February 10, 2006

• Sure. Good Effin Luck. They tried introducing this with Ronald Reagan, too. It didn't pass then, and it won't pass now. And if they did succeed in passing it, I would like to think that the people of the United States will not get fooled a third time.
• Whatever. If people want to bitch so much, they should stop voting for him.
• Dating myself here, but one of my earliest memories is of people saying the same thing about Jimmy Carter. I feel like a tinfoil-hatter for saying it, but it really wouldn't shock me if there was an element of truth to it. I can see "national security" being invoked, fear being mongered, emergency war measures created, etc. Of course, the Party can just as easily find someone else of the same stripe to take the job.
• It makes no sense to have term limits on the Presidency and none on the House and Senate. Either term limits for all, or term limits for none.
• I think this happens with every two term president. A year ago 3 years ago Jimmy Carter, President, 1977-81: "[One of the] changes I would like to see in the Constitution: Elect Presidents for one six- or seven-year term." Gerald Ford, President, 1974-77: "I would favor repeal of the 22nd Amendment that imposes a two-term limitation on a President's service." Big deal
• Just to remind everyone in the US, pols frequently introduce amendments that won't make it through the long and involved process to get them made official, but which give them credit in their home districts fir a good try. If the bill is passed (2/3 majority in each house,) the amendment must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. The ratification process takes years. There's a general 7 year time limit, but some amendments have been given longer passage time. (A 1789 amendment, which did not include a limit on time, was finally ratified in 1992.) The original amendment which imposed the 2 term limit was a Republican initiative, in response to Democrat Franklin Roosevelt having been elected to 4 consecutive terms.
• It's been my opinion that there are two moves which would finally sink Bush's battleship; Getting such an amendment shoved through the system; and bringing back the draft. Which, btw, they'll have to do if they stomp on into Iran.
• Yeah, if only we'd reserved our military forces to, say, go after an oppressive regime that was a terrorist haven and bent on getting the bomb. We might have, you know, been able to do something then. *sigh* The amendment will never pass, and if it does, Coltrane will come back from the dead and praise Kenny G as a musical genius before 3/4 of the states ratify. The original amendment which imposed the 2 term limit was a Republican initiative, in response to Democrat Franklin Roosevelt having been elected to 4 consecutive terms. Ah, Washington. An absurdist's paradise. Same thing with the whole special prosecutor thing -- they smacked it down in Congress during Bush I. Then Clinton came to office, and suddenly they loved the idea. Now they hate it again.
• No such ammendment should EVER be allowed to apply to a sitting president. You should have to pass it before the elections, and it could then only apply to the NEXT president, assuming we still HAVE legal elections. That way, they have to think twice before creating such a stupid law.
• Mord - since it takes years to pass an amendment, no sitting 2 term president would benefit from the passage, unless he was re-elected years after leaving initial office. The proposed amendment is grandstanding by those who proposed it. It may get THEM relected, but George will probably be so ensconsed in a Halliburton mondo-paying job by the time it's clear whether it was ratified that he wouldn't want to face the effort to gain a third term, especially after all his screw-ups. We should now set up a movie night and watch Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, to remind ourselves that there have been some idealistic times in our history.
• Every few years one party or the other blows the dust off the 22nd amendment repeal. I'm not too concerned. Wake me up when it passes both houses and is about to be sent to the states.
• Good point path, nevertheless it was proposed in 2005. It takes more than 3 years to get an ammendment through? They know it won't apply to the current President, so why is it always a partisan proposal? Are they that sure they can win again? Yeah, grandstanding for the folks back home who loved the Pres. Scares the willies out of me, even when I like the President.
• Mord - if it was introduced in 2005, and hasn't even made it past the congressional barrier, I'd guess it doesn't stand a chance in hell of going to the states for ratification. If the Congress was taking it seriously, they'd have pushed it through in the initial stage. If you read my earlier comment, it takes more than 3 years to get an amendment passed, since the next step is ratification by 3/4 of the states. To reiterate, 7 years is a good number. Don't panic!
• I don't think anyone really wants another FDR. And I say that as an admirerd of his work and time in office.
• I think the idea of this amendment is really scary (though I have commented about it, before, that it'll turn around and bite the asses of anyone who gets it passed when Clinton runs and wins a third time - he became awfully popular after a few years of Bush). Howevs... another reason I don't think it would pass is that many, many of the congresspeople whose votes would be needed are people who have presidential ambitions themselves, and don't want to have to fight a 20-year incumbent. This would be an issue even if it didn't take years to pass an amendment. Just now, even if it would benefit Bush, I think it would be hard for him to pressure it through... he's trying to leverage congressional Republicans these days by threatening to withdraw White House support for their reelection campaigns this fall. And I don't think that's going to work as well as it used to, because given his unpopularity, we may be getting to the point where his support may be more detrimental to a candidate than anything. I doubt that BushCo would actively mess up an unsupportive Republican's reelection campaign, either: the alternative is another Democrat coming to Congress, one who might vote for impeachment. I think that no matter what Bush does in the future to pressure moderate Republicans, it has a good chance of backfiring on him in a nasty way. I think if Bush tries to weasel his way into another term, it'll be via invoking "national security" and not allowing elections in 2008. Remains to be seen.
• Only one of the sponsoring Representatives was a Republican. And they have a point; the founding fathers didn't think such a rule was necessary, it was only added (much) later. Should it ever be repealed, however, it would probably result in the reelection of William Jefferson Clinton to a third term. If GW Bush has done anything, it's make Clinton look good even to many of his past detractors. http://democraticwhip.house.gov/media/press.cfm?pressReleaseID=1028
• Merc, no one looks at my links... sob cry sob
• You whiny little bitch-pantses don't deserve Dear Leader for another 4-year plan. Go back to worshipping your Clintonian false gods, you unfaithful film of scum. Great Leader Bush - the illuminated one, the all-powerful warrior who, because of his endurance and inflexible will to win, will go from conquest to conquest, leaving fire in his wake - he is too good, too beautiful for the likes of you. Perhaps he will rise again in Canada, among those who are worthy of him. But not for you - YOU made fun of his speechifications. Fuck YOU.
• Interesting that it was sponsored mostly by Dems; I didn't realize that. However, I don't think it's a good idea, based on all the problems with the last two elections. We currently have a leader who many people feel has cheated in two elections, and other people feel won fairly despite questions. If all the conspiracy theorists are correct... it seems like fixing elections by the methods supposedly already used would be the way to essentially become Diktator For Life. I don't think we'd like that in the case of someone from any political party.
• PS quid, NO BANANAS FOR DEAR LEADER.
• I'm drawing offensive political cartoons depicting quidnunc as a card-carrying ACLU member.
• I refuse to purchase products made by you! I set fire to your overseas plenipotentiaries! I take to the streets, shouting obscenities and calling for your death! I take a break for a cool, refreshing cola - happily noting that my enjoyment of its crisp and tangy taste is only increased by my knowledge of its low-calorie composition! I shake my fist at you from beyond the waves! GRR!
• And I, in response, sit idly, harrumph (ok, admittedly that was actually a stifled belch, but it's the thought that counts) and twirl my finger around my ear in the universal gesture of "you're a nutjob"!
• MonkeyFilter: Worshipping your Clintonian false gods. MonkeyFilter: The conspiracy theorists are correct. MonkeyFilter: Leaving fire in its wake
• Speaking of the last one, I'm glad to see Quinunc also knows the late Mobuto Sese Seko's full name. (Mobuto Sese Seko Kuku Ngbendu Wa Za Banga for those of you playing at home)
• "you're a nutjob"! HOW DARE YOU INSULT MY NUTS AND MY JOB! I willfully misinterpret your intentions! I ascribe blame to parties other than the original wrongdoer! I attack the flags and associated symbols of you, tearing them to smaller pieces than they were originally composed of! I take a nap! I continue to seethe with rage!
• Quinunc What fresh hell is this, BeeGuy?
• 
• Notice my subtle use of irony which, juxtaposed with the negative space, symbolizes the ascendancy of the military-industrial complex and the challenge to the supremacy of the human brought on by developments in artificial intelligence. Also, I drew him without a pee-pee.
• The hair - the eyes - the lack of genitals - my god! Its true ... it's all true! *cries*
• you unfaithful film of scum May I have permission to use this on several thousand people who have pissed me off? Also, is that tongue depicted accurately?
• All hail King George! Good job, BearGuy. Monkeyfilter: HOW DARE YOU INSULT MY NUTS!
• MCT, that is unquestionably the most beautiful piece of art not sculpted out of feces I've ever seen. Bravo!
• Monkeyfilter: The Hair -- The Eyes -- The Lack of Genitals
• It takes more than 3 years to get an ammendment through? Let's meet our good friend the 27th Amendment, submitted for ratification with the Bill of Rights in September 1789 and ratified in May 1992. It's the amendment so nice that Kentucky and North Carolina ratified it twice. (And it's a boring amendment. It basically says that a sitting Congress can't give itself a raise; the raise takes effect after the next general election.)
• *dies laughing* *is dead* hey, that's not cool! (but at least I didn't choke on a pretzel.)
• I'd say the 27th amendment is an aberration, kirkaracha. There hasn't been an amendment proposed in at least 50 years (and probably more) that doesn't have a sunset clause. For example, the ERA had a deadline before which it had to be passed by the 38 required states.