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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.