2006-07-10 12:58:45 · 30 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No but we should have an ammendment that says "No one who steals the election through fraud and has the IQ of a dead gerbil can be voted President of anything including a book club"
2006-07-10 13:04:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 4⤋
Oh boy, another "let's change the law to fit our cause" freak. I don't think Republicans know what "conservative" means anymore.
No, we should not amend the Constitution to allow Dubya to run again.
In fact, could we please stop amending the Constitution altogether? I request a moratorium on amendments until we review some of the stupid stuff that's already there and get rid of it.
2006-07-10 13:18:01 · answer #2 · answered by askme 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No!
The constitution was changed to prevent someone from getting so popular they could concievably make it a life time position. A change I actually agree with. No matter what anyone thinks of Bush the constitution should never be changed back.
2006-07-10 13:07:50 · answer #3 · answered by JFra472449 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, it would fit in with many of his supporters... "If we don't like it, then let's just change the Constitution!! Whew!!"
It's only the document on which our nation was founded, so why bother protecting it from the whims of a generation, right?
The last time we changed the Constitution on the whims of a frenzied generation, we brought about prohibition - and with it, organized crime and black markets.
The Constitution is only to be changed for the most major things. It it not to be used for the whimsy of a single generation as it effects generations to come. It should not be used to restrict rights. It should be used to expand them. It's the most vital document to our nation and it is to be respected - not altered everytime it doesn't fit one group's needs.
2006-07-10 13:03:36 · answer #4 · answered by WBrian_28 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We actually amended the Constitution to PREVENT a president from having more than two terms. It works the other way, too, though. If you want W, you could get slick willie back by mistake.
2006-07-10 13:02:51 · answer #5 · answered by double_nubbins 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Go right ahead. Like everyone wouldn't greet an newly re-electable Bill Clinton as a Savior.
C'mon, I dare ya.
2006-07-10 13:05:25 · answer #6 · answered by slipstreamer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would say, absolutely not- not for the reasons you might think, though. I wouldn't wish 4 more years on that sweet man for anything. He needs to relax and let another conservative take over- he's put up with too much crap from the bed-wetting liberals and the big fat drunken Ted Kennedy's on the hill. He deserves a happy retirement.
2006-07-10 13:19:01 · answer #7 · answered by tiredofliberals 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Read the book Animal Farm by George Orwell,the pigs kept changing the rules and the whole farm died,but it sounds like par for the course that W's on now
2006-07-10 13:07:30 · answer #8 · answered by Beeman11 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know your not serious. Amending the constitustion should only be for serious issues - allowing a 3rd presidential terms is not a serious issue.
2006-07-10 13:01:04 · answer #9 · answered by The Killer Tomato 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you wanted Hillary to get elected, he's about the only one she'd beat.
2006-07-10 13:02:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋