Forget his being re-elected. It’s a foregone conclusion. It won’t be Florida this time, he’s already BEEN to that well. So, I’m assuming he’ll be re-elected by some means, and serve two full terms in office.
Let’s look ahead, to Spring of 2007. It’s 18 months before the election. The laws of the U.S.A. ( as they stand right now ) limit a President to two consecutive terms in office. By the time Spring of 2007 rolls around he will have already introduced legislation that will alter that law, to permit at least three consecutive terms in office. ( I do truly believe this. He won’t leave after two. )
How heavily would the Legislative Branch have to be leaned on? What would have to happen to the Supreme Court? It’d be a serious bit of legislation. Would it have to be introduced almost immediately late this year, or within a few weeks of his Inauguration next January? Obviously, he’d wait till after the election.
Term of Office laws are changed now and then in various states, I have no doubt but that this is being floated already in his inner circle. What do you think the timeline would have to be to have it come to fruition?
Bit of a wacky conspiracy theory, doncha think?
Anyway, he’d have to amend the Constitution, and notice the bolded part:
No way would he get away with getting an amendment passed and including himself in it. More than likely they’d exclude him from being included in its purview.
It should be noted as well, that FDR was the first and, thankfully, the last Prez to violate this two-term limit, and it was a bad idea even for him. No one is indispensable.
This couldn’t be done by a simple statutory amendment. The two-term limit is set out in the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution, so if Dubya wants to change it, he has to persuade two-thirds of the Representatives and SEnators to propose a constitutional amendment, changing the restriction, and then have three-fourths of the states ratify the amendment.
Can’t see it happening, myself. The Republicans would have to take a two-thirds majority in both houses, for a start, since I can’t see any Democrats voting for it. And then it would have to be ratified state-by-state, with fights in each legislature.
Just to clear something up, I may have left the impression that this amendment was around during FDR. It wasn’t; it was passed during Truman.
However, the custom of a President serving a max of two terms was started by George Washington, and up until FDR that custom had never been violated.
i see those who came before me noted that this would take an amendment to the us constitution to make happen, so i won’t mention that (oops!).
[slight hijack]though i do have to question pantom’s reasons for advocating the amendment. we all know how little, historically, lame-duck presidents accomplish. would not the office be more meaningful in the second term with the repeal of this amendment?[/slight hijack]
to add, i note that if the amendment were repealed and not worded to keep gwb from invoking it, the door would be reopened to such hated men as bill clinton, and i doubt any conservative legislator would let that happen, given the relative popularity of the two men. also, clinton was advocating (in june?) a rewording of this amendment, to say that no president shall serve more than two consecutive terms, so you know he’d like to be head of the nation again.
Couldn’t agree more. Never happen. This is more a factual question than a debate so: If it did get passed, would Clinton (Billy boy himself) come back and woop up on his ass? Maybe he’d run with Hilary as his VP.
And if WCJ could run gain, would we see him running against Hillary in the primaries? Man, this could be fun…!
Cartooniverse: Please, please tell us that you knew about the 22nd amendment and are somehow… uhm somehow thinking that a law could still be passed that… uhm, uhm, uhm… hell, forget I ever brought this up.
You guys simply have no imagination, Cartooniverse. Your scenerio is too complex and doesn’t have a snowballs chance in hell of happening…not in THIS reality.
Whats REALLY going to happen is this and its SO simple. Chaney will run for president with GW as his VP (as far as I know there is no provision that an ex prez can’t be VP…if there is, then he will get THIS changed as a back door while misdirecting the publics attention by invading Belgum), and then about a year in Chaney will retire due to health reasons (of fake his death and go to Sweden)…causing a constitutional crisis. GW will then sieze power with his loyal minions (You Know Who You Are) and the army and declair himself King George the Noble, Prince of DC, Duke of Texas, Hight Mugwump of the South West, etc etc. His reign will last for decades and he will widely be considered the finest King the US had up to this point in history.
I don’t see Bush getting away with this if he gets elected this year. Sure, I think the guy’s sleazy, but hell, advocating something like this, even as president, would be a little too self-serving even for the Bush administration. And, I know, that really says a lot. The Republicans probably have plans to run Jeb in 2008, and if that works out, they’d run Neil in 2016, then Jenna in 2024 and Barbara in 2032. (Of course, with the Bushes in control of the country for that long, the economy would be so thoroughly ravaged that they’d see the need to suspend the constitution and put the country under martial law to stop the riots. The Bush Dynasty would then rule from a heavily-guarded compound in Kennebunkport, and I’d be pleading for French citizenship.)
I like the Clinton idea that Ramanujan mentioned. Not that I’ve ever been a huge Clinton fan, but I just don’t like the idea of a president having to serve two terms and then never consider running again. I do feel there needs to be some sort of term limit on the office, and this is perfect. I’d back an amendment like this. I realize it could lead to the hypothetical return of George W. Bush in 2008 (or, God forbid, 2012,) but I’m willing to live with that. Besides, I don’t see Bush running again in the future, even if he could. He’s just not that ambitious.
Why do so many always miss the obvious? There’s no need for GW to run for a third term. Jeb is waiting in the wings and working on his tan even as we speak.
I knew about it, I considered it when I wrote my O.P. The beauty and strength of our nation is that our Constitution is a living breathing thing. Any Amendment can be overwritten or rescinded. ( Please please tell me you’re aware of the 18th Amendment and are somehow ignoring the fact that one Amendment can uhm…uhm…uhm… eliminate one that came before?
The law of the land is only the law of the land until someone changes the law. Read the questions I posed in my O.P. How far would the Supreme Court have to be altered? How many states would have to become Republican for this to be a drop-kick instead of a highly unlikely scenario- as it is right this moment?
The “no third term” tradition had been violated before by ex-Presidents who had served two full terms running again, but they lost. Grant actively campaigned in 1880 but did not get the Republican nomination. Teddy Roosevelt, who had served nearly two full terms (VP under McKinley’s second term, he took office when McKinley was assassinated only a few months into the second term, then ran again as incumbent in 1904), ran under the Bull Moose ticket in 1912, but lost to Wilson.
Second, if GWB were to be reelected in 2004, he could not run for VP in 2008. Amendment XII mandates that the qualifications for VP be the same as those for President – so if he were excluded from running for President by the working of Amendment XXII, he could not be elected as VP either. (There is a catch: with the provisions of Amendment XXV, he could be appointed to fill a vacancy in the VP slot, and then succeed to the Presidency; the Constitutional law only governs the candidacy for election to the Presidency.)
“The twenty-second amendment to the constitution is hereby repealed.”
Assuming a straight party vote (which is assuming a lot - many republicans would be strongly against this amendment), first they need 290 representatives and 67 senators. I don’t see that happening in only two more elections, do you?
Then they need majorities in both houses of 38 states. I don’t see that happening in only two more elections, either, do you?
The supreme court would have absolutely nothing to do with it. Well, unless this was attempted to be accomplished by a simple law, in which case the court would shoot it down 9-0 without even retiring to chambers. The only way it could be done is by amending the constitution; the court can’t rule that part of the constitution is unconstitutional.
As **Ramanujan[/b[ suggests in his post above, and as the OP seems to have slipped a bit over, the rule is that no President may be elected to the office twice. There is no rule about consecutive terms; both Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush are eligible, for example, to serve a second term in 2008.
To answer the OP, the amendment repealing XXII would require two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the states. I don’t see either as a likely possibility.
Far more likely that the “Bush machine” would simply run Jeb Bush in 2008, giving them eight more years of a Bush White House and the chance to replace a majority of the Supreme Court justices, who will then cause all those people formerly in favor of federal judicial fiat to reconsider their views.
I don’t think so: From the 12th Amendment: " But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. " I read that as being indifferent to the method of ascension, be it elected or otherwise.
You are, of course, correct so far as you go. However, from the 22nd Amendment: “No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected as President shall be elected to the office of President more than once.”
At the time of the 22nd Amendment’s adoption or ratification, there were only two ways to become President: election by the Electoral College, or election by the House of Representatives. But the 25th provided a third means, by which Gerald Ford became President: being nominated by the President for a vacancy in the Vice Presidency, and then, the President resigning or dying, succeeding to the Presidency. So Mr. Eisenhower, Mr. Reagan, Mr. Nixon, Mr. Clinton, and if he is reelected in 2004 Mr. Bush, would not be eligible to be elected President or Vice President. (Granted that two of these have since died, and a third is incapacitated by Alzheimer’s, I took the complete list of those excluded by the 22nd since its adoption.)
But the 22nd amendment did not specifically alter the 12th, so do you not have to obey them both? 22nd amendment- you can’t be elected president twice. 12th amendment, if you’re ineligible for president, you’re ineligible for vice-president. I think implicit in section 2 of the 25th amendment is that it is subject to the eligibility rules of the 12th and 22nd.
Somehow I missed the part about the states in your OP (possibly because it isn’t there)… But since you know all about the constitution, you don’t need to be told that the answer to that question lies in the constitution (my bolding):
Sorry, but this isn’t a debate. The probability of this happening is so close to zero as to be essentially zero.
And if this statement in your OP is true:
I’d like to place a nice wager with you on whether or not that will happen. I’ll give you any odds you’d like.
But it doesn’t state that explicitly. You can easily interpret that that is what was intended, just as you can easily interpret that the intent of the 22nd was that no person who met these criteria should ever be president again however the office was reached. But by using the word “elected”, I’ll go along with Polycarp: there is a hole there you could drive a truck through.
Letter of the constitution, or intent of the constitution? I suppose how it got resolved would all depend on who happened to be sitting on the supreme court at the time.
