Question on Constitutions..

[Robert_Emmett]

1. About the American Constitution, would it be possible to make the president, say, president-for-life, if a single party gained control of the Executive, Congress and Supreme Court?

2. We usually think of a constitutional monarchy as a basically democratic system, but would it be counted as a constitutional monarchy if the monarch was still given absolute power? Or does a constitutional monarchy only apply to systems where the king is a figurehead/has powerful democratic elements?

[Captain_Amazing]

@Robert Emmett

1. About the American Constitution, would it be possible to make the president, say, president-for-life, if a single party gained control of the Executive, Congress and Supreme Court?

Not short of amending the Constitution, which requires state approval also.

[Robert_Emmett]

Damn, my plan for domination is shot!

[John_Mace]

The US Constitution isn’t very long. You should read it sometime. It’s all in there.

Presidency is for 4 years only (Article II)

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years…

Amendment process (Articel 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.

[JRDelirious]

(a) No constitution in the world can prevent a de-facto coup d’etat. However, if the Constitution remains in legal effect, this scenario would require approval of a Constitutional Amendment, by 2/3 of each of the Houses of Congress, and then further approval by the Legislatures of 39 out of the 50 States.

(b) A “constitutional monarchy” need not have a “democratic” regime in the sense we normally think of the term (e.g. Italy or Bulgaria under the fascists); and it doesn’t even need a written constitution (e.g. Britain): a system of checks and balances and Rule of Law that not even the King can get around will do just fine. But the normal usage of “constitutional monarchy” in our language DOES exclude absolute monarchy, even if so decreed in a written document.

[John_Mace]

@Robert Emmett

1. About the American Constitution, would it be possible to make the president, say, president-for-life, if a single party gained control of the Executive, Congress and Supreme Court?

To amend the constitution thusly, a single party would have to gain control of 2/3 of the House and Senate and a majority in the Legislatures of 3/4 of the states (assuming that no legisltator in any other party voted for the amendment). It wouldn’t matter who was in the Supreme Court-- that body is not part of the amendment process

[MaryEFoo]

Hoping this doesn’t steer into GD. On the GQ side, isn’t the President’s statement about risk the Administration’s argument for illegal surveillance?

They also appear to be violating the not just the statues but the Constitution, that states, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law”, and the reason given is the same: fear.

Bush’s argument is that reducing risk to the USA allows the Administration to violate statutes, so all the current president would have to do would be to declare that none of the other serious candidates was as safety-conscious as himself, so he would be forced to forbid any of them to run.

This would not require any Amendments, although surely it would be politically unfeasible.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

That scenario is clearly illegal in every possible way. If you’re serious about discussing it, take it to GD.

[brianmelendez]

@JRDelirious

(a) No constitution in the world can prevent a de-facto coup d’etat. However, if the Constitution remains in legal effect, this scenario would require approval of a Constitutional Amendment, by 2/3 of each of the Houses of Congress, and then further approval by the Legislatures of 39 out of the 50 States.

[nitpick]38 of the 50 states.[/nitpick]