IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> THE CONSTITUTION, GOD BLESS AMERICA (AND GUNS)
Guest_AK_WDB_*
post Aug 28 2009, 06:37 AM
Post #1





Guests







As you all know, our country and our God-given constitutional liberties are currently under assault from a socialist communist administration that intends to reduce us to slaves of the federal government. They are trying to take over our health care system in the hopes of covertly killing all dissidents to their socialist communist agenda. We must fight back using all the constitutional rights we can muster (especially those involving the Second Amendment) to assert our liberty and stop this government takeover of Medicare.

Just kidding! But the United States Constitution really is a remarkable document, and I miss my AP Government class. During the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings, I got out the old pocket copy of the Constitution and other important documents (Declaration of Independence, Federalist papers, Supreme Court decisions, etc.) given to me by my AP Government teacher two years ago. It's a great gift.

Anyway, constitutional theory time! Come here to discuss all questions relating to the Constitution of the United States (including, yes, your rights under it) and other important documents of American democracy.

I'll start out by discussing a piece of that document that's interested me for a while: Amendment XXII. No one here is a lawyer, but I'll bet we can still have a decent discussion on these questions:
  1. Should the 22nd be repealed? Some argue that it's necessary to prevent a dictatorial presidency, while others say it harms the country by reducing second-term presidents to lame-duck status. What do you think?
  2. In light of the final clause of the 12th, does the 22nd disqualify a former two-term president (e.g. Clinton or Bush) from seeking the vice presidency? What about from succeeding to the presidency via the Presidential Succession Act?
  3. Why did we not even need this amendment until 1947? Was it just the power of George Washington's example, or something else about our democracy or the office of the presidency?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Research Monkey_*
post Aug 28 2009, 08:55 AM
Post #2





Guests






QUOTE (AK_WDB @ Aug 27 2009, 11:37 PM) *
  1. Should the 22nd be repealed? Some argue that it's necessary to prevent a dictatorial presidency, while others say it harms the country by reducing second-term presidents to lame-duck status. What do you think?
  2. In light of the final clause of the 12th, does the 22nd disqualify a former two-term president (e.g. Clinton or Bush) from seeking the vice presidency? What about from succeeding to the presidency via the Presidential Succession Act?
  3. Why did we not even need this amendment until 1947? Was it just the power of George Washington's example, or something else about our democracy or the office of the presidency?


1. Yes, I do agree with Ronald Reagan (world first?). I believe it should be repealed. It was purely a reactionary measure suggested by the Hoover Commission to ensure there could never be another FDR. Go, democracy!
2. Yes, absolutely. The wording of the 12th Amendment is unambiguous, and even if it doesn't match the diction of the 22nd, the spirit of it is quite clear. No political party would be thinking in its best interests to nominate a former President for the office, accordingly.
3. Like I said above, it was because the Republicans didn't ever want another FDR. It was purely reactionary, and it doesn't take too deep of an analysis to show examples in history that shows democratic governments are fairly safe from dictatorial leaders. Just talking post-WW2: Margaret Thatcher was challenged by her own party in 1990 after being elected to a third consecutive term, Pierre Trudeau served ten years before losing an election, etc. Many presidents are not extraordinarily popular leaving office at the ends of their second term, so it's not beyond reason to say that people do like things changed up every once in a while.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
teeling
post Aug 28 2009, 05:42 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Admin
Posts: 170
Joined: 23-March 18
Member No.: 2



if nothing else, the 22nd is certainly in the spirit of the founders, who were (i think justifiably) suspicious of a strong executive branch. a dictatorial presidency is more likely now than ever given the incredible strengthening of the executive power over the last 100 years or so.

QUOTE
Who can we blame for the radical expansion of executive power? Look no further than you and me.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9396
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_AK_WDB_*
post Aug 28 2009, 05:59 PM
Post #4





Guests






RM, on point 2: I agree about former presidents being ineligible for the vice presidency (by the clause no person...ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President) but I think it's a stretch to say they're ineligible to succeed to the presidency in some other way (e.g. from Congress). The 22nd only says no person shall be elected president more than twice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Captaink_*
post Aug 28 2009, 06:15 PM
Post #5





Guests






I'm for removing term limits with two stipulations:

1) The first two terms may be consecutive; subsequent terms may not
2) The candidate must win their party's nomination to run for the third term (i.e. no, "well let's just run george bush again in 2012")
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_AK_WDB_*
post Aug 28 2009, 06:41 PM
Post #6





Guests






QUOTE (Captaink @ Aug 28 2009, 10:15 AM) *
I'm for removing term limits with two stipulations:

1) The first two terms may be consecutive; subsequent terms may not
2) The candidate must win their party's nomination to run for the third term (i.e. no, "well let's just run george bush again in 2012")

I'm not sure quite what you mean by #2, but it would be a major break with tradition to mention political parties in the Constitution. There's not a single reference to them anywhere.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
zzzptm
post Sep 2 2009, 08:10 PM
Post #7


The Fisher King
***

Group: Emeritus
Posts: 2,083
Joined: 25-March 18
Member No.: 1



No. Term limits FTW. We need to go back to the Articles of Confederation. Those were some SWEET term limits in that constitution.


--------------------
"The world could perish if people only worked on things that were easy to handle." -- Vladimir Savchenko
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Research Monkey_*
post Sep 2 2009, 11:34 PM
Post #8





Guests






Honestly, I think I'd rather install Mitt Romney as Tsar of Glorious Tsardom of America than go back to the Articles of Confederation. We'd be about as progressive and responsive to change in either scenario, but at least with Mitt Romney, we have a head of state with good hair.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_AK_WDB_*
post Sep 2 2009, 11:36 PM
Post #9





Guests






QUOTE (Research Monkey @ Sep 2 2009, 03:34 PM) *
Honestly, I think I'd rather install Mitt Romney as Tsar of Glorious Tsardom of America than go back to the Articles of Confederation. We'd be about as progressive and responsive to change in either scenario, but at least with Mitt Romney, we have a head of state with good hair.

Ah, but you forget, zzzptm is from Texas. He still hasn't forgotten the War of Northern Aggression. tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Research Monkey_*
post Sep 2 2009, 11:44 PM
Post #10





Guests






We Yankees keep our collective pimp hand strong, yo.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Jonesy_*
post Sep 3 2009, 06:34 PM
Post #11





Guests






QUOTE (Research Monkey @ Sep 2 2009, 06:44 PM) *
We Yankees keep our collective pimp hand strong, yo.

Someone needs to photoshop a picture of Uncle Sam demonstrating that sentence tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_overly_critical_man_*
post Sep 4 2009, 07:22 AM
Post #12





Guests






QUOTE (Jonesy @ Sep 3 2009, 11:34 AM) *
QUOTE (Research Monkey @ Sep 2 2009, 06:44 PM) *
We Yankees keep our collective pimp hand strong, yo.

Someone needs to photoshop a picture of Uncle Sam demonstrating that sentence tongue.gif




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_dizzyizzy_*
post Sep 22 2009, 02:25 PM
Post #13





Guests






QUOTE (Research Monkey @ Sep 2 2009, 07:34 PM) *
Honestly, I think I'd rather install Mitt Romney as Tsar of Glorious Tsardom of America than go back to the Articles of Confederation. We'd be about as progressive and responsive to change in either scenario, but at least with Mitt Romney, we have a head of state with good hair.


Would any else here hesitate to leave mitt romney alone in a room full of children? i kinda get a weird feeling about him. he was the second-to-last person i wanted to win the nomination in '08. (last being McCain. I also cheer against the steelers, penguins, and Obama. FML.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_AK_WDB_*
post Sep 22 2009, 05:31 PM
Post #14





Guests






I'm not a fan of Mitt Romney because he's an unabashed political opportunist who says whatever he thinks people want to hear, but suggesting he's a pedophile is really uncalled for.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_TheAwesomeKid_*
post Sep 23 2009, 02:41 AM
Post #15





Guests






QUOTE (AK_WDB @ Sep 22 2009, 06:31 PM) *
I'm not a fan of Mitt Romney because he's an unabashed political opportunist who says whatever he thinks people want to hear


Apart from the unabashed part, doesn't that description generally apply to every Senator, governor, and president past and present (except maybe George Washington)?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_BadgerCam_*
post Sep 23 2009, 02:50 AM
Post #16





Guests






QUOTE (debator @ Sep 22 2009, 07:47 PM) *
come on. romney does it harder. he had a religious revelation telling him abortion was wrong? please.


Even though I am the board evangelical conservative, ^ that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Research Monkey_*
post Sep 23 2009, 02:50 AM
Post #17





Guests






QUOTE (TheAwesomeKid @ Sep 22 2009, 07:41 PM) *
QUOTE (AK_WDB @ Sep 22 2009, 06:31 PM) *
I'm not a fan of Mitt Romney because he's an unabashed political opportunist who says whatever he thinks people want to hear


Apart from the unabashed part, doesn't that description generally apply to every Senator, governor, and president past and present (except maybe George Washington)?


George Washington: cult of personality?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_TheAwesomeKid_*
post Sep 23 2009, 03:02 AM
Post #18





Guests






QUOTE (debator @ Sep 22 2009, 07:47 PM) *
come on. romney does it harder. he had a religious revelation telling him abortion was wrong? please.

A Ridiculous assertion? Of course.
Politically unheard of? Perhaps not. I think he's just less concerned about masking it than others which is why it seems to prevalent. To be a good politician, you have to tell people what they want to hear, don't you? Didn't 2008 SQ tell us that that's how Lincoln won his elections and why the Emancipation Proclamation was such a deft move?

QUOTE (BadgerCam @ Sep 23 2009, 03:50 AM) *
QUOTE (debator @ Sep 22 2009, 07:47 PM) *
come on. romney does it harder. he had a religious revelation telling him abortion was wrong? please.


Even though I am the board evangelical conservative, ^ that.


To be honest - maybe it's because you are the board evangelical conservative. Evangelicals (including me) have never been Romney's core base.

This post has been edited by TheAwesomeKid: Sep 23 2009, 03:08 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_TheAwesomeKid_*
post Sep 23 2009, 03:04 AM
Post #19





Guests






QUOTE (Research Monkey @ Sep 23 2009, 03:50 AM) *
QUOTE (TheAwesomeKid @ Sep 22 2009, 07:41 PM) *
QUOTE (AK_WDB @ Sep 22 2009, 06:31 PM) *
I'm not a fan of Mitt Romney because he's an unabashed political opportunist who says whatever he thinks people want to hear


Apart from the unabashed part, doesn't that description generally apply to every Senator, governor, and president past and present (except maybe George Washington)?


George Washington: cult of personality?


The Hero we need, not the one we deserve or something like that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Research Monkey_*
post Sep 23 2009, 03:06 AM
Post #20





Guests






Yeah, Evangelicals are probably the reason why Mitt Romney wasn't nominated, to be honest.

QUOTE (TheAwesomeKid @ Sep 22 2009, 08:04 PM) *
QUOTE (Research Monkey @ Sep 23 2009, 03:50 AM) *
QUOTE (TheAwesomeKid @ Sep 22 2009, 07:41 PM) *
QUOTE (AK_WDB @ Sep 22 2009, 06:31 PM) *
I'm not a fan of Mitt Romney because he's an unabashed political opportunist who says whatever he thinks people want to hear


Apart from the unabashed part, doesn't that description generally apply to every Senator, governor, and president past and present (except maybe George Washington)?


George Washington: cult of personality?


The Hero we need, not the one we deserve or something like that.


That's what they said about Adol...Vladimir Lenin.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th October 2018 - 07:41 AM