Posted on 01/15/2009 11:10:42 AM PST by curth
Among our civil rights industry, our "intellectual" class and the "moderate" ruling class (i.e., the Rat Party formerly the traditional Democratic Party) the current basis for any historical perspective of America is that African-Americans are not considered persons, America being the most hateful, bigoted, racist country ever.
Therefore the Twenty-Second Amendment does not apply to Obama?
We are so screwed.
WOW...thanks. I’ll see if I can find some....seriously!
If he abolishes the ban on third terms, Bill Clinton will return to the White House before Obambi does. Hillary Clinton was just a proxy co-presidency for a runaround the Constitutional ban on third terms.
Yeah I looked him up after posting and saw where he was from. Still doesn’t change him from the POS that he is.
Yeah. That’ll happen. Just needs 3/4 of the states to approve. /s
I have had these sinister thoughts since the turd got elected. He isn’t even in charge and his useful idiots are starting it already. Rough times ahead folks, I suggest prayer and a whole lot of it.
“The theory behind the 22nd Amendment is that modern day presidents exercise too much power and authority to be allowed access to it for very long.”
But the United States is first and foremost about “individual freedom”, which necessitates limits on government power. But to a liberal there is no such thing as “too much power”. That explains the knee jerk hostility of the left to the rights of states. We have to maintain the powers reserved for states to protect us from mob rule.
This looks like we may see an attack on the requirementf of a 2/3 state majority to amend the Constitution. We have already seen blatant disregard for the Constitution by the Supreme Court, and at least verbal assaults on the electoral college in presidential elections.
I figured that they would try and set The One up to be “President for Life”—they are moving earlier than I thought.
He can have a first, second, and third term. In prison.
I couldn't think of a third term without getting crude.
The author can't spell and can't add. Somehow he added two four year terms and came up with ten years as the total.
...which limits presidents to two consecutive terms or ten years in office.
You’ve never had Garetts.
Its expensive...but once you taste it, you understand why...or maybe ‘rationalize’ is the better term...(chuckle)
Sure haven’t. I always looked at those big tins of popcorn as paying a premium for the tin and getting popcorn as a bonus. Until a few years ago, you could go to the providers of the theater popcorn and buy huge bags (lawleaf sized bags, for kids party goodies) for less than it costs to buy the corn, and do the popping and seasoning.
Its worth it. The best cheddar cheese popcorn on the planet in my experience.
They never took away the "MOTION to RECOMMIT" which gave the minority at least some leverage on what was contained in the bills that they were powerless to stop.
And NO I would not like PERMANENT control because it is unconstitutional as that would mean DICTATORSHIP.
However, the US Constitution means zilch to the LEFT so there is nothing to stop them from trying to obtain PERMANENT CONTROL.
It seems that the Democrats are willing to be more cut-throat than Republicans. Perhaps Republicans don’t know how to govern and maintain their control, it would seem. That might take some rethinking on their behalf.
You were saying — “And NO I would not like PERMANENT control because it is unconstitutional as that would mean DICTATORSHIP.”
It’s all in the understanding of the meaning of what was said. :-) ... and that comes down to “qualifiers” (which many people don’t take the time to put in a sentence). Around here — on Free Republic — it seems that if one doesn’t “qualify” a statement to the last minute detail, that someone can make it to be something different than what was given. And that’s the case here.
The context and meaning of my statement — “Well, I would venture a guess that the Republicans would like permanent control just as much...”
I still think *that* is the case — because everyone talked about it here, when they were in control (in that the conservatives did not want the Democrats to get back in control again). But, the “qualifier” here (which is in the context of the statement anyway, in a normal sense) is that Republicans want to maintain permanent control — over the long term — by always having enough votes in the public to always have a majority and always have it in both sides of Congress and always have it in the Presidency. Now, if that’s how the “voting public” does — for every election — I would say that Republicans would want that — and never have the Democrats be voted in office, in a majority, by the voters.
So, yes..., the Republicans would like that — and no, it’s not a dictatorship, if the voting public puts them in office all the time and they maintain control of the legislative and executive branches of the government.
Do, I think that can happen? No..., I don’t — but I know that Republicans wish it to be true... LOL...
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.