Could Bush Get A Third Term?

[LstrzMnyn]

Potential Justice Alito has raised hairs on the backs of many people in liberal circles for his stand n strng executive powers, his apparent contempt for civil rights, and his obvious opposition to abortion. The possibility of R v. W being overturned is pretty serious.

Nonetheless,my own nightmare looks like this; a reflective Supreme Court hears a case brought by a conservative think-tank that insists that the term limits on the presidency are unconstitutional. The Senate does not have them, nor does the House,and the Justices themselves are appointed for life.

What does the decidedly conservative court decide?
IF such a scenerio came along, I fear they would overturn the two-term limit and allow GW to run again in 2008.
Why?
Because there is no current Republican strong enough to follow George,and the fear ofl osing power, influence, and of having their plans curtailed(Project for the New American Century) may lead them on such a course.

Any thoughts?

[Janus]

I have heard that some politicians like Clinton and Reagan have complained of the limits on the presidency. They believe that the "best" suited man should become president and that there shouldn't be a 2 term limit. However, I believe that every US president except FDR only served 2 term simply because that a president's second term is always worse than his first, which is why it is extremely difficult for him to get re-elected. Frequent attempts have been made to modify or repeal the 22nd Amendment but all have failed. I seriously doubt that Bush could even win a third election if the limit was somehow repealed.

[LstrzMnyn]

FDR's four-term run(the last cut short, of course) was the cause of that ammendment, and you are right that attempts have been made.
However, Alito's unique and sinister bent of undermining Congressional power is part of my concern,as well as the Supreme Courts potential leanings.
When was the last time there was such a conswervative Supreme Court? Recall also that it was this court, MINUS the extra two conservative judges, that decided the 2000 election in Bushs favor.
As for whether he could win again, I didn't expect a SECOND term, so the joke is already on me!

[Red Powers]

The Supreme Court has nothing to do with it. The 22nd Ammendment would have to be repealed.

[KC]

The possibility of R v. W being overturned is pretty serious.


Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. Why would the republicans overturn it when it's so effective for their cause?



Nonetheless,my own nightmare looks like this; a reflective Supreme Court hears a case brought by a conservative think-tank that insists that the term limits on the presidency are unconstitutional. The Senate does not have them, nor does the House,and the Justices themselves are appointed for life.

What does the decidedly conservative court decide?
IF such a scenerio came along, I fear they would overturn the two-term limit and allow GW to run again in 2008.
Why?
Because there is no current Republican strong enough to follow George,and the fear ofl osing power, influence, and of having their plans curtailed(Project for the New American Century) may lead them on such a course.

Any thoughts?

This would not happen, as it would be class suicide. The bourgeoisie needs to give capitalism an air of legitimacy so that it will continue to exist and they get to retain their power.

[Comrade Ben]

How does Roe vs. Wade help their cause? You have to factor in that all of these men are devot christians. As such, they also wish to follow "Christ's Ideals" in which a fetis, a second after being conceived, is a full human being. They want to overturn Roe vs. Wade as soon as they can.

[Valjean]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 28 2006, 03:42 AM
How does Roe vs. Wade help their cause? You have to factor in that all of these men are devot christians. As such, they also wish to follow "Christ's Ideals" in which a fetis, a second after being conceived, is a full human being. They want to overturn Roe vs. Wade as soon as they can.
I don't think so, Abortion is one of their biggest campaing issues. If RvW is overturned, and abortion outlawed, they would have to come up with a new issue.

[Comrade Ben]

But they would get the catholic/bible belt support

[Seven Stars]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 28 2006, 04:12 AM
But they would get the catholic/bible belt support
There are a lot of Catholics that are pro-choice (http://www.cath4choice.org/). It would get more evangelicals to vote for them than anything. Another thing that Alito would do is ban Gay marriage, that would make people like Rev. Phelps happy. <_<

[LSD]

Nonetheless,my own nightmare looks like this; a reflective Supreme Court hears a case brought by a conservative think-tank that insists that the term limits on the presidency are unconstitutional.

How could the constitution be "unconstitutional"?


Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. Why would the republicans overturn it when it&#39;s so effective for their cause?

Because the American rulling class is growing more and more irrational.

Political and electoral concerns are no longer paramount in their minds, not when "Jesus" "commands".

That being said, though, I think it unlikely that Roe v. Wade will actually be overturned. Much more likely, they will just continue on the road they&#39;re on now and gradually restrict access to abortion until the point that it&#39;s effectively illegal, but not de jure so.

That spares them the trouble of a direct confrontation, and keeps "legal abortions" as a potent campaign issue.

[LA GUERRA OLVIDADA]

If abortion was overturned the people might focus on the real issues. You people don&#39;t understand manipulation and politics.

There&#39;s only a terror threat when approval ratings are low.

[Tormented by Treachery]

Well said, La Guerra Olvidada.

The issue of abortion is simply thrown out to make the democrats look barbaric, to detract from the attention going to big oil fuck that is the Iraq War.

Roe v. Wade will most likely be overturned if Alito gets to the bench, and then I can only give those poor mothers-to-be my best wishes.

As for Bush serving a 3rd term, you guys are actually a little off with why they limited it to 2 terms. As ridiculous as it sounds, its actually a nod to George Washington, sort of like Beethoven (?) composing 9 symphonies and other composers not surpassing this out of respect. After FDR, the government decided to make the limit, in part because Washington only served twice, and in part because they wanted to keep a leader from slowly gaining a dictatorship. I think that this won&#39;t be changed because think of how easy it is to link pissing on the Father of the country to running for a 3rd term. If he did, the Dems would be all over that and would probly win.

[Tekun]

I completely agree with La Guerra&#39;s Olvidada&#39;s POV regarding abortion
Well said brotha

Now as far as Bush running for a third term: almost impossible IMO
Why?
This would bring about demonstrations and protests, that if wielded effectively, might bring about the fall of the state-they wouldn&#39;t risk it
And we must always remember that Bush isn&#39;t the leader of this country, sure he might be president, but as we all know due to the history of this country, those who hold political power are the wealthy businessmen and CEO&#39;s of multimillion dollar companies

Bush is only a facade used by the establishment to conform and manipulate the masses into believing that their representatives rule this country and fulfill their constituents&#39; interests
But we all know that the one wielding power in this admin is Cheney and who knows how many others control Washington, behind closed doors

Democrats, Republicans are the same-both are capitalists and imperialists
If Republicans are wolves, Democrats are wolves dressed like sheep

Don&#39;t let the media control your view on reality
Just look at the history of why the US went to war Spain, and the conflict in Nam, and the aggression in Guatemala, and the current Iraq war
Almost all the conflicts which the US has been involved in have had socio-economic interests at stake, thus it is the leaders of these industries which initiate policies and actions :angry:

[redchrisfalling]

Third term Bush is a very scary possibility, no one thought Bush would win in&#39;04 but to quote a great band "oh good god, holy shit, the jokes on us not on them." But in such a scenario i would not be to worried b/c Bush v. B Clinton. we would never see the end of that pot smokeing intern screwwing commie. and i would love every minute of it.

[Severian]

1. No.

2. There&#39;s no indication they even intend to try.

3. Who cares? Unless you think the Democrats are better.

Really, there&#39;s nothing progresive about term limits; if someone has the support of the working people, wouldn&#39;t we want them to stay in office as long as possible?

[Amusing Scrotum]

This was discussed in another thread.... http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45330


Originally posted by Severian
Really, there&#39;s nothing progresive about term limits; if someone has the support of the working people, wouldn&#39;t we want them to stay in office as long as possible?

Why "wouldn&#39;t we want them to stay in office as long as possible?" ....because "we" want "working people" to rule themselves and not support someone who rules on their behalf.

[Janus]

that the term limits on the presidency are unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court can declare laws unconsitutional but not amendments. Congress has the power to repeal the amendment, something that they have only done once before.

[Technocrates]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 10:45 PM
1. No.

2. There&#39;s no indication they even intend to try.

3. Who cares? Unless you think the Democrats are better.

Really, there&#39;s nothing progresive about term limits; if someone has the support of the working people, wouldn&#39;t we want them to stay in office as long as possible?
Actually, there is a lot progressive, because we could make sure that the person does not go to the Washington incubator and become like the rest. For instance, they could become the new Ted Kennedy.

[barista.marxista]

All this World Can&#39;t Wait, Bush is a Nazi-dictator-christian-fascist bullshit is just liberal trite. Everything happening in the US right now isn&#39;t the result of one man&#39;s presidency -- to think so ignores all material historical analysis, and succumbs to liberal individualism. Capitalism is in a crisis right now, where it has rearranged itself two or three times in the last century, and still finds itself inable to regenerate surplus-value. The existence of this empire isn&#39;t limited to just the United States -- it&#39;s existent across the world. The US bourgeois is becoming more irrational, yes; but it is not idiotic. To throw away the 22nd ammendment would be too explicit, too obvious, and too overtly a threat to their rule. As long as people continue to believe that they can choose their leaders, that one part is better than the other, then the system lives on. That&#39;s the first priority of the ruling class -- to convince the people that the system works, even when it&#39;s blatant that it doesn&#39;t&#33;

[Tormented by Treachery]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 08:29 PM
All this World Can&#39;t Wait, Bush is a Nazi-dictator-christian-fascist bullshit is just liberal trite.
I agreed with your whole post except for this part. He has (repeatedly) pissed on the Constitution, the only document that most people know of... so if he&#39;s trying to be extremely covert about his control of the people, why go and violate the one document that keeps the American people (self included) from shaking in their boots? I&#39;d say declaring war, wiretapping, fucking an election, supporting Patriot Act, etc. are pretty open ways of manipulation.

[Purple]

He doesnt have enough support anymore to do something as radical as going on for a third term&#33; They cant allow themselves to be so apparent un-democratic&#33;

[Severian]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Jan 28 2006, 05:08 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Jan 28 2006, 05:08 PM) This was discussed in another thread.... http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45330


Severian
Really, there&#39;s nothing progresive about term limits; if someone has the support of the working people, wouldn&#39;t we want them to stay in office as long as possible?

Why "wouldn&#39;t we want them to stay in office as long as possible?" ....because "we" want "working people" to rule themselves and not support someone who rules on their behalf. [/b]
That makes sense only in this context only if you&#39;re going to abolish government and have no political representatives; in that case term limits aren&#39;t an issue.

[bed_of_nails]

But in such a scenario i would not be to worried b/c Bush v. B Clinton. we would never see the end of that pot smokeing intern screwwing commie. and i would love every minute of it.

Clinton was actually rather conservative on his views of gays. I dont know where you got the notion he was a commie from either.

Could you please explain that some more?

[Abood]

Clinton is not a commie, but a democrat.
and if, by any chance, bush gets a third term, we should not stand watching, we should act&#33;
the world has had enough of him already.

[LstrzMnyn]

The economic aspect of the current administrations record is the very reason that a third term is a possibility. He&#39;s not Jimmy Carter for one thing, and for another the radical religious right is firmly behind him.
Those who say he is simply a puppet are correct, but you miss that he is a GOOD puppet, one wh even his supporters knw is just crazy enough(and stupid enough) to go that extra totalitarian mile for a fistful of billions.
One should liken GW more to Reagan than his father, and we know how god Reagan was at drooling through cabinet meetings and scribbling his John Hancock and whatever anyone said was an autograph.
On abortion, those above citing Bushs&#39; desire to scratch the backs of the Chrstian faithful are correct also. Recall that Bush got in in &#39;04 because of the gay marraige issue and NOT the Terror On War in NOT-HERE. The concept of same-sex marraige was clearly a more brazen afront to the cuddly consciences of the volatile moral majority than the hundreds of thousands of corpses the US has produced in this now 15 year war against a Third World oil country.
The Right loves this guy, and seeing as all three branches of the Federalist gvernment are dominated by them, anything is possible.

[KC]

How does Roe vs. Wade help their cause? You have to factor in that all of these men are devot christians. As such, they also wish to follow "Christ&#39;s Ideals" in which a fetis, a second after being conceived, is a full human being. They want to overturn Roe vs. Wade as soon as they can.

No, they don&#39;t. Roe v. Wade is doing, much, much more for them right now. They make it a big issue so people focus on this, and focus less on more important things.



I don&#39;t think so, Abortion is one of their biggest campaing issues. If RvW is overturned, and abortion outlawed, they would have to come up with a new issue.


Exactly.


But they would get the catholic/bible belt support

They already do.



Roe v. Wade will most likely be overturned if Alito gets to the bench, and then I can only give those poor mothers-to-be my best wishes.


I doubt it.



I agreed with your whole post except for this part. He has (repeatedly) pissed on the Constitution, the only document that most people know of... so if he&#39;s trying to be extremely covert about his control of the people, why go and violate the one document that keeps the American people (self included) from shaking in their boots? I&#39;d say declaring war, wiretapping, fucking an election, supporting Patriot Act, etc. are pretty open ways of manipulation.

It isn&#39;t exclusive to this administration. Anybody in power right now would have done the same thing.


Clinton is not a commie, but a democrat.
and if, by any chance, bush gets a third term, we should not stand watching, we should act&#33;
the world has had enough of him already.

It isn&#39;t Bush. It&#39;s capitalism.

[Comrade Ben]

Bush is the symptom, capitalism is the disease.

[bed_of_nails]

I highly doubt that Bush can get a third term. The Neocons didnt get Reagan a 3rd term (I dont even know if they tried), so they definately wont be able to get this Shrub a 3rd.