…Just in time for Dear Leader’s presidency:
Enabling dictatorship?
I dunno. It’s exceedingly hard to get an amendment passed. Normally, the Dems try to accomplish all their legislation from the bench. But it is illustrative of their tendencies.
I thought amendments had to either get a super majority or unanimous state approval.
This won’t go anywhere.
Boy the timing is ironic. Isn’t it weird that this comes up when the dems have majorities in 2 of the branches and a messianic president…The timing is impeccable.
I bet the next bill will repeal the 4 year limit and make it a kingship…
Clinton has been pushing for this for a while.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Clinton has been pushing for this for a while.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure the 2nd amendment is gone during the next 8 years. I don’t think this has any chance of succeeding, because it requires a 2/3 majority and state ratification. But they’ll be able to ban everything except single-shot 22LR pistols and hunting rifles, I bet. Better start figuring out how to stash your black rifles.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
tedro wrote:
Clinton has been pushing for this for a while.
I’m pretty sure the 2nd amendment is gone during the next 8 years. I don’t think this has any chance of succeeding, because it requires a 2/3 majority and state ratification. But they’ll be able to ban everything except single-shot 22LR pistols and hunting rifles, I bet. Better start figuring out how to stash your black rifles. [/quote]
I recall a wise man once telling me that if you need to bury them, then you need to dig them up.
mike
Looks like its time to invest in a few weapons myself.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Clinton has been pushing for this for a while.[/quote]
And? Reagan pushed for it too. Stop playing like it’s all left of the aisle.
Lest you all forget, a few democrats and a republican also presented a bill back in 2005 trying to get the 22nd amendment repealed. So to act as if they’re doing this now just because of Obama, I don’t think so.
Even then, I thought that if they did repeal the 22nd that the current officeholder would still be bound by the old provisions. Correct?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I thought amendments had to either get a super majority or unanimous state approval.[/quote]
Constitutional amendments, when proposed by two-thirds of the house and senate, need only be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures to become law.
LOL@ the scare tactics.
I really don’t see the harm in longer term limits. people will vote every 4 years anyway. If they are going to vote an idiot into office anyway, does it really matter if it’s the same old idiot?
The problem is not term limits. It’s the voting public casting ill advised votes.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
I really don’t see the harm in longer term limits. people will vote every 4 years anyway. If they are going to vote an idiot into office anyway, does it really matter if it’s the same old idiot?
The problem is not term limits. It’s the voting public casting ill advised votes.[/quote]
How is that a problem?
Assuming a democratic system that is practically a built in condition of the system.
The question should be what do the limits of that system have to be to make that less of a problem.
I think classical liberalism gave an excellent answer and it definitely had the right approach. A systemic problem needs a systemic answer, for there will always idiots.
edit: and there is always the question of rational ignorance. In most cases it would be waste of time to care about the issues you vote upon.
Hopefully it will be repealed by the time I’m old enough to cast my hat in for president. I’ll buy everyone’s votes with a protein powder rebate. Also, I’ll legalize and regulate drugs and steroids. If the whole Afghan/Iraq thing is still going I’ll also pull out troops after bringing peace to the Middle East. After that i think I’ll walk on water or turn it into wine not sure yet. Then I’ll publicly announce that I need to get a dog for my children after writing them a letter about why I ran for office. I’ll make sure not to salute the flag and maybe my wife will finally be proud to be an American for the first time…a guy can dream.
Seriously, I’ve never understood why I can legally vote at 18 but can’t run for most major offices until I’m twice that age.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
I really don’t see the harm in longer term limits. people will vote every 4 years anyway. If they are going to vote an idiot into office anyway, does it really matter if it’s the same old idiot?
[/quote]
Robert Mugabe seems to have managed to keep getting elected and elected ever since 1980. Look how many times Suharto and Saddam managed to win the popular vote in their respective countries.
Sometimes it matters very much if it’s the same old idiot. The amount of harm an idiot can do in eight years is relatively limited. The amount he can do in twenty years is boundless. Especially if he’s no idiot.
I’m infinitely more concerned with congress and their lack of term limits.
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
I’m infinitely more concerned with congress and their lack of term limits.[/quote]
Well, we’d have to get…congress to vote for term limits. You’ve got a better chance of dying in office than being voted out, which is why we see only fossils in the Senate.