News Will Bush Hand Over the Presidency Peaceably in 2009?

[franznietzsche]

(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. )

I was talking about candidates being selected by corporations before the primaries, which as known fact, as opposed to supposed voting fraud.

 

[pattylou]

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.

 

[franznietzsche]

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.

Yes, but my point is that Democrats are just as corporate selected as Republicans--its just a different set of corporations.

 

[BobG]

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.

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term limits - something that has to be passed by Congress and then ratified by the states (just as the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment).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).

 

[franznietzsche]

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).

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.