[jjacob]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...H.J.RES.24.IH:

Don't know how much truth there is to this (but seeing as though it's from the library of congress), but are these guys seriously suggesting they want a third term of Bush?

[RLacey]

Maybe they want Clinton back or something .

Or, maybe they just want to attempt to remove the absolutely crazy lame duck period that exists in American politics. Or something.

[jjacob]

Or maybe they want a dictatorship allowing a president unlimited terms in office

[RLacey]

Well, he does still have to get elected. In Britain there's no limit to the number of terms that a Prime Minister can serve, but they never end up serving more than two or three anyway .

[jjacob]

True, that'd be a pretty big problem for the republicans. Still, I'm secretly hoping they get this through, get Bush elected for the third time, and then the people will rise up and start marching on DC, or something I'm sceptical about US politics even if the Democrats manage to grab the next elections

[Aj_]

If they wouldn't do it for Clinton, they're not going to do it for Bush.

[Melanie68]

Bush is getting less popular with Republicans as well. I don't see them trying to get him a third term.

[jjacob]

True, still, I wouldn't want to be the democrat to pick up the pieces after Bush's second term Let's just hope the dems won't chicken out again.

[Melanie68]

The Dems have been chickening out since Clinton left office. They probably even chickened out then too.

Molly Ivins always tells it like it is!

[fov]

Who knows? Some scary things have been happening in Washington. Like the president creating exceptions to hundreds of the laws he's signed, saying that those laws apply to everyone but him.

We Don't Need a New King George

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by fovely's link

And who came up with this innovative use of presidential signing statements? Drumroll, please. Samuel Alito, Supreme Court nominee, way back in 1986. In a Feb. 5 memo, he wrote, "Since the president's approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the president's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress." That is, of course, a very strange idea — which is why, until then, signing statements had been sporadic and rare. Courts have always looked solely to congressional debates in interpreting laws Congress has passed. In laws with veto-proof margins, the president's view is utterly irrelevant. Alito seemed to concede that at the time, recognizing the "novelty of the procedure and the potential increase of presidential power."

Alito, of course, didn't foresee the war on terrorism. But put a war president's power together with the new use of signing statements, and Executive clout has been put on steroids. "If you take this to its logical conclusion, because during war the Commander in Chief has an obligation to protect us, any statute on the books could be summarily waived," argued Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina.

As Graham shows, this isn't a Republican-Democrat issue. It's a very basic one. A president, Democrat or Republican, has every right to act unilaterally at times to defend the country. But a democracy cannot work if the person who is deputed to execute the laws exempts himself from them when he feels like it. Forget the imperial presidency. This is more like a monarchical one. America began by rejecting the claims of one King George. It's disturbing to think we may now be quietly installing a second one.

But... but... that's just outright scary.

[Jolaes]

Probably it is not Bush who should reign over the US but the fact that some "reforms" are on the way just proves a theory I believe in. My studies in political philosophy and history plus a basic course in sociology tell me that the so-called "democracies" of the western world are in crisis and they will crumble, one by one like ancient city states. I said so-called because we all know that "democracy" like "communism" never existed, it never can. It is just a concept. Equality (in rights) was a luxury in ancient city states, sustained by the blood of slaves. But even then it had its flaws; elections were almost always corrupted by the prestigious families. Now the situation is much worse because politicians don't not only get corrupted, they also bring the most important decisions QT, secretly, classified/sealed for a 100 years etc. Politicians keep the populace in ignorance with a good reason; all the principles of "democracy" are violated when the US goes to war to occupy strategic oil fields and the roads leading to them (->Afghanistan) because they know that riots or even a civil war would break out at home if oil ran out. Remember that mini oil crisis not so long ago? On the THIRD DAY, shotguns and automatas were drawn at many gas stations when people began to panic! ON THE THIRD DAY! So... all I want to say is that harsh times are coming and a dictator or king (in theory, if he is adept enough) is much more suited to uphold order with an iron fist than a chain of rivalling beaurocracts. It is enough to read one pivotal book; Aristotle's Politics to realize that there is really nothing new under the Sun.(esp. the treatise on ideal governmental forms in different situations)
Economically (and IMHO morally, too), the west is on a swift decline and to hold strategic positions, the individual must be subjugated to stronger central power/authority. That's why Bush's side is so strong. He is the man to bring the unpopular (but at the same time secretly coveted) decisions.

[Lucien21]

Yeah change the "Must be born in the USA" to be president rule and the 22nd Amendment and ARNIE could be president forever.

[RLacey]

Just put the English back in control of your despotic little regime. Let us show you silly Yanks how to run your country .

[Jake]

I *heart* Molly Ivins. Her books are sometimes a little bit ridiculous (though still good of course) but I love her columns and reporting.

also, thanks for that link Emily.