I was talking to this guy and he told me congress is trying to repeal the 22nd ammendment.
Supposedly because of this idiotic War on Terror through the Bill HR 6166 it can be repealed. If you have any information on this please tell us.
2006-10-01 04:53:20 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Even if they didn't change the 22nd ammendment it is still possible for Bush to remain in office. The scenario would be for him to declare war on Iran or N. Korea (or any other country for that matter). A new president can not be elected as long as we are in a war or war is declared.
2006-10-01 08:57:01 · answer #1 · answered by Superman 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, even if Congress does try to repeal the 22nd Ammendment, the have to still go through the House and President. Ammendments like that are not usually repelled. Also, it's been years and years that presidents are only allowed to re-run twice in following years. Bush did his time, it's time to let him go. Thank Goddness.
2006-10-01 11:57:21 · answer #2 · answered by Roxy 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I highly doubt it.
Besides, even if it were true it couldn't keep Bush in office. No law concerning the term length or pay of any elected official can go into effect while that person holds the office.
I would be more apt to believe that the Democrats would want to change the law regarding how many terms a person can serve as President. They would love to get Clinton (and not necessarilly Hillary) back in the White House.
2006-10-01 12:00:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it's a good idea to let any president stay longer than 8 years, that could cause a dictatorship to come into place.
I see nothing wrong with letting a president run again later, after he has done his 8 years, but only after another president has had a chance. No more than 8 years at a time.
Otherwise you wind up with a situation like Saddam, who fixes the elections so he always wins and you are stuck with someone you don't want.
2006-10-01 11:57:42 · answer #4 · answered by You may be right 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Not true. HR 6166 was passed on 9/27 and allows the US to try terrorists as war criminals.
2006-10-01 11:56:46 · answer #5 · answered by sjj571 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No that is merley a liberal lie and twisting of the truth.
the fact is the bill deals with war criminals and POW's from the war.
It does not deal with US courts or US citizens ( unless of course the US citizen may decide to take up arms against its nation)
But as a POW they have never, and I mean never had any rights under the constitution, We did not give them in WWI, WWII, Korea or Viet Nam. The truth is that only now do liberals want to clog our courts with POW's who either are just held to the war is over or they are tried in military court as they have always been.
This is just another proof that liberals don't care about our nation and would even see it destroyed becuase of thier hate of Bush and the Republican party
2006-10-01 15:52:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Are you more scared of Bush staying in or the next idiot who succeeds him? We haven't had a decent prez since at least Reagan. If you don't/didn't like Reagan, you have to go back to the 1800's (FDR would count, but he pulled some "Busher's" too).
2006-10-01 12:05:25 · answer #7 · answered by sethsdadiam 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i have not heard this and i doubt it is true.i go even farther and say there should be term limits in congress as well.i think the days of life in congress should end.i think the stupid bickering should be an indication that a change is needed but somehow we keep reelecting people like drunk and disgraced Kennedy's.
2006-10-01 12:00:04 · answer #8 · answered by ben 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I can't state the validity of my source, but I've heard that if we are in wartime, a president is able to stay in office untill the war ends, without any elections.
I'l like to know if that is true.
2006-10-01 12:05:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
well I don't know about that bill but the constitution would have to be re-amended and ratified, there's virtually no chance of that & even if it got started the chimp would be out of office before it became the law of the land.
2006-10-01 11:57:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋