the following link gives food for thought:is there any conceivable way bush could find a way to extend his presidential term beyond 8 years?are there any extreme circumstances such as another attack on america that could cause this to happen? either way, forgive me for my political ignorance. here is the link: http://2004.georgewbush.org/news/termlimits.asp

You do realise the site you linked to is a parody?

Good. Just checking.

Wow... LOL... You really believed that, didn't you?

it wouldnt suprise me

Very Far to Be adrift of:

In a nutshell, the answer is, at present, no.
This is Amendment 22 of the Constitution of the United States, passed by Congress in 1947, ratified in 1951:



In the case of President Bush, who was elected twice, 8 years is going to be it. However, careful reading will show that it is possible, under special circumstances, to serve more than 8 years.

If someone serves as President, for two years or less of some other President's term, he may run for office and be elected twice, thus aquiring potentially more than 8 years in office.

A case in point could've been Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded John Kennedy by virtue of the latter's death in 1963. He served one year as President, and was of course elected in 1964. Because he served one year of his predecessors term, he could've run again in 1968, and if elected, served until 1972, thus potentially serving 9 years as President.

The text of this amendment allows the possibility of a person being President for 10 years, but no more, and only in the aforementioned circumstances.

In the case of President Ford, who served almost 2 1/2 years of Nixon's second term, he could've run only once for election, since he'd served more than two years of another President's term. If elected in 1976, President Ford would've been limited to 6 1/2 years as President, and would not be permitted to run again.



It seems to me that there is another possibility which might allow a President to serve as many as 12 years, or pretty close to it.

A former President who was elected to two terms could be sunsequently elected as Vice President, and then, upon the disability or death of the President for whom he or she serves as Vice President, could assume the office of President for the remainder of that term, but that would be it. That ascended President, having already been elected twice, would be prohibited from running for that office again.

But such scenarios beg the question, especially considering today's political environment and the strain of the Presidency: who in the name of God would wish to run for a third term anyway?

I think term limits are the one thing that the rest of the world doesn't quite comprehend about Bush. He's no Chirac. He's not going to be here forever. That's why most Americans who are of two minds about him don't really care that he was elected again. He's done. One more year people and we are free of him. This is why all this Bush bashing seems like a waste of time to me. They should spend their time instead on building a candidate for the next election.

That's a pretty valid point, which reminds me of an interesting recent observation.

It seemed to me that the 2006 mid-term elections saw Democratic Senatorial and Congressional candidates running against President Bush, rather than their opponents. I am thinking that the 2008 campaign will likely see the Democratic Presidential candidate running against President Bush as well, as opposed to the actual Republican candidate.

Curious, since the last ballot Bush appeared on, or will likely ever appear on, was in 2004...

I agree MID I noticed that as well. The Democrats did very well this last election so that might work again. But I think in general the public is sick of 911 sick of war sick of being broke and so the Democrats are poised to walk away with the next election.

However what worries me is what we are going to get stuck with the next time around.

Amen to that. I just looked at the map of the artic ice shelf that broke off in one hour. There are lot of things we REALLY need to be talking about.

Actually two more years. Although the next president will be elected in late 2008, they won't be inaugurated until January 2009.

The first link might have been a parody, but this one isn't.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH:

This is an actual bill in congress proposing the repeal of the 22nd amendment. I have seen opinion peice writers come out in favor of it, saying how Bush is the best choice to fight the war on terror.
While I believe a conspiracy exists, I think it is more complicated than we know, and that different sides of the conspiracy sometimes fight for conrol, So I think that with a democratic congress this has no chance of passing. And with Bush being as unpopular as he is, he would have to blatently steal another election because he would lose in a landslide. Plus, more and more people are starting to catch on everyday, and I think the election in 06, coupled with a Dem win in 08 will be designed to let some steam out of the boiler before the whole thing blows. So don't worry too much about Bush staying president, he is gone in 08 barring another staged terror event. It is time to start looking at the front running Dem canidates and see where their loyalties lie.

I wish US presidents could serve no more than one term of office. That would prevent the bad ones from doing more damage. I'm highly intuitive, and I knew that when Bush was re-elected, we were headed for trouble. I got a strong feeling as though he was trying to do as much damage as he could while in office.

While this would prevent the bad presidents from doing more damage, it would also prevent the good presidents from doing more good. I think I'll take my chances --in my opinion, there hasn't been a good president in office since John F. Kennedy was assassinated.

http://ashiana.conforums.com/index.cgi

~ Isis

Yes Bella that ice thing scares the heck out of me. Isis what do you feel for the new year. I feel there will be lots of changes for the better.

O.K., here is a potential senario for those of you that might actually know:

During his term in office, President "X" declares a "National State of Emergency" and suspends the constitution. (Let's say it was due to a Soviet nuclear attack). During this time, he takes the reigns of the military. (He is commander and chief, after all). After a period of time, he is supposed to explain his actions to Congress. What if he dissolved Congress during this "National State of Emergency"? Wouldn't he then be POTUS until a new Congress could be convened?

The POTUS is able to lead the U.S. into an "Act of War" without Congress giving him the authorization to declare war. Once again, he is supposed to go before Congress and explain his actions. What if he were to use his "Presidential War Powers" to dissolve Congress? Wouldn't he then have the ability to hold onto power until such a time as a new Congress can be elected and convened? Wouldn't he also have the power to determine when it would be prudent to hold said elections?

I dream up these kinds of senarios because I'm insane. None the less, I do remember hearing that during a "National State of Emergency", the POTUS could declare nation wide martial law and under such a circumstance, civil elections can be postponed until it is determind to be prudent. Wouldn't he then be the only one who had the power to determine when it would be "prudent"?

Bare in mind, I heard this in the Pre-9/11 - Pre-Patriot Acts years.

Hi Truethat:

Well, I feel good about the new year. I don't know if you believe in psychics or not, but one world-renown psychic predicts that this will be a "comfortable" year. When she says comfortable, she means as opposed to 2006. She says there won't be terrorist attacks in the US, and that gas prices will go down. She says we'll all have up and down times, but it won't be as bad as some people think.

I believe in the power of positive thinking so maybe if we keep our chin up, we can really make this a better year. You feel there will be lots of changes for the better? In which way, if I may ask. Any predictions?

http://ashiana.conforums.com/index.cgi

Happy New Year, Truethat.

~ Isis

Well I feel like people are sick of fighting. Fighting abroad and fighting here in the states. Fighting between left and right. Democrat republican atheist and religious.

I feel as though things are going to work out between these groups that will suddenly come to a head. Maybe we are too exhausted but if you take a look at our American young celebrities you see a total mess. There are no young women who are classy and relaxed. Everyone seems to be on a weekend bender to hell and I think somethings got to give. These younger generations need to have creative voice and not just a voice of anger.

I think creativity is going to blossom in some way that will take us back to the ability to really chill and relax. I think most of us don't realize that we have forgotten how to do that.

The Mr Bush , he make laws to stay forever to protect you from bogus terrorist with his grabs of big power . Hitler would be of proud. He is steal of your corpus of habeas with commission of the militarys act. You can be picked up and be called 'terrorist! and take away to die in gulag, no trial for you to say i no terrorist. And way mr bush think terrorist hide every corner, that maybe good of chance.


bye bye habeas corpus

There is the thought that if another "terrorist attack" happens on U.S. soil...Bush and his cronies could use that incident to declare "Martial Law".If he is able to declare martial law...he could go a step further and jail members of Congress who disagree with him by claiming that they are "in league with terrorists",thereby negating any opposition to his plans...as well as padding the Congress with only those who are willing to follow his rule.

Plus,with martial law being declared...any and all elections can and would be suspended until such time as the state of martial law is lifted.

Not a very rosy scenario,is it?

Such quaint little almost english attempt by member glorious nation Kazakhstan!. Perhaps you not realize movie was, how you say, "parody" and this acting Borat is now cute, but boring it is, no?

Perhaps Borat also not know that distinguished Olberman make fool of self like many members Congress of glorius nation America by NOT READING BILL BEFORE MAKING SILLY COMMENTS?

...Jeez.

S3930, H.R. 6054, needs to be read before being commented upon so unwisely.

If you, and Olberman, and most of Congress who passed it so readily, had read it, they would fully realize that this bill has absolutely nothing to do with the Bill of Rights or the Constitution of the United States. Those documents still apply to those whom the documents were intended to address and protect...United States Citizens.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 applies to ALIENS. NOT U.S. CITIZENS. Further it applies only to ALIEN ILLEGAL ENEMY COMBATANTS...which again, excludes any U.S. Citizen from its provisions.

Any U.S. Citizen who engages in the actions described in the corpus of this bill would be addressed under a different provisions of U.S. law: treason, murder, domestic terrorism, etc...nasty stuff for which after trial and conviction, a death sentence would likely be ordered (perhaps citizen glorius nation Kazakhstan remember McVeigh, Oklahoima City bomber guy?). But a U.S. citizen, even commiting such heinous acts, would be allowed the use of the writ of habeas corpus...despite the fact that the doctrine of innocent until proven guilty generally makes the writ unnecessary in most criminal proceedings.

So, silly is idea that corpus of habeas is stoled by Bush president is dumb. No thing happen like this.

English lessons, maybe even degree of law, and read bill would be of benefit to understand.

As MID pointed out with his quote of Amendment 22, Bush can not extend his term beyond his current term. There is (I believe) a way in which he could become President again. It was discussed in the UK when Ronald Reagan was reaching the end of his second term. Being neither American or an expert on politics and/or law I am happy to be corrected if this is wrong but this it what was proposed. It revolves around the exact wording of that Amendment:



There is nothing to prevent an ex-President being elected to the office of Vice President. Upon the death or resignation of the President the Vice President would take his place. Since he has not been elected to the Office of President he would not be breaking the 22nd Amendment.

I think you are absolutely correct, Waspie.

No, not at all. That is sort of how Hitler did it in the 1930's. As I remember there was a lot of hub-bub about Clinton doing something like that in the 1990's in responce to the Alfred P. Murrah bombing. There were even rumors going around that he planned to have Militia leaders arrested or killed in Waco style actions.

Edit: I decided not to post a link to the site because it contains information presented by a paramilitary style organisation. PM me if you want the link. Some people might mistake it for a terrorist group and I don't want to upset them.

It poses a quandary to me as well.

But I have to look at history and wonder, not about us being sick of 9-11 and war, and all those things (after all, being sick of war is not at all un-natural...who, besides perhaps terrorists in the Middle East aren't sick of violence and killing et.al...?).

But on a relative scale, I wonder where this country has moved in the years since the 1940s, when we were in a world war, and where we spent 4 years desperately fighting multiple enemies on a couple of fronts.

We today are barraged by media reports of such statistics as:

"The most deadly month yet....110 Americans killed..."


And yet...in 1941, millions lined up to volunteer to fight after Pearl Harbor.
Over the course of those 4 years of WW2, if a report came back that we had lost 110 Americans in a month, there might have been a ticker tape parade in celebration. Why?

Because, every day in WW2, about 280 Americans died in combat.
Yes, that's right. 280 Americans died EVERY DAY. The average monthly death toll for Americans was over 8,000 men.

Now, we've been involved in Iraq for 3 years and have averaged about 1,000 men killed per year. In world War 2, it was over 100,000 men a year. Thus, looking at this coldly, from a statistical standpoint, one can easily see that we've lost 1% of the people we lost in WW2.

We've also been fighting a battle against a cowardly, unseen enemy...one that uses defenseless civilians in a covert plot to destroy us. They committed cowardly acts of terrorism against us, killing almost 3000 Americans. So, we fight them. We wear uniforms, and openly engage them. They wear none and hide behind civilian garb, behind some crazed ideology, and behind civilians and their own children. They torture and murder and commit heinous acts against defenseless people, they behead people on TV while we watch, powerless to help. Our troops stand in uniform in the open, while they hide, un-uniformed, and ambush us. They will not face us openly, because they can't...and have any hope of winning. They will not fight us honorably, because they will die trying, so, they stay in the shadows, hiding behind their children and civilians.

We are thus limited in what we can or will do. They are not, and take advantage of every opportunity to be cowardly.

We have never fought such an enemy in history, and yet...

We complain about 100 men being killed in a month, when comparatively, that statistic indicates that we're alot better at this sort of thing than we used to be. We cry about pulling out, and allowing these lunatics to continue unabated with their plans, instead of increasing our activities and eliminating them, and we scream about passing a law which simply affirms and clarifies the right fact that these people do not deserve, and are not entitled to the rights that legal alien enemy combatants are, and always have been entitled to by law.

I wonder what has happened in this country to allow such a situation to exist. I wonder why we've grown tired...if we actually have, of protecting ourselves, which, despite the mainstream media's portrayals, is precisely what we're doing.


I wonder if perhaps, being tired as we are, we need to see a few more beheadings of innocents on our TVs, perhaps we need to hear their screams of agony and their deperate pleas for mercy...or perhaps we need to see another high-rise building rammed by a jet full of defenseless people, who perish in an instant....only to watch more people who earlier that day, kissed their wives and children good bye as they left for work, only to find themselves desparately jumping 800 feet to a quicker death than the impending inferno around them would provide.

With all due respect to the 3000 people who have passed in this war (and it is indeed deepest respect), and their families, and with the understanding that 3000 deaths are indeed 3000 tragedies, I say (and I think with the full support of the American service people who are serving now), we need to grow up and see what's happening, and what needs to be done, and get off this I'm too tired crap.

Being tired of it is fine, but that should prompt people to do what is necessary to end it...not to complain like a bunch of whining children. Ending it...will take guts.

If you're too intent on your comfort, a comfort brought about and insured by people like those 3000 people who have passed honorably, and the many hundreds of thousands before them, it would do well to wake up and smell the coffee. We are in a battle for our lives.

In WWII we were fighting an enemy who was just as insidious but at least did not hide behind civilians in the manner of the terrorists. Also, we bombed entire cities and civilian deaths were written off as "the cost of doing business".

During the entervening years, the U.S. prospered and a tv moved into nearly every home. Many people who other wise wouldv'e never known what a war was all about watched as Kim Phuk, a naked Vietmanese girl ran naked down a dirt road crying after her family had been killed infront of her.

The American public started to think "What if that was my daughter?". We lost out stomach for unintended casualties. Compare this with the people in the lands we now find ourselves fighting in. Many there, if they had ever even seen a television, only saw the glorious army as the state wanted it to be portrayed. A cleaned up cartoon of what war really is. When they finally saw a real war in thier own streets, they naturally compared it to what they thought the war was supposed to look like and just assumed that th U.S. is a brutal, evil nation.

Insurgents and terrorists used that perception against the U.S. They knew that war was an ugly business. They hide bombs in schools, terror leaders in mosques, and suicide bombers in homes. When the military hits these targets out of nescessity, they play it like a fiddle. They make sure that it gets ont he wire and the television. They know that it will shock the concience of the Iraqis and they know that when the American public sees it, we will all remember seeing a ten year old asian girl screaming through her tears, running naked down a dirt road.

10 years is the max. It will go to the next in line if that were to ever happen.

1. President, 2. Vice President, 3. Speaker of the House, 4. ????????

#4, accoring to the Presidential Succession act of 1947, would be the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, which I think is Robert Byrd.
Then Cabinet members in order of the establishment of their offices:

Secretaries of:

State
Treasury
Defense
The Attorney General
Interior
Agriculture....
etc...in that order.


Need we go further? Naaa.


I hope President Bush and Vice President Cheney stay healthy!