Limbaugh: Obama’s going to try for a third term or something

posted at 6:04 pm on June 30, 2009 by Allahpundit

Yeah, I know Jose Serrano introduced a House resolution to repeal the 22nd Amendment a few months ago. He did the same thing in 2003. It went nowhere then and it’ll go nowhere now. Help me figure this out: Conservatives are absolutely convinced that Obamanomics was, is, and can only be an unmitigated disaster for the country, so much so that the chief strategy among the base for a Republican revival at the moment is to sit back, watch liberalism implode, and then welcome back voters to the right with open arms. If all of that’s true and a backlash to Hopenchange is inevitable, how is Barry O planning to get a constitutional amendment passed before 2016? He’d need 2/3 of both the House and Senate and 3/4 of the states to ratify it. Even if every Democrat in Congress voted to lift presidential term limits (which they wouldn’t, if only for reasons of simple self-interest), they’d still need to pick up a bunch more seats in both chambers to push it through. How bad, exactly, does Rush see things getting for the GOP — especially at the state level, where only 14 red states could block the amendment — that he’d imagine something like that might be possible? I don’t follow him here at all. Click the image to watch.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

Gimme the reasons why a two term limit is necessary. Can’t wait.

Dave Rywall on June 30, 2009 at 9:31 PM

Because I feel safer with it.

progressoverpeace on July 1, 2009 at 1:04 AM

That’s some conspiracy theory there.. next Rush is going to tell us about the FEMA camps that Obama is prepping for all the conservatives.

popularpeoplesfront on July 1, 2009 at 12:59 AM

If he says that do not believe him. We are not prepping FEMA camps for all conservatives. Do not believe anything he says. We will give you all the truth you need to know.

DasObamaReich on July 1, 2009 at 1:12 AM

Dave Rywall on June 30, 2009 at 9:31 PM

Evidently, you have no understanding of the American system of government. In our system, a regular turn-over of power is one of the essential controls to prohibit the concentration and abuse of power. It was like this, in the Executive, by tradition, until we ran into someone greedy and selfish enough to break with that tradition and try to keep it all. That was appalling and the amendment was passed to move the two-term tradition into written law – as a defense against other such selfish Presidents.

We don’t want anyone to be President who would even want three terms in office, because that says a lot about the person – and it’s all bad.

progressoverpeace on July 1, 2009 at 1:14 AM

These are ludicrous reasons.

Dave Rywall on June 30, 2009 at 11:27 PM

Not at all. Your response, however, is ludicrously vacuous.

MB4 on July 1, 2009 at 1:15 AM

Gimme the reasons why freedom is necessary. Can’t wait.

Geochelone on July 1, 2009 at 1:56 AM

Gimme the reasons why we should fear absolute power. Can’t wait.

Geochelone on July 1, 2009 at 1:59 AM

The truth is hard to deal with at first…

lanesmerge on July 1, 2009 at 2:14 AM

Gimme the reasons why a two term limit is necessary. Can’t wait.

Dave Rywall on June 30, 2009 at 9:31 PM

It’s constitutional.

Hope you didn’t have to wait too long.

You may feel the two-term limit is moronic. I feel it is wise. The office of President has great power, and a strict term limit prevents him transforming into a dictator.

If you can’t see that, I’m still open to considering you moronic.

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on July 1, 2009 at 2:50 AM

Evidently, you have no understanding of the American system of government. In our system, a regular turn-over of power is one of the essential controls to prohibit the concentration and abuse of power. It was like this, in the Executive, by tradition, until we ran into someone greedy and selfish enough to break with that tradition and try to keep it all. That was appalling and the amendment was passed to move the two-term tradition into written law – as a defense against other such selfish Presidents.

We don’t want anyone to be President who would even want three terms in office, because that says a lot about the person – and it’s all bad.

progressoverpeace on July 1, 2009 at 1:14 AM

And he was a Democrat as well, the guy who started all of the Socialism mess that Obama is trying to finish. :/

Theophile on July 1, 2009 at 5:27 AM

Gimme the reasons why a two term limit is necessary. Can’t wait.

Dave Rywall on June 30, 2009 at 9:31 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Go Dave…

jerrytbg on July 1, 2009 at 6:48 AM

btw Dave…if you read this
Thanks for helping me start off my day with a hardy laugh…

jerrytbg on July 1, 2009 at 6:54 AM

And he (FDR) was a Democrat as well, the guy who started all of the Socialism mess that Obama is trying to finish. :/
Theophile on July 1, 2009 at 5:27 AM

Actually it was Woodrow Wilson- a leading intellectual of the Progressive Era :) FDR just enhanced Willson’s progressive (communist) ideology.

Friendly21 on July 1, 2009 at 7:26 AM

Obama is doing everything he can to make sure it won’t be a fair election.
Daggett on June 30, 2009 at 10:59 PM

Yep, in addition to ACORN and its hundreds of affiliate organizations (like the S.E.I.U.), plans to shut down talk radio through ‘localism’, stopping the prosecution of the black booted Panther thugs, D.O.J. schemes to prevent states like Georgia from reviewing their voting rolls, and so on, it’s a good time to flashback to turning off the Address Verification System.

Buy Danish on July 1, 2009 at 8:02 AM

One must conclude then that Rush thinks the Republicans have no chance in 2012. Some harsh for the mellow this morning.

EyesOpen on July 1, 2009 at 8:59 AM

I’m not really worried about this, but I wonder why Obooba goes out of his way to support dictators in Iran, Honduras, Venezuela, etc, who have one thing in common: they fudged or were planning to fudge election results somehow.

Does he want president-for-life power for these other guys but not for himself? If so, why? If not, why not?

There are catastrophes looming and in progress that could serve as pretexts for marshall law or some variant. The sweeping nature and scope of the Change-arama to which we are being treated will leave any successor, conservative or liberal, as a mere caretaker around the edges – unless he was elected on a platform promising to dismatle it all.

Fat chance.

Akzed on July 1, 2009 at 9:17 AM

Ooooooh Americans fearing the president will turn into a dictator. AS if that has the remotest chance of ever happening.

Dave Rywall on July 1, 2009 at 9:29 AM

Ooooooh Americans fearing the president will turn into a dictator. AS if that has the remotest chance of ever happening.
Dave Rywall on July 1, 2009 at 9:29 AM

It all ready has… it just hasn’t been officially announced. When it is many in Congress will cheer, the Media will cry tears of joy, the Messiah cult will march on DC in support, and the rest is history as they say.

Kick and scream all you want, brandish your peashooters at men with full automatic heavy weapons, write letters of protest, but remember election have consequences, and now it your turn to be dissapeared.

If you doubt, just ask yourself what will the Messiah’s agenda be next year, having already personally taken over all major sectors of the US ecomony.

Friendly21 on July 1, 2009 at 9:39 AM

Ooooooh Americans fearing the president will turn into a dictator. AS if that has the remotest chance of ever happening.

First of all, as you are apt to forget when it is politically convenient to do so, this was a big concern of the left between 2000 and 2008. In fact, there was an entire industry (now defunct and exchanged with sycophantic Obamabelia) built around this. These are facts.

And now, for a thought experiment:

Obama’s already trying to dictate what doctors I’m allowed to see and when and for how much, he’s limiting my freedom by taking more of my money by force, he’s trying to insert himself and his party into my light sockets/trash cans/toilets, he’s trying to dictate what cars GM will produce and trying to squeeze out opposition through “crap-n-trade” emissions reductions, he’s bankrupted the country for the next five decades and now says that massive, stifling, taxation is “necessary” when it wouldn’t have been had his Congress not passed his “WE’RE ALL GONNA DID UNLESS WE DO THIS TODAY LOL non-stimulus, he’s trying to subordinate the US to the fascists and racists in the UN, etc.

For these reasons, and more, term limits were put into place.

He only has eight years to try to turn the country into a third-world socialist hellhole, and after that, he’s out on his ass regardless of what his future political aspirations are.

Sounds like an insurance clause against tyranny to me. And it’s worked well since FDR (who tried his own end runs around the US Constitution like when he tried to pack the Supreme Court with his hand-picked cronies). FDR’s programs, which were intended as temporary fixes, are now breaking the economy of our country in half and will continue to do so. And to this, the Obamacrats cry MOAR PLEAZ!

The ambitious, corrupt, money-grubbing, power-hungry, collectivist thugs who are little more than inept tyrants in their souls, are the reasons we have Constitutional limits placed on those in power.

If you can’t play ball here where we limit the power of the government over the individual, then go live in Venezuela with your heroes. You can be part of Chavez’s utopia FOREVER – and you have no choice.

Good Lt on July 1, 2009 at 9:44 AM

coldwarrior

how many voted for Obama not knowing one damn thing about him, his record, or lack thereof, but voted merely on the historic event and that hope and change meme?

Very key point – anyone should have known that Obama, if not Communist, was as far left as you can get. Even after they have seen his policies they still think he is great.

interns, staffers, researchers, analysts, and those who take care of the ash and trash of politics, routinely follow the jobs, serving for a Dem then a Republican, then back to a Dem, often. A professional cadre of professional bureaucrats inhabit the offices of DC

During the Clinton administration I remember that many of his staff had security clearance issues. What is level of that with Obama?

He is expanding the government rolls so rapidly. What is likely hood he could plant many moles to sustain his agenda even under a Republican Administration. Democrats gave a lot of these people jobs in government before Bush took office. What was level of sabotage or passing of information?

fundamentals of the power structure we have known for over two hundred years can be altered such that recovery would be next to impossible should the left be able to enlist the aid of those who will be receiving that “wealth” and build a bloc that demographics will maintain for the next 20-plus years.

That’s why Obama insist that the new census will be handled directly by the white house. Can you elaborate on changes in fundamentals of power structure? An obvious one is to stack the courts, what other ways?

If you were to write a book, which one would it be?

Ed Laskie on July 1, 2009 at 9:58 AM

I think Rush went over the line here. It’s one of those things that probably was better left unsaid in his broadcast.
ddrintn on July 1, 2009 at 12:07 AM

Until it’s all over but the crying? Do you listen to bill bennett? Have you caught on to his campaign of ceding the language to the left and assisting in the incremental takeover? Just call it liberalism! yeah, right. The word has been so watered down people don’t even hear it anymore. Conservatives go on TV and talk about “traditional liberalism” watering it down even more. The left has people terrified of speaking the truth and pretty soon they will have permanent control and they won’t care what words you use. People need to hear the words and fear the results. barry is a fascist, plain and simple. He has done things already that would have had impeachment procedings going full bore if bush had done them. He is putting federal control over every aspect of our economy. Private ownership of the means of production but government control. Fascism. Every aspect of American life is slowly being put under control of white house “czars”. These czars will be untouchables, they will answer to no one but barry. Everyone of you who have got “it could never happen here” up your butts needs to wake up. It is happening here.

peacenprosperity on July 1, 2009 at 10:02 AM

Gimme the reasons why a two term limit is necessary. Can’t wait.

Dave Rywall on June 30, 2009 at 9:31 PM

Others have provided reasons already. But a quick question back at you.

Would you support a third or plus terms if it was for George Bush?

shick on July 1, 2009 at 10:03 AM

If all of that’s true and a backlash to Hopenchange is inevitable

You would have thought a backlash to Chavez in Venezuela was inevitable but I think people forget how democracies can morph into communism or dictatorships.

Venezuela is the perfect model. First you confiscate income and wealth and make everybody poor while claiming that you are bringing about justice and equality with those funds. Then as things get steadily worse, you use this as proof that the people need you and that the system is unfair. You blame past administrations and their “corporate cronies” and government takeovers of private companies and institutions is welcomed with open arms. When the population is broke and desperate and you are the candidate of hope and change…you can get away with anything including unlimited power. No one seems to notice that the dictator is the one who actually created the despair.

Goodeye_Closed on July 1, 2009 at 10:10 AM

Ooooooh Americans fearing the president will turn into a dictator. AS if that has the remotest chance of ever happening.

Dave Rywall on July 1, 2009 at 9:29 AM

Are you so sure?

He’s buddy buddy with known tyrant Chavez and recently ousted and wanna be tyrant from Honduras while simply saying he’s troubled by the tyrannical oppression in Iran. He was brought up by his communist grandfather. He has been on recorded saying that he wants to know all the communist professors. He was buddy buddy with Bill Ayers.

Wake up Rywall! You are smarter than this. Put down the cool aid.

shick on July 1, 2009 at 10:12 AM

If the two term limitation were removed, it would still be nearly impossible for an American President to rise (or sink) to the level of dictatorship.

To accomplish that, the President would need a large portion of the media to be under his influence to feed the electorate manipulative propaganda, and a large organization of people willing to influence voters and cast illegal votes.

….oh, wait.

cntrlfrk on July 1, 2009 at 10:15 AM

He only has eight years to try to turn the country into a third-world socialist hellhole, and after that, he’s out on his ass regardless of what his future political aspirations are. Good Lt on July 1, 2009 at 9:44 AM

Even if only 8 years a lot of damage and fixing of the game could be done in that time. They have done most of the ground work leading up to the last election. If he gets a second term then God help US. Sad to say but Bush gave him all the executive powers to declare marshal law and suspend the constitution. The Constitiution is already not followed. All they need is some calamity to blame on the Right and off to camps we go.
I’m 54yrs old and this is the most strange events in US history I have seen. Clinton looks like Reagan compared to Obama. The Communist are truly in power now. They are good students on how to get around the problems of Democracy and elections. God Help US!!!

Ed Laskie on July 1, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Wake up Rywall! You are smarter than this.
shick on July 1, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Evidence?

Buy Danish on July 1, 2009 at 10:22 AM

…oh, wait.

cntrlfrk on July 1, 2009 at 10:15 AM

……the curse of the 21th Century.

try again later on July 1, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Americans fearing the president will turn into a dictator. AS if that has the remotest chance of ever happening

They are good students on how to get around the problems of Democracy and elections.

At the beginning of the iraq war bush said iraq was going to get democracy but don’t expect it to look like the American system. That goes for fasism and totalitarianism. They will give to the weak and pathetic, who are nearly a majority in this country, in a pretty, appealing package and by the time even those idiots realize what has happened there will be no turning back.

peacenprosperity on July 1, 2009 at 10:32 AM

I have to assume that Dave likes to governed by royalty.

Cindy Munford on July 1, 2009 at 10:36 AM

by Allahpundit

Anonymous bloggers that take Rush Limbaugh out of context do so at their own peril.

long_cat on July 1, 2009 at 10:38 AM

this is a no brainer…it’s called “marshal law”.
There WILL be a “crisis” to “justify” it.

jsunrise on July 1, 2009 at 10:45 AM

Sorry if this is a repeat, but…

Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., introduced House Resolution 5 back in January. It proposes “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.”

marklmail on July 1, 2009 at 11:26 AM

If you a conservative American do you really want to get up every morning for the rest of your life, turn on the TV and see Obama floating like a butterfly and stinging like a bee in front of the Presidential seal.

technopeasant on July 1, 2009 at 11:38 AM

We did need to an amendment until an egomaniac and his band of thugs decided that they were too big to fail.

History repeats

GREENTURTLE on July 1, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Gimme the reasons why a two term limit is necessary. Can’t wait.

Dave Rywall on June 30, 2009 at 9:31 PM

It is the law as defined in the U.S. Constitution. No other reason is necessary. You and I and Obama do not get to select what parts of it will apply to governing our nation.

The Constitution also includes a process by which it may be altered, and if that process is followed and results in a change of the term limit, I’d have no problem with that. But anything that tries to change the term limit other than that amendment process as defined by the Constitution would be cause for every citizen to rise up in arms to defend the Constitution, and many of us have sworn to do.

MikeA on July 1, 2009 at 11:45 AM

I have to assume that Dave likes to governed ruled by royalty.

Cindy Munford on July 1, 2009 at 10:36 AM

darktood on July 1, 2009 at 11:50 AM

How it can happen? Very simple. Same way as it happened in Iran. Nobody will count votes, when ACORN is in charge. First fake census, then fake referendum or something similar.

finallyhere on July 1, 2009 at 11:53 AM

I think Rush may be missing the point. Whether Obama is shooting for a third term is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter whether this is paranoid, conspiracy-minded, or pure truth.

If Obama wins a SECOND term, it will be time to take to the streets (or worse).

Eyas on July 1, 2009 at 12:00 PM

you forgot also fatter. much fatter.

Monkei on June 30, 2009 at 6:31 PM

Oh grow up you idiot.

NJ Red on July 1, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Obama doesn’t need to pass a constitutional amendment. All he has to do is declare martial law, suspend the constitution, and refuse to leave the white house. The supreme court has affirmed the suspension of the constitution in many cases, and would likely uphold such a move under the right circumstances. Given the fact that several states have passed bills affirming their rights as states and vowing to resist unconstitutional federal laws, it wouldn’t take too much to push states into more serious talk of secession.

There was similar activity in the lead up to the last union split. Were states to begin seceding again, Obama could quite justifiably call it “insurrection” declare martial law, suspend the constitution, and cancel the election. With states leaving the union, the remaining states are more likely to be aligned with Obama, and willing to pass whatever amendments he desires.

May sound crazy, but it’s happened before in this country.

djfelix on July 1, 2009 at 12:09 PM

That’s some conspiracy theory there.. next Rush is going to tell us about the FEMA camps that Obama is prepping for all the conservatives.

popularpeoplesfront on July 1, 2009 at 12:59 AM

Tell us about the over 100,000 people, many of them Americams, put into camps by FDR in 1942.

Del Dolemonte on July 1, 2009 at 12:34 PM

While in theory I oppose term limits,on the grounds that I don’t want government telling me who I can or cannot vote for,many people on this thread have already explained why they are neccesary,at least as far as the office of president are concerned.
In reference to Rush’s contention that Obama is looking to run in 2016,and being blocked by the 22nd ammendment,perhaps someone who knows more about the law than I could address a couple of questions:
Would it be possible for someone to challenge the 22nd ammmendment in the courts?So rather than going through the legislative process,could five progessive Supreme Court Justices simply declare it unconstitutional on the theoretical basis that I mentioned above?
If so,that would open the door for Obama to remain in office as long as he chooses.
As far as other Dems running against him:
1-The media,Acorn,La Raza etc,would insure that any contender will not succeed.
2-The majority of Dems in politics don’t want the job,because they can sit on there hands in Congress or Senate and live the high life without accepting responsiibilty for their decisions

DDT on July 1, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Wake up Rywall! You are smarter than this. Put down the cool aid Labatt’s Blue.

shick on July 1, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Fixed.

Del Dolemonte on July 1, 2009 at 12:38 PM

I’m a little late joining in, but I can assure you the military take an oath to protect and defend the constitution, but they believe it when they commit to it. Our leader will not be able to rely on the military if he wishes to use it to forceably retain office past his consitutionally prescribed limits.

georgeofthedesert on July 1, 2009 at 12:45 PM

I don’t know about conspiracy theories but I have a theorhetical question:

What exactly would need to occur before the people in this country (think about the priorities and condition of the average American citizen before answering)for there to be a full on rising up against the government and physically restoring the Constitution and reversing totalitarian control?

Goodeye_Closed on July 1, 2009 at 12:46 PM

Sorry if this is a repeat, but…

Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., introduced House Resolution 5 back in January. It proposes “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.”

marklmail on July 1, 2009 at 11:26 AM

What we really need to do with the 22nd amendment is to expand its reach, imposing a two term limit on not just the POTUS, but all members of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

I can dream, can’t I?

Sweet_Thang on July 1, 2009 at 12:56 PM

I don’t see how this moron in the White House expects to get a second term. A third? Heh.

Sign of the Dollar on July 1, 2009 at 12:56 PM

If the Messiah suspends the Constitution, etc. no need to flee the country – just go to the nearest Treaty Indian Reservation and ask for asylum – their rights are guarenteed by treaty, not the Constution. They might serve as bases for a future restoration. Just a thought.

Friendly21 on July 1, 2009 at 1:02 PM

I don’t see how this moron in the White House expects to get a second term. A third? Heh.

Sign of the Dollar on July 1, 2009

ACORN will earn their billions in 2012. They will hone their skills in 2010.

SKYFOX on July 1, 2009 at 1:03 PM

He’d need 2/3 of both the House and Senate and 3/4 of the states to ratify it.

And the House and Senate are becoming more and more irrelevant each time Obama appoints (annoints) Czars.

Just even the thought of an American President appointing Czars would have been laughable just a few years ago, and here we are.

moonsbreath on July 1, 2009 at 1:11 PM

Ooooooh Americans fearing the president will turn into a dictator. AS if that has the remotest chance of ever happening.

Dave Rywall on July 1, 2009 at 9:29 AM

What are you naive? You think America is somehow magically protected from something like this happening? Oh no, that would never happen to us! Give me a break.

George Washington, the man who could have been King, was the first to advocate the two term limit. In times of crisis, such as the Great Depression, a leader can gain hold of much power and the electorate can become complacent. Term limits check an individual from getting too much power and keeps Washington somewhat fresh and on its feet. Not only should there be term limits for the President but it is time we see them for Congress as well.

Daemonocracy on July 1, 2009 at 1:47 PM

I don’t know about a third term…but I think the possibility is that things could very well get much worse than even Rush Limbaugh fears…third term, national emergency, or Obama agreeing with the criminal mainstream news media that he really is God…the last part is a joke- I hope…or could Obama actually be that crazy?

8-track-vinyl on July 1, 2009 at 1:57 PM

The amendment that I would REALLY be in favor of is one for the possible RECALL of a President, able to be called with a petition by 2/3rds of states and then a 70% vote by state elector count … something like that.

progressoverpeace on July 1, 2009 at 2:08 PM

Friendly21. Like the US has honored all treaties it ever entered in to with the Native Americans. White man sip koolaid with the rest of them in DC, you betcha.

georgeofthedesert on July 1, 2009 at 2:18 PM

Is Rush JUST getting this or has he been holding back until something presented itself for comparison….I’d have to say the latter. Dick Morris, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin and a few others are FINALLY putting forth the fact that Obama has seized the census and the Democrats in the House of Representatives want to overturn the 22nd Amendment.
Obama FEARS the American People but not enough…yet.

nelsonknows on July 1, 2009 at 2:49 PM

Allahpundit, I’ve TRIED to educate you on Obama’s seizure of the census, involvement by ACORN in our census etc., so has Michelle Malkin.
The census is being conducted NOW in several states, not in April, 2010 as the census website claims….not any “preview questionaire” but the actual enumeration. The census will be FINISHED, DONE, FINITO, in April, the EARLIEST and census has ever been completed and giving plenty of time for Obama’s little mafiaoso to begin the game of gerrymandering.
If you want to play “hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil”, with this, knock yourself out, but don’t whine when YOUR vote means nothing in 2010 and 2012 because MANY have tried to warn the American People…..I’ll continue putting out the TRUTH, as I assume Beck, Limbaugh, Levin, Malkin and a few others will.

nelsonknows on July 1, 2009 at 3:04 PM

Would it be possible for someone to challenge the 22nd ammmendment in the courts?So rather than going through the legislative process,could five progessive Supreme Court Justices simply declare it unconstitutional on the theoretical basis that I mentioned above?
DDT on July 1, 2009 at 12:36 PM

An amendment to the constution necessarily then becomes part of the constitution. Therefore, you can’t declare that a portion of the constitution itself is unconstitutional. Statutes can be declared unconstitutional by the SCUS if they conflict with the constitution. It is impossible for the constitution to conflict with itself.

Obviously, the constition can be “interpreted” in different ways which may result in radically different outcomes based upon your interpretation. See 2nd Amendment.

However, in the case of the 22nd amendment the wiggle room to interpret is basically non-existent. An repeal of the amendment would be required to elect an person to the office of President more than twice.
To sum up: No, a part of the constitution can not be declared unconstitutional.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 1, 2009 at 3:04 PM

It is impossible for the constitution to conflict with itself.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 1, 2009 at 3:04 PM

That’s not true. Inconsistent sets of rules are entirely possible and occur all the time.

The 22nd amendment is not inconsistent with anything else in the Constitution, but in general one cannot say that any set of rules cannot be inconsistent, by virtue of where they sit.

progressoverpeace on July 1, 2009 at 3:19 PM

Funny thing is if the Libs lose all their freedoms with
the rest of us, it will hurt them the most because they voted
for a dictator in waiting. Already the Lib press is really fearful of who they help put in office…most anyway.

dec5 on July 1, 2009 at 3:32 PM

Rush is just a cartoon character at this point.

Terry Silver on July 1, 2009 at 3:59 PM

Rush is just a cartoon character at this point.

Terry Silver on July 1, 2009 at 3:59 PM

Meh! You only say that because you wish it was true. Truth is you fear his power and his mass-appeal.

Any one that scares the left so badly that even the tyrant-in-chief attacks him personally has to be doing something right!

vapig on July 1, 2009 at 5:03 PM

I think its a lot more likely, given the way Democrats think. Which is quite the opposite of us law-and-order Republicans.

Democrats act, and then square the law afterwards.

Remember Frank Lautenberg? Sure, it was totally illegal for him to sub in…except the law didn’t matter if that meant striking the Democrat from the election.

If 50 states nominate Barack Obama for the Democratic ticket, what is anybody gonna do about that? Fight fifty times? Hope the Supreme Court invalidates 50 state primary elections less than a year before the national election?

Chris_Balsz on July 1, 2009 at 6:24 PM

Would it be possible for someone to challenge the 22nd ammmendment in the courts?So rather than going through the legislative process,could five progessive Supreme Court Justices simply declare it unconstitutional on the theoretical basis that I mentioned above?

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

There is ONLY one way to LEGALLY and Constitutionally, change the Constitution and that is by Amendment.
For a court to even HEAR a case to change the Constitution or to somehow rule any part of the Constitution is unconstitutional, would be in itself, unconstitutional and illegal…not that this fact wouldn’t stop a court from overstepping its powers, it’s been done before.
Everson V Board of Education in 1947
Roe V Wade in 1973
Edward V Aguillard in 1987
Michigan Department of State Police v. Rick Sitz in 1990
These are just four of about 20 cases where the SCOTUS has refused to follow the Constitution and the SCOTUS rulings actually violate the Constitution.

Don’t be surprised with ANYTHING a court does, in this day and age, the courts actually supporting and enforcing the Constitution is an exception, instead of the rule.

nelsonknows on July 1, 2009 at 6:35 PM

The census is being conducted NOW in several states, not in April, 2010 as the census website claims….not any “preview questionaire” but the actual enumeration. The census will be FINISHED, DONE, FINITO, in April, the EARLIEST any census has ever been completed and giving plenty of time for Obama’s little mafiaoso to begin the game of gerrymandering.

nelsonknows on July 1, 2009 at 3:04 PM

So this is what the chipmunks are going to be doing with all that money…ahah…Good catch…However, give us some facts…Don’t get me wrong, I believe you’re on to something.

jerrytbg on July 1, 2009 at 7:30 PM

I believe it’s H.R. 5, and it was submitted in January by some Congress critter from NY. I’m going to bed, so you’ll have to http://www.scroogle.org it yourself. FIFY.

sabu on July 1, 2009 at 11:41 PM

Gimme the reasons why a two term limit is necessary. Can’t wait.

Dave Rywall on June 30, 2009 at 9:31 PM

If you had been paying attention in history, you’d know the answer: FDR.

landlines on July 2, 2009 at 1:44 AM

If all of that’s true and a backlash to Hopenchange is inevitable, how is Barry O planning to get a constitutional amendment passed before 2016?

I guess you weren’t paying attention to what the President of Honduras actually did. He bypassed the Constitution. He could have gotten an amendment but he chose not to – he offered up a referendum to the people to change his term limit and that’s when the Honduras Supreme Court and Congress had the President arrested. For their wholly constitutional action – Obama has condemned them and now insists the President who violated the law be re-instated.

I mean – what planet are you on Alah? Obama has already done much worse than Nixon ever did. Nixon covered up for a break-in … which produced nothing and there’s no evidence that Nixon actually authorized the break-in. Nixon’s crime was covering up the crime once he found out about it and lying about it.

Barry has done much worse. He’s sic’d his dogs in ACORN on AIG execs. Told bond holders he’ll use the press to smear and destroy them. Used the power of his office to pay off the labor unions and give them major stakes in auto companies over priority bond holders who were told to suck it. Fired inspector generals who were investigating his buddies …

I’m really not worried that Obama will serve three terms – I’m worried he’ll serve two. And I’m worried that – if faced with defeat in 2012 – he’ll declare some kind of national emergency that allows him to continue in office – or he rigs the vote a la Amadinnerjacket. He has control of the Executive Branch, he has veto proof and filibuster proof majorities in Congress, he has a willing press, he owns most of the judiciary – and you’re not even conceding the fact that there could be some truth in the point Limbaugh is trying to make?

My God man – wake up and smell the coffee.

HondaV65 on July 2, 2009 at 1:45 AM

Rush is just a cartoon character at this point.

Terry Silver on July 1, 2009 at 3:59 PM

No….Obama and his clowns are the cartoons….who
are bent to destroy the US economy and your freedoms.

dec5 on July 2, 2009 at 2:21 AM

Ooooooh Americans fearing the president will turn into a dictator. AS if that has the remotest chance of ever happening.

Dave Rywall on July 1, 2009 at 9:29 AM

Well, the Left screamed for the last 8 years about George Bush being a dictator. You know, he stole the elections in both 2000 and 2004, set up the theft of the election in 2008 through Diebold’s control of voting machines, spied on American citizens, obliterated our civil liberties, trashed the Constitution, committed war crimes, violated the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations charter, and plotted the 9/11 attacks so he could establish a dictatorship in the name of national security. There were serious people suggesting that Bush was somehow going to cancel the 2008 election to remain in power. This discussion was a regular feature on Daily Kos and Democratic Underground.

rockmom on July 2, 2009 at 10:50 AM

And I do not think it is farfetched at all to envision Obama holding a national referendum at some point if he wins a second term, to establish that “the people” want him to continue to be President. He obviously comes from a school of thought that believes the Constitution does not really guarantee that “the people” get what they want and so it does not have to be honored when it conflicts with “the will of the people.” This is what Zelaya was trying to do in Honduras and it would have been a perfect roadmap for Obama had he gotten away with it.

rockmom on July 2, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Sorry to be so long in responding,but thank you Buckeye,progress and Nelson for the information.I guess I’m going to have to study the Constitution a little more closely.Thanks guys,I appreciate your input.

DDT on July 2, 2009 at 3:42 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5