Posted on 11/11/2007 7:16:19 PM PST by RDTF
BILL CLINTON is finding it difficult to transfer voters’ affections for him to his wife as opponents exploit concerns that two dynasties – the Bush and Clinton families – could dominate American politics for 28 years.
-snip-
The United States, however, considers itself to be a more mature democracy. Grover Norquist, one of America’s most influential Republican activists, aims to turn the question of dynasty into a campaign issue.
“It will be ridiculous to have Mr President and Madam President in the White House,” he said. “We’re the United States of America. How can we say to President Mubarak [of Egypt], ‘You can’t hand off the presidency to your son, it’s got to be your wife’ or, ‘Hey Syria and North Korea, you’ve got to knock this stuff off and be like us’.”
Norquist has commissioned lawyers to draw up a constitutional amendment that would ban family members from succeeding one another to elected and appointed office. If passed, it would not apply to the Clintons as a Bush was elected in between them. But Norquist believes that it will alert voters to the perils of dynasty. “Americans don’t like to go back,” he said.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Well that wouldn’t be good for Duncan Duane Hunter.
Dynasty?......No, just nasty........
I will never, ever vote for Chelsea.
The article falsely asserts that the Swift boat veterans “smeared” Kerry. They simply told the truth about him, something the mainstream media wanted kept hidden.
We don’t need dynasties, we need people capable of running an Administration.
“The article falsely asserts that the Swift boat veterans “smeared” Kerry.”
They can’t point to a falsehood, so where’s the smear?
all I can see in the article is the refernce to Bill saying Hill was ‘Swiftboated’ - but no reference to the actual Swiftboat vets. Am I missing something?
....and the Klintons aren’t those types of people.....
We don’t need an amendent...geesh.
The more they use “swift-boated” in a negative manner, the more it is countered with what it really was.
Like Bill Clinton should talk, he got swift-boated with the truth before the term even was invented!
Semi-retired racehorse’s neck
Agreed...for the same reasons I'm not happy with most term limit proposals...Any person meeting the minimal Constitution requirements to run for office should be able to, and likewise, I as a voter should be able to vote for, and ultimately elect any person I feel id best qualifed. Term limits and the proposed "blood line" amendment inhibit the freedom of candidates and voters alike.
Having said that, the problem lies with the political awarenes of the electorate and the emphasis (or lack thereof) placed on responible citizenship. In a free, democratic republic, we should, for better or worse, get the government we elect. If an eminently qualified individual of the highest moral character wants to run for a congressional seat or the White House, and I want to vote for them, it's silly to have laws that prohibit them and me from doing so. The problem lies on the other side of the equation, and that is in the voting public's ability to discern who are the eminently qualified candidates. A smart constituency will emplace place term limits on any incumbent when warranted.
you underestimate the kind of power that elected politicians have. Look at Hugo Chavez.
I think Chavez underestimates the power of a disabused citizenry. Time will tell, even though Venezuela lacks a Second Amendment...the most powerful term limit legislation ever enacted.
Exactly. If the best candidate running happens to be someone’s brother or wife, I’m still voting for the best candidate.
Me too. How about P. Bush?
Regards
If duly adopted, a constitutional amendment becomes part of the Constitution. The Constitution can't be unconstitutional, pretty much by definition. That said, amending the constitution to limit whom voters may choose is a non-starter, and it won't get a majority of Congress nor 3/4 of the states.
It should be patently unconstitutional, but who knows if it went to the Supreme Court after Hillary gets to add a couple of new justices?
Then it would be part of the Constitution. It would be the law of the land.
A duly-adopted amendment becomes part of the Constitution. Amending means changing. Adding or subtracting. The Constitution cannot, by definition, be unconstitutional. Am I speaking Esperanto here?
Don't talk to me about original intent -- the Founders' original intent was that the runner-up for president would be the vice president. The folks who actually had to govern fixed that in a hurry. They amended the Constitution. Changed it. It's been done 27 times in the last 220 years. An amendment isn't an editorial or an oh-by-the-way. It is part of the Constitution. Full stop.
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.