The Fat Lady Has Been Kidnapped
I read somewhere on-line, in one of the many blogs I read every day, the proposal that George Bush and Dick Cheney are so power mad, not too mention so comfy as the most powerful men on the planet, that they might actually start a war during the elections so that they might maintain their Godly status. I find this theory very easy to believe, considering who we're talking about.
Amendment 22 to the Constitution states that no man shall serve more than two terms as President. It was established in 1951.
Joint Resolution 24, passed on February 17, 2005, repeals this amendment.
And now we have this truly frightening image that shows a bronze bust that was presented to George W. Bush yesterday. It is engraved at the bottom with this disturbing title "President of the United States 2001 - ".
Now this could be a slam that implies that he may well be impeached before 2009, but somehow I don't think that's the reason that the end of his Presidency is uncertain. And how far of a leap is it to imagine that to a power mad failure, bringing about Armageddon and the Rapture might inspire a sense of grandeur?
posted by Argent at 10:03 AM
2 Comments:
On the statue, the end date was left out, because of such reasons that he could get impeached before 2009, and thus not serve his full term. Regardless of the situation, all statues are like that. The statue, in my opinion, doesn't serve as an omen for anything.
But regarding Joint Res 24, the sponsors were pretty much all Democrats, save for Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin. That struck me as odd, because one would think that they wouldn't be too friendly towards Bush, but I don't know, because hell if I know everyone from the House of Representatives. So, I paged through the text of the remarks that's hanging around that link, and for some reason, I find this quote from Hoyer:
"While I am not a supporter of the current President, I feel there are good public policy reasons for a repeal of this amendment. Under the Constitution as altered by the 22nd Amendment, this must be President George W. Bush's last term even if the American people should want him to continue in office. This is an undemocratic result"
I think he has his ammendmants mixed up. But I read farther:"We do not have to rely on rigid constitutional standards to hold our Presidents accountable. Sufficient power resides in the Congress and the Judiciary to protect our country from tyranny."
This is all at "http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r109:1:./temp/~r109hnt5uE::" which is a copy and paste away.
Now, when I saw JR 24, I came to the same conclusion as you, that this was something by Bush to get a third term. Reading this makes me wonder. Now, you'll say "what about the PDF link?". I looked over that too. This clears it up, because apparantly the Democrats have not gone insane, but they believe that someone popular, in other words Clinton who I believe we discussed recently, should be given as many terms as they desire, as long as the people ELECT him. That makes MUCH more sense. Although their sense of timing is off, unless you factor in that amendments take notoriously long to pass, in which case they may be right on time.
So, to summarize, these representatives have enough faith in our system that someone like Bush would be taken out should he try for a third term. But someone popular should be allowed to run for as many terms as they wish.
I just realized the link I gave is crap. So, to find it, if you haven't already, from the original link Argent gave, go:
1)click "Bill Summary & Status"
2)click "All Information"
3)click "E302-303" under "All Actions"
4)click "(Extensions of Remarks - February 18, 2005)"
It should be there. That's all the remarks.
Post a Comment
<< Home