2006-09-29 17:29:49 · 21 answers · asked by politicallypuzzeled 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
This is a great question that should be looked at seriously. i can see this happening already. Bush has done alot of illigal things. It is now clear that we have no fourth amendment, so why would this suprise anyone. Hannity actually talked about suspending the 2004 election. Don't be suprised if we see a state sponsered terrorist attack before both the mid term and the next presidential election.
2006-09-29 19:40:25 · answer #1 · answered by Luke F 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Of course he'll leave. A president himself cannot "declre" marshall Law. As long as our civilian courts are still operating, Marshall Law cannot be instituted. It would also have to get passed through Congress first. Besides, what reason does he have to stay? Contrary to extremist belief, I doubt that Bush is the "power hungry" modern Hitler. I don't think he's even clever enough to want supreme power. And since the war in iraq, his favorability has fallen, so when his term ends I can only imagine he'd be happy to step aside and let a predessor deal with the mess over there.
2006-09-29 17:42:04 · answer #2 · answered by Jamie 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Although technically he doesn't have to, there is precedent for wartime presidents who held elections: Lincoln in 1864 & FDR in 1944, & LBJ in 1968.
A second reason: Bush himself has alluded to leaving the Iraq war for someone else to conclude.
The touch screen electronic voting machines only elect Republicans anyway . There is nothing to "fear" from any Democratic contender as long as they are in use. Easy to hack & manipulate, not verifiable by anyone but a private company, repeatedly recording more votes than voters, this is the real end of representative government. Not with a bang, but a shrug.
2006-09-29 17:54:42 · answer #3 · answered by WikiJo 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Actually, he will leave office in 2009. That's when the new president is sworn in. But as for declaring martial law, he has no grounds to do so. We're not even at war. (At least, not by the definition supplied in the Constitution.) Not even Bush is stupid enough to think he could get away with that.
2006-09-29 17:34:00 · answer #4 · answered by Chredon 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The congress has the power to either accept the the presidents declaration or reject it. If rejected the result could be a fight for power between the branches of government. This website contains a lot of information about martial law and explains my answer in further detail.
http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/Bioterrorism/8Military/MartialLaw02.htm
2006-09-29 17:45:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
He wouldn't have to declare marshall law. If he could run again, he would overwhelmingly be elected by the people for a third term.
Don't believe the polls folks. Remember the exit polls of 2004? Dead wrong. Or manipulated by the liberal media.
2006-09-29 17:54:23 · answer #6 · answered by babe 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I believe we have to be under direct attack from a foreign country before he can do that! And He can be Vetoed by congress and the senate! So Yes I think it's pretty certain that he'll be stepping down in 2009!!
2006-09-29 17:42:31 · answer #7 · answered by Carolyn T 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes he will leave office. He has respect for the American constitution unlike most democrats.
2006-09-30 00:01:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes, I REALLY think he will leave office on Jan. 20, 2009. Don't be so flippin' paranoid, .......
...... unless you're only PRETENDING to be paranoid for the sake of partisan strategy!
2006-09-29 17:35:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
What the U.S. A. need in order to wake up is for him to try something like that. I hope he does, because his election and reelection made me lose most faith in my modern U.S.
If he tries that, then we all will see what our people are made of!
2006-09-29 17:49:04 · answer #10 · answered by A Box of Signs 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋