I suspect that regardless of who replaces Bush, the "war on terror" will pretty much go away and with it, most of what is in the Patriot Act. That does somewhat depend on catching/killing Bin Laden, but even failing that, there isn't much else to do. He and his organization is by far the biggest piece of the threat.BobG said:Are you implying that the threat will go away as soon as Bush leaves office? :rofl:
Presidents ignored the threat for decades before, so I don't see why there is any reason to assume they won't do it again.Keep in mind that the "War on Terror" has been relabeled "The Long War" and will likely last a couple of decades or so (so the threat isn't going away soon).
Well, certainly - there are some perfectly logical and reasonable "measures" that will likely stay for a long time, and rightfully so. Ie, I personally think it is logical and reasonable to make every passenger pass through a metal detector and x-ray every bag going on a plane. I doubt that will go away. Other security measures, such as no-fly/walk/drive zones around some areas, probably will go away.Sooner or later, we have to quit pretending our measures are just temporary to get a through a short term crisis. We have to decide just what the balance should be between liberty and security.
Democrats don't do foreign policy fear, they do economic fear, and it is reasonable to assume that the next Democratic candidate will follow the same mold the last few have. The Republican strategy also has a good chance of being different from Bush's due to his lack of popularity. Ie, remember the lengths Gore went to to distance himself from Clinton as the floor fell out from underneath him, economically? It didn't work, but the point is, he didn't just try to be an extension of Clinton and the next Republican probably won't be trying to mold himself after Bush.How it is changed depends on the type of President we get next. Right now, fear is a pretty good campaign strategy - especially if there's no candidate expressing a more confident and positive attitude.
You miss the historical fact that Democratic party candidates like Clinton go through the same process. If I remember correctly Clinton was interviewed early on by a number of big banks (whose collective board members have their hands in every major corporation in the country), and they chose him, gave him early financing, and he gave out a few treasury department appointments to them.pattylou said:Sure he'll hand it over peacably, to the next republican who is picked by the corporations and e-voting machines.
pattylou said:(Your argument about democrats going through the same process would carry more weight if the evoting vendors were split in their political preferences. they're not. )
pattylou said:Well, certainly independents (without corporate sponsorship) run in every election cycle, and fraud of one sort or another is present in every cycle.... so I expect we are roughly agreeing, that elections are sub-optimal and not representative of the will of the people.
Presidential term limits were enacted via the 22nd Amendment. An amendment is a change to the constitution - in other words, becomes part of the constitution.franznietzsche said:I honestly believe that Bush fancies himself as George IV. I honestly laugh at liberals who still care about Roe v Wade and think it matters. What really matters is that every one of George's judicial appointments have clear records of promoting the expansion of executive power. Its for this reason that I am willing to predict a push to eliminate presidential term limits within a decade, because its possible it could get through.
What I meant was that there is a clear push towards putting people into government that favor the expansion of executive power. As the courts move that way, the legislature will as well.BobG said:Presidential term limits were enacted via the 22nd Amendment. An amendment is a change to the constitution - in other words, becomes part of the constitution.
It would take a new amendment, repealing the 22nd, to eliminate Presidential term limits - something that has to be passed by Congress and then ratified by the states (just as the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment).
That makes the make-up of the court irrelevant, since it would be hard for any court to declare the Constitution, or some part of the Constitution, as unconstitutional.
The only way the court could conceivably figure into this is if the amendment's approval process were suspect. The 22nd took nearly 4 years to be ratified, which makes it one of the three longest ratification periods, but it doesn't even compare to the longest (the 27th Amendment took 203 years to be ratified by the states and easily has the most questionable approval and ratification process).