English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I predicted this a few years ago. Also, this is only if it looks like a pro NEOCON rebublican will not be elected in '08

2006-08-03 09:35:31 · 12 answers · asked by Waas up 5 in Politics & Government Politics

Com on guys, after the Anthrax scare in the Capitol what happened? Patriot Act. The Patriot act changed (or wrote over) the constitution. Do you think history repeats itself?

2006-08-03 09:47:38 · update #1

12 answers

Uh no.

I heard the same thing about a national state of emergency in 2004

bunch of far left liberal crap, conspiracy theories.

2006-08-03 09:39:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I'll bet you don't even know what a neo-con is.

Once again, you've shown that people who complain the most about what Bush is going to do to the Constitution are the ones who've never even bothered to read it!


Since you obviously don't have a copy in your house, here's a link to the text of the Constitution... enjoy!

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble


There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how it can be amended. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be approved by THREE-FOURTHS of the states.

The amendment as passed may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

It is interesting to note that AT NO POINT does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He CAN NOT VETO an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. THIS POINT IS CLEAR IN ARTICLE 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 USC 378 [1798]):

2006-08-03 20:38:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Not a snowball's chance in hell. Bush has appointed highly qualified Supreme Court Justices with personal strength of character and integrity that have a more traditional sense of what our Constitution should be, and who will uphold the separation of powers, check and balances, and our constitutional republic.

Of course, if in Oct-Nov 2008 we are engaged in a WWIII-existential scenario, Congress may propose emergency measures that the Supreme Court may approve as Constitutional valid.

In contrast, with a liberal Democratic administration, significant changes to the Constitution are more likely. For example, they would abolish the notion that marriage defines a relationship between a man and woman, exact taxation without representation, promote amendments that emphasize Marxist-socialist principles or that make atheistic principles normative as in the former USSR etc.

2006-08-03 16:56:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Bush can't change the Constitution, it has to be done by 2/3 of the states. The only way he could come close would be to suspend it in a time of extreme civil unrest and declare martial law and we'd have the troops roaming the streets of the cities. That won't happen because he has them all over in Iraq. The thought of 4 more years of that insipid ****** is enough to make everyone's hair turn grey!!

2006-08-03 17:47:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Look up Article V of the Constitution. It explains there how the Constitution can be changed (amended). Notice that there's NO role for the President in the process whatsoever.

2006-08-03 16:48:02 · answer #5 · answered by Chris S 5 · 0 0

Didn't you go to school? It takes an act of congress to change the constitution. That would be 5 years in the making . So no "Chicken Little" the chances are between slim and none and slim is on Pluto.

2006-08-03 16:42:38 · answer #6 · answered by Boredstiff 5 · 0 0

You imbecile, it's not within Bush's power to change the constitution. Any amendment has to be ratified by 2/3 of the states.

Get a grip on yourself, cous...

2006-08-03 16:40:44 · answer #7 · answered by SirCharles 6 · 0 0

The president cannot change the constitution. Your ideology is getting in the way of intelligence.

2006-08-03 16:45:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

HA! Do you read 'The Onion'? They just had that vry headline this week! Go to the website and check it out. Also, sign up for a weekly subsription (for free) if you need a laugh every wednesday!

2006-08-03 16:43:55 · answer #9 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 0 0

You must be one of those freaks who thinks their physic. How much power do you think the President has? He can't change the constitution. Moron!

2006-08-03 16:41:00 · answer #10 · answered by Luekas 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers