Posted on 11/29/2005 5:05:55 PM PST by DBeers
There’s been a lot of weird Neo-Con activity that would indicate that they would like to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution and run George Bush for a third term. This, to me, explains the sudden attack on PBS since it is the last vestige of a free press now that the various National papers and the big TV networks are held hostage by large corporations.
If you think I’m kidding here is a bill introduced in the house this February by both Democrats and Republicans including a Congressman from Wisconsin, Sensenbrenner as well as the Dem. House Whip, Hoyer. The bill has one article and one sentence only:
`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.’.
(Excerpt) Read more at dvorak.org ...
President Bush - A Third Term?
What do you think?
If nothing else -the effort or perceieved effort to ammend the Constitution so that it would be possible even if unsuccessful or simply an act of strategery would drive the moonbats nutty to the point they could do nothing but babble incoherently!
I think even Bush fans would oppose this one. Anyway, a constitutional amendment is extremely difficult to achieve. Not likely in my opinion.
If you want FReepers to read articles you write yourself, post the whole thing here and quit floggin your blog.
Rubbish.
Where's the tin foil?
The way the left goes crazy every time Bush gesticulates one might think he is running again.
Not worth a comment....
Note that the 22nd includes: "But this Article shall not
apply to any person holding the office of President when
this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not
prevent any person who may be holding the office of
President, or acting as President, during the term within
which this Article becomes operative from holding the
office of President or acting as President during the
remainder of such term."
The 22nd only passed because it was not retroactive (to
the sitting POTUS, then Truman(D). There would be strong
resistance to making the repeal retroactive to the
sitting president, which this bill is, as written.
Anyway, this junk began late in the Clinton epoch, and
the name "Clinton" is enough to keep most GOP from
voting for it. Similarly, the name "Bush" will keep
most Dems from voting for it.
In any case, the ratification takes essentially forever
(nearly 4 years for enactment, in the case of the 22nd).
Bottom line: ain't gonna happen.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH--! Delusional.
Twilight Zone ping!
LOL - this humor... Yes I know it won't happen -I was just fantasizing regarding the moonbats that would jump off building thinking it was "in the works" or possibility etcetera...
Plus -this disucssion is good troll bait...
You're right. It's not important, accurate, or even interesting.
Good point -floating those ideas would probably be good for several moonbat coronaries...
LOL yes -I just needed something with a url to post my question...
> ... this humor... Yes I know it won't happen -I was
> just fantasizing regarding the moonbats that would
> jump off buildings ...
They don't need a Catch-22nd fantasy. They already have
the very real threat of Bush-III (Jeb) which requires
no amending of Amendments.
To get them started, suggest that Cheney is going to
step down just before the primaries in 2008, Bush-II
will suddenly announce the death of bin Laden, then
appoint Bush-III to the VP slot. Jeb will sweep to
victory on an army of rigged Diebold voting machines,
or something like that :-)
With Hillary running for her 3rd term as Co-President, with Bill--- it's already happening.
Well, Bush was appointed the first term so really he was never really President. So I say, go for it!
:-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.