An Obama 3rd Term

An Obama 3rd Term (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

joether -> An Obama 3rd Term (11/1/2013 12:28:34 PM)
This is a purely hypothetical discussion; let that be stated straight out. This came up in another thread, and wished to discuss what sort of things might come up with the forum goers. The issue is to due with a popular US President seeking a third term. I use President Obama since 1 ) I like him, and 2 ) He's the current US President (knowledge on and about him is fresh in people's minds). The person in the White House could be any previous President or one yet to be named. However, the amount of 'fresh' view or relevant to the current political dynamics of the country might make it harder. During the next general election, the people of the nation vote for the current President rather than the Democrat elected in the primaries at the DNC party a few months earlier to the vote date. Normally the 22nd Amendment would come into play here: 22nd Amendment: Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term. By the wording of the 22nd, the issue seems 'open and shut' right? Not quite. Since a vote is essentially one person's direct exercising of their 1st amendment rights of 'Freedom of Speech'. The 22nd was put in place shortly after FDR left the White House in the 1940's. And attempts to repeal it have taken place since that time. There is a whole history about the 22nd amendment like all other amendments; and that maybe helpful to review. But the 22nd amendment was to PREVENT someone from running for a third term in office, right? Well, if tens of millions of people write in 'Barack Obama' when the guy was not running, would it be a 22nd amendment issue? Not directly no. And yet, it is given the definition presented in the 22nd amendment. I believe the matter would be sent to the US Supreme Court for a decision. And those nine people would have a very rough job. Since it would set two questions before the Court: 1 ) Could voters on their own circumvent an Amendment with a write-in? 2 ) Which Amendment trumps the other? If the 1st trumps the 22nd, does that then mean any Amendments that come after others have less 'standing'? Or does the 'letter of the law' supersede 'freedom of speech'?

mnottertail -> RE: An Obama 3rd Term (11/1/2013 12:35:40 PM)
Well, the electoral college wouldn't go for it, and the SCOTUS wouldn't go for it, because while you have the right to free speech, like to say we should lower taxes, or we should impeach the president, or he doesnt have a birth certificate, it does not give you the right to lower taxes, impeach the president, or remove him cuz you don't like his birth certificate, in defiance of the law. We the People, have decreed that it is two terms. Now, the interesting thing would be, if Hillary dies in office with Obama as a vice president, can he run again for one office after her overtaken term ends? There would require interpretation, I think the fuckin amendment is badly written.

DaNewAgeViking -> RE: An Obama 3rd Term (11/1/2013 1:00:08 PM)
And too, constitutional amendments are part of the constitution, and thus are not subject to review by the courts nor, inherently, can they be 'unconstitutional'. Plus I doubt Obama wants to go through this hell again, especially as Hillary Clinton is such a strong contender. [sm=dunno.gif]

DesideriScuri -> RE: An Obama 3rd Term (11/1/2013 3:13:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether This is a purely hypothetical discussion; let that be stated straight out. http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-joint-resolution/15 quote: [Congressional Bills 113th Congress] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office] [H.J. Res. 15 Introduced in House (IH)] 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. J. RES. 15 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President. _______________________________________________________________________ IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 4, 2013 Mr. Serrano introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary _______________________________________________________________________ JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification: ``Article-- ``The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.''. You put out a hypothetical. Apparently, Rep. Jose Serrano (D. NY-15) prefers to not use your hypothetical methodology. This bill was introduced and referred to committee... back in January. lol

Yachtie -> RE: An Obama 3rd Term (11/1/2013 3:33:39 PM)
I sereiously doubt one could get around the 22nd, except that interpretation could be construed as not more than two terms in sequence.

EdBowie -> RE: An Obama 3rd Term (11/1/2013 8:52:54 PM)
How would a majority write-in vote followed by the needed electoral college votes (if it happened) not 'be elected'? quote: ORIGINAL: joether This is a purely hypothetical discussion; let that be stated straight out. This came up in another thread, and wished to discuss what sort of things might come up with the forum goers. The issue is to due with a popular US President seeking a third term. I use President Obama since 1 ) I like him, and 2 ) He's the current US President (knowledge on and about him is fresh in people's minds). The person in the White House could be any previous President or one yet to be named. However, the amount of 'fresh' view or relevant to the current political dynamics of the country might make it harder. During the next general election, the people of the nation vote for the current President rather than the Democrat elected in the primaries at the DNC party a few months earlier to the vote date. Normally the 22nd Amendment would come into play here: 22nd Amendment: Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term. By the wording of the 22nd, the issue seems 'open and shut' right? Not quite. Since a vote is essentially one person's direct exercising of their 1st amendment rights of 'Freedom of Speech'. The 22nd was put in place shortly after FDR left the White House in the 1940's. And attempts to repeal it have taken place since that time. There is a whole history about the 22nd amendment like all other amendments; and that maybe helpful to review. But the 22nd amendment was to PREVENT someone from running for a third term in office, right? Well, if tens of millions of people write in 'Barack Obama' when the guy was not running, would it be a 22nd amendment issue? Not directly no. And yet, it is given the definition presented in the 22nd amendment. I believe the matter would be sent to the US Supreme Court for a decision. And those nine people would have a very rough job. Since it would set two questions before the Court: 1 ) Could voters on their own circumvent an Amendment with a write-in? 2 ) Which Amendment trumps the other? If the 1st trumps the 22nd, does that then mean any Amendments that come after others have less 'standing'? Or does the 'letter of the law' supersede 'freedom of speech'?

BamaD -> RE: An Obama 3rd Term (11/1/2013 9:02:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie How would a majority write-in vote followed by the needed electoral college votes (if it happened) not 'be elected'? quote: ORIGINAL: joether This is a purely hypothetical discussion; let that be stated straight out. This came up in another thread, and wished to discuss what sort of things might come up with the forum goers. The issue is to due with a popular US President seeking a third term. I use President Obama since 1 ) I like him, and 2 ) He's the current US President (knowledge on and about him is fresh in people's minds). The person in the White House could be any previous President or one yet to be named. However, the amount of 'fresh' view or relevant to the current political dynamics of the country might make it harder. During the next general election, the people of the nation vote for the current President rather than the Democrat elected in the primaries at the DNC party a few months earlier to the vote date. Normally the 22nd Amendment would come into play here: 22nd Amendment: Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term. By the wording of the 22nd, the issue seems 'open and shut' right? Not quite. Since a vote is essentially one person's direct exercising of their 1st amendment rights of 'Freedom of Speech'. The 22nd was put in place shortly after FDR left the White House in the 1940's. And attempts to repeal it have taken place since that time. There is a whole history about the 22nd amendment like all other amendments; and that maybe helpful to review. But the 22nd amendment was to PREVENT someone from running for a third term in office, right? Well, if tens of millions of people write in 'Barack Obama' when the guy was not running, would it be a 22nd amendment issue? Not directly no. And yet, it is given the definition presented in the 22nd amendment. I believe the matter would be sent to the US Supreme Court for a decision. And those nine people would have a very rough job. Since it would set two questions before the Court: 1 ) Could voters on their own circumvent an Amendment with a write-in? 2 ) Which Amendment trumps the other? If the 1st trumps the 22nd, does that then mean any Amendments that come after others have less 'standing'? Or does the 'letter of the law' supersede 'freedom of speech'? Because him taking office a third time is unconstitutional. It would be as if the majority voted for say Prince William. He simply would not be meet the standards to be president. In William's case it would be citizenship. In Obama's he would have served the full number of terms allowed.

TheHeretic -> RE: An Obama 3rd Term (11/1/2013 9:22:03 PM)
No more than two terms was the custom established by our first President under the Constitution (that's George Washington, for any younger players victimized by a modern American public school education), and it was honored until FDR, and made the law of the land after him. No reason we couldn't change it back with another amendment, but that would be the only way. So much for the hypothetical. As for President Obama being the guy to see it happen for him, no. Hell no.

DesideriScuri -> RE: An Obama 3rd Term (11/1/2013 9:29:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic No more than two terms was the custom established by our first President under the Constitution (that's George Washington, for any younger players victimized by a modern American public school education), and it was honored until FDR, and made the law of the land after him. No reason we couldn't change it back with another amendment, but that would be the only way. So much for the hypothetical. As for President Obama being the guy to see it happen for him, no. Hell no. Wouldn't ever make it out of the House. Even if it did, I don't see them getting the requisite number of States to ratify.

TheHeretic -> RE: An Obama 3rd Term (11/1/2013 10:08:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Wouldn't ever make it out of the House. Even if it did, I don't see them getting the requisite number of States to ratify. For this President certainly not, DS, but for purely hypothetical purposes, a repeal in advance would be the only way to go. Launching a campaign, in the knowledge that it was going to come down to an SC decision would simply be too much of a risk, only to even be considered by the most developmentally disabled liberal bubble boys. But this President? With the damage he is doing to the Democrat brand, even as we sit here wasting time on the conversation, I won't be surprised if he winds up just sending a video greeting for the '16 DNC.

BamaD -> RE: An Obama 3rd Term (11/1/2013 10:10:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic No more than two terms was the custom established by our first President under the Constitution (that's George Washington, for any younger players victimized by a modern American public school education), and it was honored until FDR, and made the law of the land after him. No reason we couldn't change it back with another amendment, but that would be the only way. So much for the hypothetical. As for President Obama being the guy to see it happen for him, no. Hell no. Wouldn't ever make it out of the House. Even if it did, I don't see them getting the requisite number of States to ratify. I think it was tried when Eisenhower had finished two, not sure, I was only 10 at the time. It was tried when Regan reached two but he came out against it. It was tried when Clinton reached two and died in the house. As usual it is being talked up by the party with the White house, as usual it will die in the house.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: An Obama 3rd Term (11/1/2013 10:22:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether This is a purely hypothetical discussion; let that be stated straight out. You are forgetting one simple thing.... President Obama himself. He's going to retire from office because he want's to retire from office. I am not saying he doesn't enjoy the power and rush that becomes the most powerful man in the world (Trust me, Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping couldn't wipe Barak Obama's or any American President's shoes when it come to real power) but unless he is an insane megalomaniac tyrant, and he is most assuredly is not, he will walk away powerless because that's how the greatest and most libertine country the world has even known does things.

Phydeaux -> RE: An Obama 3rd Term (11/2/2013 12:11:10 AM)
OH I would definitely support obama for a third term candidacy. Run obama run!

Arturas -> RE: An Obama 3rd Term (11/2/2013 12:26:16 AM)
Fortunately, Obama would not be elected if the election were to be held today given his approval and likable rating is in the toilet. Unfortunately, Obama made sure Obamacare would not start till after the election. Obama is good at timing, if nothing else.

joether -> RE: An Obama 3rd Term (11/2/2013 3:40:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Fortunately, Obama would not be elected if the election were to be held today given his approval and likable rating is in the toilet. Unfortunately, Obama made sure Obamacare would not start till after the election. Obama is good at timing, if nothing else. If it was held today, not one Republican would be getting elected or re-elected. What is their approval rating in the nation? Before you start laughing, realize the Republicans are doing worst than the Tea Party at like 9%. But both are doing far worst than the Democrats! Frankly they have all done enough crap to get them thrown out.

joether -> RE: An Obama 3rd Term (11/2/2013 3:49:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic But this President? With the damage he is doing to the Democrat brand, even as we sit here wasting time on the conversation, I won't be surprised if he winds up just sending a video greeting for the '16 DNC. Hate to go off topic, but what damage is that? He past a major health care reform law in the nation against extreme levels of attacks of every kind (including attempting to shutdown the whole government) from the Republican/Tea Party. He got the guy that hit the nation on 9/11. He managed to save the nation from an economic meltdown in 2009 with the ARRA. The list just goes on and on. On top of all that, he has shown to moderates in the nation, that the Republican/Tea Party is out to destroy the nation. Its really not to hard to remind people of WHO shut the government down. Or WHO failed the super committee to balance the budget. Or WHO demanded the President prove himself an American (talk about disrespectful of the nth kind). On top of all that, its really not hard to show moderates the caliber of people that are attracted to the Republican/Tea Party and than ask "Do you really want this band of lunatics in power or in a straightjacket and padded room?". Democrats are for the working American. The average 'Joe' on the street. For Unions, for minorities, for women, and for those that really honestly want better government. And when the appear before the news camera, they don't usually behave like a child in the mist of a temper tantrum; Republicans and their Tea Party 'allies' do this quite often. Your welcome to your beliefs there Heretic. But I do think the beliefs are based on to many false or misinformed points.

TheHeretic -> RE: An Obama 3rd Term (11/2/2013 7:23:48 AM)
And you are welcome to your beliefs as well, Joether. I can't think of a single reason to do anything on this not-so-lazy Saturday but watch you bitterly cling to them.

DesideriScuri -> RE: An Obama 3rd Term (11/2/2013 10:26:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Fortunately, Obama would not be elected if the election were to be held today given his approval and likable rating is in the toilet. Unfortunately, Obama made sure Obamacare would not start till after the election. Obama is good at timing, if nothing else. If it was held today, not one Republican would be getting elected or re-elected. What is their approval rating in the nation? Before you start laughing, realize the Republicans are doing worst than the Tea Party at like 9%. But both are doing far worst than the Democrats! Frankly they have all done enough crap to get them thrown out. That's making the assumption that the GOP candidate will come from Congress.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875