English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I'm not an idiot, and I realize that the 22nd amendment prevents George W. from running again. My question is this: If a president put the ability to limit terms in, couldn't George W. remove those limitations. Also, if we were in World War III, Couldn't he run in that scenario also?

2007-11-15 13:24:09 · 10 answers · asked by Nova_Borealis 1 in Politics & Government Elections

10 answers

depends on if the congress lets him usurp more of their power then they already have let him do , with out so much as a question about it.


but it would take a amendment.

2007-11-15 13:28:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

As has been said here, it would take a Constitutional Amendment. That requires a vote of both houses of Congress (2/3 IIRC) and the approval of the State Legislatures (again 2/3 IIRC).

As for suspending the Constiution... well despite what the less well educated people have said here, it has not been done..EVER.

During the Civil War Abraham Lincoln temporarily suspended the Right of Habeus Corpus in some areas of the Union... mainly due to the fact they were in open rebellion.

Even Lincoln ran for re-election in 1864... and yes that was right smack in the middle of the Civil War. FDR ran for re-election in 1944... five months after D-Day.

Anyone who says that the Constiution can be suspended... well they aren't an idiot, but if they study hard they might just get there. They don't know American History very well for one thing. Secondly they don't know the Constiution... it does not allow for a "suspension"... neither Congress nor the President nor the Supreme Court have that power. Lastly they don't know the Military... the United States Military takes an oath to "protect the Constitution from all enemies, foriegn and domestic". That means they are obilgated to protect the Consitution... they would be required by their oath to take up arms against ANYONE who tried to suspend it.

2007-11-16 00:43:08 · answer #2 · answered by Larry R 6 · 0 0

No. There would have to be a new amendment to the Constitution and the President can't do that on his own. War or no war, we get a new President in Jan 2009.

2007-11-15 21:28:45 · answer #3 · answered by Citicop 7 · 1 0

Legally there is no what for George W. Bush to hold a 3rd term.

As for him suspending the constitution and declaring martial law due to war - again illegal but I would not put it past him to try. It would incite a revolution

2007-11-15 21:53:14 · answer #4 · answered by Sambo 4 · 0 1

The only place he should be for the next 8 years is serving time in a Federal prison for treason, high crimes and misdemeaners.

He is the worst president in our history. It will take generations to repair the damage he and his Republicans thugs have done to our beloved country.

2007-11-16 15:23:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

That would have to be a Constitutional amendment in which Congress would have to approve. No matter who the majority is in the house that'll never happen. if I remember correctly, slick Willy wanted to do that too, so don't try to pin this President Bush.

And no, he would not stay in office in the event of WWIII.

2007-11-15 21:40:40 · answer #6 · answered by Jim C 5 · 0 0

Bush has approval ratings in the 30% range.
There is absolutely no way, barring some sort of miracle (or disaster, depending on your viewpoint), that he would win the election.

2007-11-15 21:33:18 · answer #7 · answered by Useless Knowledge Goddess 4 · 0 0

I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH BUSH

BUT LETS SAY HE HAD THE CHANCE TO RUN AGAIN

HE HAS MY VOTE

CAUSE HE GOT US IN THIS MESS

HE NEEDS TO FIND A WAY TO GET US OUT OF WHAT HE GOT US INTO.

ITS LIKE SOME ONE EATS ON A PLATE
AND YOU WASH THERE PLATE FOR THEM.

BUT THE PROBLEM WITH BUSH IS INSTEAD OF CLEANING THAT PLATE, HE MIGHT GET ANOTHER CLEAN PLATE INSTEAD.

2007-11-16 03:33:23 · answer #8 · answered by CONSERVATIVE 2 · 0 0

Only way he could run a third term is if there was another world war. I could see him suspending the constitution in that case. I think FDR did that..

2007-11-15 21:32:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

The American people wouldn't allow it even if he could pull it off.

2007-11-15 21:30:05 · answer #10 · answered by Blake 3 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers