What do you think of this idea? Maybe we should an Amendment to the US Constitution saying that, much like a radio contest, immediate family cannot run for President until (let’s say) 30 years have passed. - Jinx
Sounds rather arbitrary to me.
Jinx, you still mad about being confused by the butterfly ballot a few years ago?
For what purpose? Why should X be barred from the presidency simply because his father/brother/mother/sister was president?
Zev Steinhardt
I might support an ammendment to prevent spouses of presidents to run for president. Not just to preempt Hillary (admirable in itself), but you can conceive of an evil charismatic figure winning the presidency, serving two terms, running his wife as a puppet president, divorcing her 8 years later, running a second wife as a puppet president, etc.
But that is such a far-fethced situation that I don’t think we really need to legislate against it.
In any event, why should the spouse of a president be barred from running just because thier spouse was, at one time, president?
Zev Steinhardt
I agree it is far fetched. If our country ever would be willing to vote for spouse puppets of an evil president, we’d have more problems than what could be solved by an ammendment.
Well, I’ve always been a firm believer in the fact that the people deserve the government that they elect. If it was up to me, I’d repeal the twenty second ammendment, even if it meant a third Clinton term (and I most definitely do not like Bill Clinton). If the people are stupid enough to vote the same loser into office again and again and again, then they deserve what they get.
Zev Steinhardt
Here are a couple of ideas that I would love to see as amendments.
[ul]
[li]Any bill that is passed requires a 90% majority. Similarly a 1/3 minority could repeal a bill. Essentially, I would like to make it a lot harder to pass laws.[/li][li]No more riders on appropriations bills (i.e. no giving money to all of the left-handed Yak herders from your congressional district when the bill in question has to do with National Highway funding).[/li][/ul]
**
So you would have a 11% minority hold the other 89% hostage?
As a left-handed Yak herder, I find your comments offensive sir. Yak herding is definitely an integral part of the National Highway system. After all, we keep our yaks off your highways. 
Seriously, I agree with you here. Keep the spending on the topic of the bill in question.
Zev Steinhardt
Sort of, I guess the impulse here is that I think that it should be pretty damn hard to pass new laws, but somewhat easier to get rid of existing ones. Probably I overstate my case, but I think that the point is well made that there are some pretty frivolous things on the books that probably never should have made it there in the first place.
Obviously you aren’t aware that it has been done by several governors, notably George Wallace in Alabama.
Maybe we don’t need Bush Jr to guide this nation in the footsteps of Bush Sr…and [Spanish accent]seek revenge and finish what his padre started, senior[/spanish accent]. I cannot help but feel Bush is acting completely on his father’s behalf…and his father is filled with regret for not carrying things further at the time.
Besides, just like two terms are enough… it is more than enough for one generation to have to suffer under the rule of Sr, but do we really need Jr, too? I feel like the White House has become the Ponderosa. - Jinx
I think Zev and others are aware of it. We prefer not to pollute the U.S. constitution with amendments prohibiting it. Let the voters vote against the spouses, brothers, sisters, ex-wives and crazy uncles if they don’t want them.
You obviously don’t know how hard it is to pass a law right now.
So, you want to pass an amendment to keep G. W. Bush out of the White House?
…You’re too late.
Both John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams were worthy presidents. The latter, by the way, became president even though his leading opponent had 155,000 popular votes to Adams’ 105,000.
Well, it sounds great if you’ve been brainwashed by libertarians, but just wait til you can’t get reasonable supply bills passed and see what sort of mess that degnerates into just because of 11% of congress disagree with it. Basically, you’ve got a government that can’t get anything done. Do you really want a nation destined to forever stagnate?
**
That is something for the voters to decide. Even if what you state is true (that Bush is acting as a proxy for his father, which is ridiculous enough), not all children will follow thier parents’ leads. To ban them all for that is, IMHO, wrong.
Firstly, as I stated above, I think that term limits are wrong to begin with. But, even so, is this really a belief that two people from the same family should never hold the presidency, or is it simply a “We don’t like George Bush” sentiment. Ask yourself this question: If she were otherwise able, mature enough, and had enough ability and the qualifications to do so, would you vote for Chelsea Clinton for president in 2032?
Zev Steinhardt