View Single Post
Old 08-30-2005, 12:32 PM   #55
Peter
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptSternn
Of course now, just yesterday, this new legislation left committee and is now heading for congress.

Now, you can argue all you want about it, but it's exaxctly what it says - it's a new bill to remove all presidential constrainst listed in the 22 ammendment of the constitution. Thats right - the bush administration is now trying to give itself the power to rule as long as they want - removing all term restrictions from the office of the president. This means, if they continue to steal elections, like the last 2, bush could be the new president of the united states, forever.

Anyone else bothered by this?
I'm not bothered by this, in fact I'm interested to see how it turns out, you see, the 22nd Amendment was added sometime after Kennedy. Some people would point out that forcing someone out of office after their second term is just plain undemocratic. On the other hand, is a healthy democracy protected by not letting any one president have a mandate for action for so long?

To be perfectly honest, I lean towards the former. The Bush administration isn't making it so they can't be knocked out of power, just that they can run for a third successive term, besides repealing the 22nd would not stop anyone from stealing any elections, it just means the same guy can't be president for more than two terms running, however, he could easily put someone there who'd do exactly as he says. If Bush was trying to put off an election until Operation Infinate Crisis was over you'd have more of a point.

I also don't believe the 22nd is one of the amendments that are integral for America to be America, and of course it isn't since it was only introduced sometime mid last century.

Not that I think Bush would get elected again, even the conservatives are starting to become disenfranchised with his presidency.
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote