissinger's advice seem to be echoing his feelign that we cannot give up, must press on. So he's also indulging Kissinger's fantasy of reliving Vietnam through Iraq and going for the win this time, so as to have a feeling of redemption.

They all need to be locked up. If not for war crimes then for psychoses.

not one that teaches standardized tests, but one that actually teaches critical thinking skills. The electorate is dumb, dumb, dumb!

I believe this emergency is in response to the Lamont victory and the upcoming elections. Bush cries wolf again. Bush and his cronies have demonstrated their total incompetence in dealing with anything other than PR.

Still the question remains, what if there is a real emergency? We are stuck with these substandard officials and departments.

After 9/11 laws were violated by u.s. officials because "the constitution is not a suicide pact."

By leaving these incompetents in charge to muddle about in the mess they have made we continue to act as if the constitution is a suicide pact.

The elected Democrats will not act even to censure Bush but prefer to maintain pretentions of normalcy.

to a single term? Force them to get what they need done in four years, then move along.

We could do the same with the House and Senate. One term per customer. Then, no matter how bad it gets, we could always look forward to an injection of new blood in 2-4-6 years time.

:) Yeah, I know, crazy talk.

Like Robin Williams said - "Politicians are like diapers - they need to be changed frequently and for the same reason."

We need limits on Congress - nobody should be a career politician.

Why have a democracy when people are forced out of office after 4 years? It would be ridiculously damaging - no long-term plans could be enacted, as the following president (most likely from the opposition, due to the superficial reasons people choose one candidate over another) would most likely undo what his predecessor enacted. yay progress.

about five seconds after he got into office?

Every new president makes changes when he gets into office. Whether it comes in 4 years or 8, what difference does it make?

Maybe if they knew they had less time to make their mark, they'd actually get something worthwhile done.

Just sit on his ass trying to do everything he can to ensure he has a nice retirement package 4 years down the line, screwing the country over in the process... That's why term limits should be abolished, and there should be no rules limiting who can run for presidency. Anything else is just weak.

Hookay, then let's abolish term limits and bring back President Clinton. :) I'd vote for him again, in a heartbeat.

Or, better than risking living under a monarchy wouldn't it be better to control or limit the "retirement" package outgoing politicians enjoy? Just a thought.

There ARE checks and balances in place to limit bad presidents' terms - "elections". They require the MSM to actually do its job, so instead of curtailing democracy due to the MSM's shortcomings, why not fix the MSM, abolish term limits, and actually have a more functioning democracy? Fixing the symptoms instead of the cause is not helping anyone, and just allowing the problem to continue.

How about a total Soviet-style De-nazification of the entire republican party (in other words, pretend like this shit never happened in the first place?).

George W. Bush did not become a war criminal, the Spanish inquisitor, an election fraudster, a violator of human and constitutional rights or a ruthless near-dictator because his father served as president. He is responsible for his own crimes; his father is not.

Suppose Dick Cheney were to run for president and (one way or another) won. Is there anybody here who thinks Cheney is not everything Bush is, only more so. Yet Cheney's father was never president of the United States.

Prior to Mr. Bush, criminal behavior in the Oval Office was most on display by Richard Nixon, the son of a grocer.

No constitutional amendment can guarantee that we won't have another such man as president. The Constitution does provide for the way to remove such a man from power; putting that machinery in motion is long overdue.

ever shot someone in the face?") would go a lot farther than instituting a single term limit, or disqualifying candidates related to former Presidents, etc.

Then you're eventually going to get an idiot.

be elected (or at least put on a show of it).

This would be like cutting off the nose to spite the face - someday such a person might make a good president. Family dynasty types like the * family would still just go for the grandsons or the cousins or the brothers - there is always a way around something like this.

It would have made John Quincy Adams ineligible.

We don't need an amendment to disqualify certain potential candidates because of lineage. Just count the votes.

Oh, and bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" and break up the media monopolies. That would help, too.

If the people reject the president they've elected, then they can recall him half-way through his term. Instead of four miserable years for the people, they only have to put up with three.

Although I like Hillary Clinton at most time and I think she is a brilliant lady and would do a remarkable job of running our nation. I don't think she should be president because her husband was.

The same thing could happen as what has with Georgie

No kids, no wives, no husbands..... no one who can benefit from their familial relationship with a POTUS. They are owed too many favors, and it is very unfair.

TC

I like that.

Since Bush isn't from Texas

The way that's written, Jack Carter, Chelsea Clinton et al. would be ineligible.

as well as publicly funded campaign finance, de-personhood for corporations, and anti-monopoloy laws for all media.

... permanently. I know it is in there right now, but to keep Habeas Corpus in there, even during times of rebellion and invasion. And to extend habeas corpus to the state constitutions too - not just at the federal level.

I have said that on more than one occasion. That very thing - we need to amend the Constitution so that siblings, children, grandchildren, etc. of former Presidents cannot run for President or Vice President for at least 20 years. That will insure that we don't fall into an "elected" monarchy where one Presidency benefits a single family years down the road.

Sadly, I think we should pass an amendment that anyone who was of military service age from 1964-1975 cannot run for president. If they served, it's too easy to taint their records, if they didn't, it's too easy to accuse them of being draft dodgers or privledged loop-holers.

I, for one, am goddamm sick and tired of swift boaters, the air national guard, the Indiana national guard, cysts on people's asses, having "other priorities", and all the endless shit that surrounds this group.

> guys on the ticket from the same state would have been nice. If they can weasel out of that they'd probably try to claim * was illegitimate...

...maybe it's just that the wrong Repub's son is sitting in the Oval Office.

Bloody shame the "Junior" isn't Ron Reagan!

I have some respect for R. Cohen's intellect, however in this case, as in other cases, His proposition is doomed to failure for the simple reason that, for all his cred as an ex-president, George H.W. Bush himself is and always has been a fucking PUSSY, and is more afraid of his son than he is of Babs.

has this legislation to repeal the 22nd ammendment. 109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 24
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 17, 2005
Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SABO, and Mr. PALLONE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article --

`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.'.

But what about a Brother? If any of Dim-Son's brothers became President, it would be another disaster.

Term limits are bad enough, but to stop sons of presidents? That's plain ridiculous. Jeez. Democracy means allowing anyone to run for office. It's bad enough that they have to have millions of dollars to do it in the US, but to pile on even more rules cutting out people who might actually be very experienced to take on the role is stupid. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Don't get me wrong - Bush is a twat, but that's just pathetic. Want to stop bad presidents or conflicts of interest? Get a set of EFFECTIVE checks and balances (that is, people actually know what they are, and can enforce them, they just don't repeat 'checks and balances' when something might fuck up), and ensure the people are properly informed as to the policies and motives of each candidate. Then let the people decide for themselves. That's what they're supposed to do.

Edit - it's another example of the "fix the symptom, not the cause" mentality that seems to drench almost every aspect of US policy, both at home and abroad. Another policy along the lines of affirmative action, the war on terror, the war on drugs and the other ridiculous attempts to "solve" the symptoms and completely ignore the cause.

"would be very experienced for the role" is what is undemocratic here.

That's not what I said. I said that someone who was the child of a former president MAY be experienced in the role, for whatever reasons (education, whatever). Discounting them for something trivial like their relatives is ridiculous.

Regardless of WHY the shrub ran for president, the fact remains that approximately half the people who bothered to vote in both 2000 and 2004, voted for *. Why they would do so, especially since his major accomplishment prior to becoming president was killing more people (by death penalty) than any other governor, ever, I have never been able to understand.

It all comes down to that old saw, anyone who WANTS to be president is, by definition, unqualified.

Hello

My first post of DU by the way

Why do you dont elect a king then?.. I know americans dont like Kings, but in the climate that are today in US, maybe a royal king elected by the pepole vil do a better jobb when it comes to all..

We in the "old Europe", have som old kindoms left, they are the "prinsipial" in our contry, but dont have alot to say about cases.. They are a cind of "elected president to life" and have a god salary to bout But they dont have mor power then the parlament system are willing to give them.. And for the most part they dont HAVE A LOT OF POWER.!

Even in Great Britain, where the Queen still ruling by old tradititon they know theyr limits of power... But in US you have a "elected" President who have doing more harm to US then the rest of the Presidents kombine have been doing for the last 230 year... God now where that nightmare ends, but I hope you in US is waking up, and smell the shit as it hit the fan... God knows what happeing if YOU dont turn the US araund so it can sail in better shape then today...

Sorry about the spelling, writing in engelish is not my native tonuge;

Diclotican

He wanted to best his father but also even the score for him. This score was a twofold thing. George W. Bush wanted, in effect, to win the second term that George H.W. Bush had lost (to Bill Clinton), and he also wanted to finish the job his father had started with Saddam Hussein. If there is a better explanation for why Bush -- not necessarily the neocons around him -- so fervently wanted war, I cannot come up with it...

The only reason Cohen can't come up with a better explanation is that he's a dishonest scribe for Empire. He knows damn well the planning for the invasion of Iraq was in the works for years and also knows damn well the primary reasons were for establishing bases in the region, controlling the oil and water flow and perpetuating the military complex. But what he does is insert this in a way that it is a basic presumption that we must acknowledge from which the remainder of his effluence is derived. This is called propaganda.

Bush didn't "choose" to run for office he was hand picked by powers far beyond the presindency. Bush is merely a hand puppet for the far right whackos that even his war criminal father kept at a distance.

and mature enough and experienced enough to know about the trench war in politics. He can take it. He did not need his spoiled, ne'er do well son to fight for him. Afterall, Bush Sr., was head of CIA. And I'm sure he knew that he would not have won in 88 if the Dems ran a stronger canidate. In 92 the Dems ran one of the most charismatic and total politcal person in clinton. Plus, the country was ready for a change. And they liked the message of hope. There weren't many who could have beat Clinton. Right man for the right time.
Bush Sr., did not need anyone to fight for him. It's a measure of Shrubs immaturity to feel he had to go and beat someone up for his daddy. Teach them a lesson.
Even if Jr. was a dummy he probably would have not done much harm if he picked good advisers and cabinet members. But, even in that Jr., was a failure.
The part of the article that particularly struck me was the smug ignoramus who bellieved his devine instincts were better than anyone with brains and experience. and to carry that dilussion to today. Everyone around him is smug and arrogant and stupid. Just like Jr.

...an amendment that would make it easier to get an incompetent boob outathere before he/she does so much damage that we'd never be able to dig out - no matter who is momma and daddy is.

With a freakin condom. No amendment needed...just a layer of latex.

Newsprism

the first sone of a president to hold that office.
Prior to his presidency, John Quincy helped author the Monroe Doctrine and served as Monroe's Secretary of State. He played an important role in the acquisition of Florida. (It's not land's fault that the state is so screwed up.)

During his 4 years in office, the National Road (Route 40) was extended into Ohio, and plans to continue the route to St Louis were put into action. Several canals were also constructed as a result of his plans to improve transportation routes to the West.

After he was defeated by Andrew Jackson, he served in the House of Representatives, where he made his abolitionist views known. He also successfully represented, in Supreme Court, the Africans who rebelled on board the Amistad.

I've been putting that out for at least 2 years now.

Since that won't happen the next best thing is arrange for any descendant of Prescott Bush to be castrated if they even think about running for any public office or appointed position in government.

Is to just get RID of the ELECTORAL VOTE.

Problem solved and everyone's rights upheld.

RAW

I agree that we need a Constitutional Amendment, but you are attacking the wrong problem. Our nation was founded on "Balance of Power" to prevent dictators, kings and tyrants. Thus, we have the 3 branches of Government of leaders, lawmakers & law interpreters. The problem is the lack of the "balance of power" today (Iraq), as it was during Vietnam. During each historical era, even though they were different parties Dems-Vietnam & GOP-Iraq, the 3 branches of Government were, and are now the same.

And since absolute power corrupts absolutely, we need a Constitutional Amendment requiring the Presidency, Senate & US House of Rep must be of different parties (all three cannot be the same, at the same time). The working model would, in the case of the people voting in all the same party, modify one body so that the minority party control the agenda of either the House or Senate, whichever is closest to the minority party.

The purpose would be that any extremist, left or right would never be allowed to control our Government, preventing such things as Nazi Germany & Hitler before most of the damage can be done. No, I am not comparing our US political parties to this detestable WWII history, only pointing out that Hitler was elected & the Nazi party took over power, over time, thru the lack of "balance of power".

Having lived thru the Vietnam era & now the Iraq era, I am reminded what our Government officials will do to remain in power, and the terrible lives lost on a whim of kingship?

from becoming President - EVER! And another amendment that bans anyone who worked in the Nixon, Reagan, or Bush 41 or Bush 43 administrations.

Time to clean house in both the Congress and the White House and keep them clean!!!

:kick: