2007-07-19 09:46:16 · 21 answers · asked by Alex 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I don't know... I hope not, but it is scary that there is a mechanism (National Emergency) that is in place right now:
On September 21, 2006, Bush submitted a continuation of national emergency, thus renewing Proclamation 7463 of September 14, 2001.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060921-13.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2001/09/fr091801.html
In May 2007, Bush signed the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (NSPD 51/HSPD-20).
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html
(HINT... open the link and search for 'congress')
Unlike the National Emergency Act that sets up congress as a balance, the new directive:
1. does not contain any provisions allowing for congressional approval or oversight.
2. creates the new position of National Continuity Coordinator without Congress approval
3. negates any requirement that the president submit proof of the existence of a National Emergency to Congress
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55824
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7986.shtml
2007-07-19 10:07:20 · answer #1 · answered by sagacious_ness 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, he will step down, as all other presidents have in the past, when their term of office has ended. Roosevelt stayed on because he was re-elected, and at the time there was no two term limit for the president.
2007-07-19 16:51:43 · answer #2 · answered by Mike W 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
a good chance we will still be at war ------- but here in the
United States President Bush WILL step down at the end
of his term. It is law and is enforceable.
2007-07-19 17:01:38 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He can't with the 2-term limit, though I'm sure he wants to so as to prevent Hilary or Obama to take the helm. We'd be lost by lunch.
2007-07-19 16:55:27 · answer #4 · answered by K.K. 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There would have to be some major catastrophe...er...terrorist attack or something just prior to his leaving office so that he would be allowed to use his Executive Powers and institute martial law (which, if any of you have read some of the laws he's signed into effect recently he DOES have the power to do).
2007-07-19 16:57:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. The only 3-term president was FDR, I don't think the country will repeat that mistake.
2007-07-19 16:52:27 · answer #6 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He has no power to declare war and no way to stay on as president. Jeez.
2007-07-19 16:54:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
being at war wouldn't keep him in office. Even Lincoln had to run for reelection during the civil war.
2007-07-19 16:51:29 · answer #8 · answered by wisemancumth 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
after FDR Congress passed a law that limited Presidents to 2 terms. He can't do it. And if you liberals would stop watching tv and learn your facts, you would have known that now lay off of Bush!
2007-07-19 16:51:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
It wouldn't surprise me. Bush acts like FDR in a lot of ways and this would just be another similarity.
2007-07-19 16:48:30 · answer #10 · answered by freedom first 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋