I mean, Ashcroft, then Gonzales have pretty much cleared the way for him to do whatever he wants, due to being a war-time president, and the fact that this "war against terrorism" is 'different' (never mind the fact that he started it in the first place) just seems to expand his powers even more.
I wonder just how far those powers can reach, and is it possible that if he so wished, he could extend the number of terms a presiednt is allowed to remain in office from two to.....however many he wants?
2006-09-21 15:31:15 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
A very good point was made, that I believe to be true. That is that Congress must declare war, not the President. However, I believe he jumped the gun before Congress had much say. And, he did as I recall, declare victory back in May, 2003. So, in fact he is not technically a war-time president after all.
But, does that technicality mean anything when the Att'y General(s) say that he is, he says he is, and therefore, exceptions continue to be made for him just as if he were a war-time president - and more, in his case.
This is truly very wrong.
Another good point that has been made, is the fact that the Constitution states that Congress must declare war, not the Prez. And in order to change that, he would have to get an ammendment passed. He has tried before to ammend the constitution, without luck. So, technically, he would have to get an ammendment to the constituition passed, which if he tried, would probably not pass. Yet, none of this has stopped him???
2006-09-21 19:16:01 · update #1
Since it appears as if every attempt Bush has made to ammend the constitution has failed, then why is he allowed to continue to push on ahead to do things his way in spite of this?
2006-09-22 10:30:11 · update #2
Well I hear everyone saying your at War?? Was there in fact a declaration of war?? Or is it still a Combat Operation?? To my knowledge he can't claim to be a war time President if no formal declaration of war is made.. Therefore the point is mute..
He also declared an end to major combat operations as well. a hell of along time ago . More troops have died since then then have died during Major combat operations. Bush still had the chance to get his Rambo fly in photo op,, Something he could only do as President cause he shirked his responsibility during Nam
I'm sure he is trying to think of a way to stay on though if your smart you will all vote against it . cause if he does manage to change the law for a war time President , What an incentive to attack a country that would be..
2006-09-21 15:48:27 · answer #1 · answered by Shawn S 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe that the branches are not suppose to be in bed with each other. They are to remain divisive, as this ensures the protection of the Constitution. If the process was quick and easy, than the probability of crap coming into the mix that would weaken the Constitution would come into the fold. This is why our system seems so slow. The Founding Fathers would have rather their be a million good laws that didn't come into affect if it meant one bad law didn't make it through. So, I say keep them separate and increase the checks and balances that maintains the integrity of the system.
2016-03-27 01:36:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No Bush cant expand his time in office read the constitution its in the 27 amendments I cant remember which one but all I know is he cant run again after this some other poor guy is going to have to fix his mess when he gets out of the white house.
2006-09-21 15:43:51 · answer #3 · answered by Candi 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe we would have to declare war on a nation not a threat. War on terrorism is not an actual war. More of the same old police actions.
2006-09-21 15:44:59 · answer #4 · answered by wowwhatwasthat 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, i dont think he could, he would have to ammend the constitution, there is 1 amendment the says that the president can hold up to 2 terms.
2006-09-21 15:38:08 · answer #5 · answered by butterfly 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I understand that in order for that to happen, there would need to be a Congressional action to amend the constitution.
He does not have any power which is not granted by the Constitution. Any objections to his actions have been monitored and put in front of our representatives, who have decided what he has done is both legal, and what they voted for to begin with.
2006-09-21 15:34:19 · answer #6 · answered by askthepizzaguy 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No not a chance. Unfortunately. A United States President can serve no longer than two terms, eight years. It's a law that can't be broke, period.
2006-09-21 15:45:34 · answer #7 · answered by Stacey B 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
FDR was the last and measures taken to prevent 3-4 terms.
2006-09-21 15:35:40 · answer #8 · answered by longroad 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't hold it past him, except for the fact that he can't wait to pawn off the "war on terrorism" onto the next president.
2006-09-21 15:38:49 · answer #9 · answered by juliett 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
he seems to be making laws as he goes,, but he is loosing the war in Iraq
2006-09-21 15:34:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋