2006-09-23 21:54:55 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
the beauty of it is that he has already assumed the position of King. Rarely used in the past, he has been advised to use it almost each and every time, with very little publicity- signing statements :he signs it into law then signs at the bottom a disclaimer that amounts to "But if I decide at some later date not to obey this law, I rserve the right to do so" How can a democratic govt allow this? Get the people doped up on TV,pump out the proganda, put a chill on dissent by calling it unpatriotic, and less and less education and poof-you can lead them off a cliff if you have to.No need to have a coronation-its happenned right under our noses w/o fanfare.
2006-09-23 22:21:16 · answer #1 · answered by FoudaFaFa 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I don't know, I think there's a much better chance of the opposite happening...
No Republican (unless they come from Utah, Oklahoma, or Texas want to be seen with the President until the elections are over. President Bush will only hurt their chances of winning. I think there's a better chance (while it's still VERY slim) that the Republicans would want the President out of the Presidency. This way, they can pursue their somewhat more America-based policies.
Yes, the Democrats would probably want this to, and there's a really small chance they may even try. I really doubt it, but nothing impossible. If someone DID introduce impeachment legislation against the President, however, I have this feeling that Congressmen from both sides of the aisle would support it.
2006-09-23 22:05:09 · answer #2 · answered by amg503 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
As I consider it become the left wingnuts like James Carville and Bob Shrum who went around yelling GW become a conservative, while no longer something become farther from the certainty, even though it helped get him elected. what's costing the election now's the financial meltdown brought about by ability of human beings like Barney Frank, Andrew Coumo, Obama (by ability of way of ACORN lawsuit), Chris Dodd and others turning Fannie mae and Freddie Mac into component to the entitlement/welfare/slavery reparitions application and changing the regulation so those mortgages could be bundled and offered on the international markets as a commodity, and battling any attempt by ability of republicans to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac tooth and nail. Barney Frank actually being in mattress with Fannie director Herb Moses for 8 years on an identical time as chairman of the senate finance committee and not being charged with conflict of intrest purely makes it each and all of the extra absurd. that is laughable to observe congress carry hearings to make your suggestions up the undertaking now while they haven't any clue what words like "LIBOR" propose, lots much less complicated in charge Bush. yet who will the democrats blame while they administration each and all of the branches of the government?
2016-10-17 21:11:51 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with the answer that points out that this is hardly necessary, I also think that he does not have to worry about the future.
Since the Republicans found out that Stalin was 100% right when he pointed out "It's not the votes that count, but he who counts the votes" you probaply will get his brother or another one of his cronies as your next president.
2006-09-23 22:29:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Busgh adminsitration has shown that it does not care about the US Constitution, violating it as they see fit, but changing a president into a king would take a complete rewrite. Not even the hardcore nutjob rightwingers would go for that.
2006-09-23 22:03:42 · answer #5 · answered by ratboy 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Nope
2006-09-24 01:20:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
They would if....
Stealing 2 elections is not a bad start.
2006-09-24 01:23:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Just like all the nutjobs who thought Clinton would do the same thing in 2000.
2006-09-23 21:59:14 · answer #8 · answered by Aaron D 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I think that most republicans (and dem and libs) are educated enough to know that that just doesn't fly here.
2006-09-23 22:00:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
no..kings and queens are in places like the uk....however...libs have made president "priaprism" their "LORD"
2006-09-24 02:45:39 · answer #10 · answered by bushfan88 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋