NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, remember that this is speculation. I have no proof that Bush will insist on staying on after his term expires, nor do I believe he will. However, I do think it's a good question as to what would happen if, on the 19th of January 2009 or maybe sooner, Bush decides to make one grand "national announcement" and take over the airwaves to announce that he's not stepping aside and letting his successor take over.

We have to set the stage first. The economy's in a bit of a recession but not in disaster mode. The housing bubble is long forgotten; instead, there's an "energy bubble" seen in the light of competing fuel sources now that the price of oil is over $100 a barrel. The city of Miami, FL is in ruin after Hurricane Yolanda, a Category 5, batters the city in early September. In anger, washed-up actress and singer Jennifer Lopez accuses the government of slighting Hispanics. Another swarm of white-collar crime has landed several top executives in jail, with the most exposed picture of this being the CEO of Verizon (hey, I can dream) being hauled out of the building in handcuffs while fighting police officers.

In Congress, the House is still narrowly controlled by the GOP and the Senate is dead-even. The Federal Marriage Amendment was recently proposed and didn't even get a third of the Senate's support. The hottest issue is the protection of overtime rights, and the Bush administration tries to push through a law that allows employers to skimp on OT if an employee fails to work 168 hours in a month. It's shot down easily, and the Democrats regain a majority in the Senate.

Iraq's turned into another mini-Vietnam, and the U.S. is the only nation with any troops there. The UN won't touch it, and the U.S. has thrown out election results recently because a theocratic Shi'ite party won a strong majority. North Korea has developed a nuclear program, though rumors are circulating that Kim Jong Il is in poor health. Iran also is dangerously close to nukes, prompting Israel to declare its nuclear program. Also, Saudi Arabia is defying the U.S. and announcing its plans for a nuclear program.

Also, the Democrats win in 2008 with a margin of more than 100 electroral votes. America's top issues are Iraq and labor rights. The words "moral values" are off the national radar, as eight U.S. states have legalized same-sex marriagess and/or civil unions since early 2006. Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana is the new President-elect, with New Mexico governor Bill Richardson as his VP.

OK, all this leading up to the grand announcement to take place on 6 January 2009 when the President figures everyone's home. At 8 PM EST, outgoing President George W. Bush makes a grand speech thanking everyone for their support throughout his eight years as Commander-in-Chief. After making a lot of statements about uniting the nation, finishing what he started, and preserving the values for which America stands, Bush announces that he will continue to serve as President even after his term expires and will step down at another time. He has voided the 2008 Presidential election results, though he says nothing about the Congressional results.

I ask this question: What is the response of the American people? What does the military do? How about the Congress and the Supreme Court? Does the new Democratic-controlled Congress try to impeach and remove Bush? Does the military stand behind the President or behind the election results? Would the Supreme Court intervene? Can Bush possibly pull off becoming a President-for-life? Would the country follow his lead, turning perhaps into a capitalist dictatorship or a corporate theocracy (if you can imagine that)? Or would they round him up and park him back in Texas? What about a civil war? Is that a possibility, and how would the country be divided? By state? County? City? Household?

After that, who wins the war and what becomes of the U.S. afterward? Does the U.S. become imperialistic? Or has it seen its final days atop the world leadership? I apologize for the length of this, but a stage had to be set.

Bush cannot run again. The constitution does not allow it.

168 / 4 = 42 hours a week. The french complain 'cause they have to work 35, you know. 42 is childsplay.

As for the rest of it; Nope, he wouldn't do it. Because everyone would rise up in opposition. The one thing we have, is that no matter how heated the Presidency or Election, come January the Presidency always changes hands.

Bush cannot run again. The constitution does not allow it.
As far as I can make out, he isn't. He's just declaring that his term isn't over yet.
The constitution is a piece of paper, the question is what the people would do in response. I don't think it'd be a simple case of "all Americans would be against it because the constiution says so".

As far as I can make out, he isn't. He's just declaring that his term isn't over yet.
The constitution is a piece of paper, the question is what the people would do in response. I don't think it'd be a simple case of "all Americans would be against it because the constiution says so".I do. Perhaps I'm an optimist. :D If they sat on their asses and did nothing about it, they would have to live with the shame of living with a despot in charge.

Even if Bush wanted to get away with a blatant infringment of the Constitution, politically, he wouldn't be able to. There would simply be too much outrage from both parties.

Problem is, Bush is a demagogue. Even if he was a real dictator he'd need popular support to maintain control of even his branch of the Feds, and it wouldn't happen if he took a third term. People would stop trusting him.

Problem is, Bush is a demagogue. Even if he was a real dictator he'd need popular support to maintain control of even his branch of the Feds, and it wouldn't happen if he took a third term. People would stop trusting him.He's worse than a demogogue. He's a nothing... an empty shell... totally void of ideas, or ingenuity, and sorrowly lacking in necessary skills to be proficient in ANY profession. He's a rich daddy's boy... and he does whatever Cheney and the PNAC tell him to.

As far as I can make out, he isn't. He's just declaring that his term isn't over yet.
The constitution is a piece of paper, the question is what the people would do in response. I don't think it'd be a simple case of "all Americans would be against it because the constiution says so".
If any President refused to step down when his/her term of office ran out, their name would be mud, both popularly and historically. He or she would probably be escorted out of the White House by the Secret Service at the direction of the Supreme Court's Chief Justice. Either that, or the military would step in and arrest his ass.

This is such an unlikely possibility that it approaches zero as a limit.

Problem is, Bush is a demagogue. Even if he was a real dictator he'd need popular support to maintain control of even his branch of the Feds, and it wouldn't happen if he took a third term. People would stop trusting him.

wait, you mean people still trust him?

wait, you mean people still trust him?As optimist as I may be... I still think there is someone in America that still believes in him. :D

Anyone wanna explain where they got the idea that Bush or any other president would ever consider squatting in the White House after his term was over?

No, there's never been any indication that any president has ever considered it. And if they did, they would be treated as a squatter and hauled off. The president doesn't have some elite praetorian guard.. he's got a half dozen guys with pistols, who wouldn't recognize his claim anyway.

Federal Law enforcement would arrest him for that, and if they didn't do it the Marines would - after all they swear their oath to the constitution, not the president.

It wouldn't happen anyway.

People who say Bush is a demogogue sound horribly immature.

The thing is he can't run for a third term. That's constitutionally bared. If you think he's a dictator, you're ignorant. Remember this country has a presidency that is actually viewed as weak by many other nations, like those in Europe.

Federal Law enforcement would arrest him for that, and if they didn't do it the Marines would - after all they swear their oath to the constitution, not the president.

It wouldn't happen anyway.
Let's face it ... it hardly matters who is in the White House, anyway. The US is an economic oligarchy, or alternatively a corporatocracy ( to coin a term ). The real power in the US, and to a slightly lesser extent, the world, lies with a loose affiliation of major corporate stock-holders and global financiers. Most politics is little more than smoke and mirrors.

If any President refused to step down when his/her term of office ran out, their name would be mud, both popularly and historically. He or she would probably be escorted out of the White House by the Secret Service at the direction of the Supreme Court's Chief Justice. Either that, or the military would step in and arrest his ass.

This is such an unlikely possibility that it approaches zero as a limit.


I remember in early 2002 my friends and I joked about Bush deciding to invade Iraq. We thought it was funny because of the impossibility of it happening. There was no way Bush would do something that crazy. In my mind I thought probability approached zero.

And then a year later it happened. I just sort of had this surreal feeling, like this was a worst case scenario being played out.

Now I don't care what seems likely or not now, I'm not going to make the same mistake again. No more assuming our leaders won't trounce civil liberties or practice torture or do other crazy shit without asking us. I'm operating on the assumption that Bush is capable of anything.

And I don't want to hear other people writing this nightmare scenario off either. None of this "oh Roberts would have him arrested no big deal" BS. I want people to be honest about what THEY personally will do if this ends up happening. Be an apologist? Make excuses for why ending democracy is reasonable and isn't such a bad thing? Maybe sit on your ass and do nothing? Speak out and stand up for what defines this nation? Make your choice now so that you're ready for the unexpected.

Bush would have serious issues. There would be too few people willing to stand by him - that is to say, <10% of America would accept it. Those who accept it would not be those who have any power in throwing him out. Besides, what is it that keeps him there in the first place? The people being willing to listen. He announces it, we all go "I don't think so" and don't pay attention to him. Security won't stop us from removing him, and in fact will probably help remove him. The Secret Service would probably be the ones throwing him out and bringing him back to his home. After all, they have to protect him for the rest of his life anyway, so it's not as if they aren't going to go.

Here's the likely scenario:
Bush declares that he is not standing aside. The people are outraged and are about to all fly in and remove him. Before Congress has to bother with saying anything, the Secret Service just grab him and take him home, where instead of just protecting him, they protect and restrict him. The new president comes in, and eventually there is a trial against Bush for trying to not step aside. History laughes at those who elected him in the previous election, and we all live as happily ever after as can be reasonably expected - which is not much.

Furthermore, for those who don't know our legal system and were wondering or got it wrong, the date of when the new president takes power is written in the Constitution. He can't say "oh, I'm not done just yet..." To legally "extend" his term, he'd have to get an Amendment passed, which would not happen even if the entire country loved him - and he has one of the smallest margins of being elected in U.S. history! So that's not going to happen. Ever.

Let's face it ... it hardly matters who is in the White House, anyway. The US is an economic oligarchy, or alternatively a corporatocracy ( to coin a term ). The real power in the US, and to a slightly lesser extent, the world, lies with a loose affiliation of major corporate stock-holders and global financiers. Most politics is little more than smoke and mirrors.

Wow, I never thought Eut would say that. But yeah, it's more or less true. People who get elected tend to be people with pockets full of corporate cash.

Let's face it ... it hardly matters who is in the White House, anyway. The US is an economic oligarchy, or alternatively a corporatocracy ( to coin a term ). The real power in the US, and to a slightly lesser extent, the world, lies with a loose affiliation of major corporate stock-holders and global financiers. Most politics is little more than smoke and mirrors.

True that. Mind you, it's our fault.

Try writing sci-fi and alternate history books - the idea this could actually happen is ludicrous.

Not going to happen. If he made that claim, even his staunchist supporters would turn on him.

The fact the Constitution doesn't allow for it would motivate the people who hate him.

I assume, by refusing to leave office, he does this series of events:

Declares a state of emergency.
Suspends the constitution.
Declares Martial law, with military rule.

What would happen next? It would depend on the next factor: Would the military follow suit or refuse to do so?

If they followed suit, I suspect a small number of Americans, armed to the teeth, would fight... but they would fail. Hopefully, the NRA would do something about it. In any case, you'd be looking at a police state.

Alright, enough liberalism. In the first few posts, there was enough liberalism to make Ted Kennedy declare himself conservative!

Alright, I support Bush. Quite frankly he had intelligence from Israel, and Britain that Iraq was in violation of the UN. He also had intelligence from Russia that said Iraq was planning to attack us. Even Kerry agreed with the intelligence to attack Iraq, though he changed his mind when he ran for President. So really, Bush is a good president. He is truly trying, but so many people hate for doing his best and standing by his values.

Alright, enough liberalism. In the first few posts, there was enough liberalism to make Ted Kennedy declare himself conservative!

Alright, I support Bush. Quite frankly he had intelligence from Israel, and Britain that Iraq was in violation of the UN. He also had intelligence from Russia that said Iraq was planning to attack us. Even Kerry agreed with the intelligence to attack Iraq, though he changed his mind when he ran for President. So really, Bush is a good president. He is truly trying, but so many people hate for doing his best and standing by his values.

I thought we were just discussing hypotheticals?

I assume, by refusing to leave office, he does this series of events:

Declares a state of emergency.
Suspends the constitution.
Declares Martial law, with military rule.

What would happen next? It would depend on the next factor: Would the military follow suit or refuse to do so?

If they followed suit, I suspect a small number of Americans, armed to the teeth, would fight... but they would fail. Hopefully, the NRA would do something about it. In any case, you'd be looking at a police state.

No, no, no and no. I'll explain why I said "no". The US presidency is very weak compared to say the Mexican President, or the Argentine President. These two countries have systems similiar to our own but yet again different (Argentina is a federal republic). The US presidency is too weak for him to declare that. You can deal with total ignorant hypotheticals, but that does not matter when the reality does not reflect that. Why am I so harsh? Well in the United States, I think the Congress has slightly more power then the presidency.

No, no, no and no. I'll explain why I said "no". The US presidency is very weak compared to say the Mexican President, or the Argentine President. These two countries have systems similiar to our own but yet again different (Argentina is a federal republic). The US presidency is too weak for him to declare that. You can deal with total ignorant hypotheticals, but that does not matter when the reality does not reflect that. Why am I so harsh? Well in the United States, I think the Congress has slightly more power then the presidency.

True, but he can't just stand there and say "Nyah Nyah, I'm not leaving the White House, tough cookies." He has to make a political maneuver to maintain it. Otherwise, he just looks like an ass.

Note: I'm not sure what the process would be here in the US, as it has never been done before.

Not really. The President holds slightly more power. He controls the army, and can pull a state of emergency, eliminating the powers of Congress. So, in the end, the President holds all the power.

However, he would never be able to accomplish this theory, simply because he is not popular enough today.

If JFK was alive to finish out two terms, he might have been able to do it.

I hate threads like these. Some of you guys give Bush more credit than he deserves. I could take this thread at face value as a hypothetical if we weren't focusing specifically on Bush. I'm tired of the fear mongering about the Bush administration. Yeah, I don't like him. And yeah, I disagree with him a lot of the time. I also acknowledge that he's nothing more than a pansy moderate. And for some historical perspective:

If John Adams could hand over the presidency to one of his fiercest opponents, Thomas Jefferson, at a time of uncertainty and instability in American history, then I have absolutely no fucking doubt that George W. Bush, a moderate Republican bent on pleasing everyone (and ultimately pleasing no one), will step down in January 2009.

If he doesn't step down, he'll be forcibly removed.

True, but he can't just stand there and say "Nyah Nyah, I'm not leaving the White House, tough cookies." He has to make a political maneuver to maintain it. Otherwise, he just looks like an ass.

Note: I'm not sure what the process would be here in the US, as it has never been done before.

There is no way you can political maneuver pass an amendment that limits you to two terms, unless you some how get the congress to get rid of it.

You are unrealistic.

Same thing to you Belator:

Not really. The President holds slightly more power. He controls the army, and can pull a state of emergency, eliminating the powers of Congress. So, in the end, the President holds all the power.

Wrong. Actually the Congress can remove the powers of the Presidency and impeach him. It has been done several times in the past. Including with Andrew Johnson, nearly with Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. It shows the president holds less power then the congress. He cannot eliminate the powers of the congress (I think you have the US mixed up with the UK, where the Queen can disband the Houses and call for elctions I think). Learn your federalism please.


If JFK was alive to finish out two terms, he might have been able to do it.

JFK would be rolling in his grave if he heard this nonsense.

JFK was no dictator.

People said that Eisenhower could of done a third term and he was extremely popular in the end of his second term but he did not try to do anything.

There is no way you can political maneuver pass an amendment that limits you to two terms, unless you some how get the congress to get rid of it.

You are unrealistic.


From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_emergency):

A state of emergency is a governmental declaration that may suspend certain normal functions of government, may work to alert citizens to alter their normal behaviors, or may order government agencies to implement emergency preparedness plans. It can also be used as a rationale for suspending civil liberties.

<snippity McSnippits>

In the United States, the chief executive is typically empowered to declare a State of Emergency. The President of the United States, a governor of a state, or even a local mayor may declare a State of Emergency within his or her jurisdiction. This is relatively rare at the federal level, but quite common at the state level in response to natural disasters.

Typically, a state of emergency empowers the executive to name coordinating officials to deal with the emergency and to override normal administrative processes regarding the passage of administrative rules.

The courts in the United States are often very lenient in allowing almost any action to be taken in the case of such a declared emergency, if it is reasonably related. For example, habeas corpus is the right to challenge an arrest in court. The U.S. Constitution says, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Habeas corpus was suspended on April 27, 1861 during the American Civil War by Abraham Lincoln in parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana. He did so in response to demands by generals to set up military courts to rein in "copperheads", or those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause. Lambdin Milligan and four others were accused of planning to steal Union weapons and invade Union prisoner-of-war camps and were sentenced to hang by a military court in 1864. However, their execution was not set until May 1865, so they were able to argue the case after the Civil War. It was decided in the Supreme Court case Ex Parte Milligan 71 US 2 1866 that the suspension was unconstitutional because civilian courts were still operating, and the Constitution (according to the Court) only provided for suspension of habeas corpus if these courts are actually forced closed.

In any case, Bush doesn't have the clout nor the desire to go for Dictator status, so the point is moot.

Wrong. Actually the Congress can remove the powers of the Presidency and impeach him. It has been done several times in the past. Including with Andrew Johnson, nearly with Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. It shows the president holds less power then the congress. He cannot eliminate the powers of the congress (I think you have the US mixed up with the UK, where the Queen can disband the Houses and call for elctions I think). Learn your federalism please.

We finally agree! I'd also add that although Bush is Commander in Chief, Congress declares war. According to the War Powers Resolution (1973), the President can send troops or special forces, but he only has sixty days to complete the military action unless Congress gives its authorization. (There's an exemption if Congress is physically unable to meet.) Mesatecala pointed out something very important: Congress can remove a president! The most a president can do to check Congress is veto a bill, which Congress can overturn anyway.

Galloism:

"In any case, Bush doesn't have the clout nor the desire to go for Dictator status, so the point is moot."

Read your own sources.. this is done in times of natural disasters. And you cannot get dictator status in this country. Do you even live here? Do you know the Congress can impeach the president for malfeasance? This happened to Richard Nixon almost.. but he resigned. Nixon was the president (I actually do like him on many foreign and domestic policy isues, but he got too paranoid) that abused his powers.

We finally agree! I'd also add that although Bush is Commander in Chief, Congress declares war. According to the War Powers Resolution (1973), the President can send troops or special forces, but he only has sixty days to complete the military action unless Congress gives its authorization. (There's an exemption if Congress is physically unable to meet.) Mesatecala pointed out something very important: Congress can remove a president! The most a president can do to check Congress is veto a bill, which Congress can overturn anyway.

Bingo. And good point on the war powers resolution. See we can agree on some things.. maybe there are other things out there we can agree on.

Even if a state of emergency were declared on Jan. 19, 2009, Bush would leave office. Whoever replaces him might find it necessary to keep some of his cabinet members around in specific cases if it comes to that, but the new guy would have oversight. No president has ever postponed or cancelled an election due to war, so I'd think they would proceed with transferring power in the middle of whatever crisis occurred.

Only if he steps aside for President Jeb Bush.

Quoting Galloism:

A state of emergency is a governmental declaration that may suspend certain normal functions of government, may work to alert citizens to alter their normal behaviors, or may order government agencies to implement emergency preparedness plans. It can also be used as a rationale for suspending civil liberties.

<snippity McSnippits>

In the United States, the chief executive is typically empowered to declare a State of Emergency. The President of the United States, a governor of a state, or even a local mayor may declare a State of Emergency within his or her jurisdiction. This is relatively rare at the federal level, but quite common at the state level in response to natural disasters.

Typically, a state of emergency empowers the executive to name coordinating officials to deal with the emergency and to override normal administrative processes regarding the passage of administrative rules.

The courts in the United States are often very lenient in allowing almost any action to be taken in the case of such a declared emergency, if it is reasonably related. For example, habeas corpus is the right to challenge an arrest in court. The U.S. Constitution says, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Habeas corpus was suspended on April 27, 1861 during the American Civil War by Abraham Lincoln in parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana. He did so in response to demands by generals to set up military courts to rein in "copperheads", or those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause. Lambdin Milligan and four others were accused of planning to steal Union weapons and invade Union prisoner-of-war camps and were sentenced to hang by a military court in 1864. However, their execution was not set until May 1865, so they were able to argue the case after the Civil War. It was decided in the Supreme Court case Ex Parte Milligan 71 US 2 1866 that the suspension was unconstitutional because civilian courts were still operating, and the Constitution (according to the Court) only provided for suspension of habeas corpus if these courts are actually forced closed.

And looking at the Constitutional President's Powers, there is no mention at all that the President can declare a State of Emergency. So, in a sense, the President could declare Martial Law and actually rewrite the constitution.

Of course, this would NEVER HAPPEN. No President would be willing to do this, unless he enough gold to survive through the economic upheavel it would cause.

Quoting Galloism:



And looking at the Constitutional President's Powers, there is no mention at all that the President can declare a State of Emergency. So, in a sense, the President could declare Martial Law and actually rewrite the constitution.

Of course, this would NEVER HAPPEN. No President would be willing to do this, unless he enough gold to survive through the economic upheavel it would cause.

Not really.

The congress can remove him because it would over-ride him and declare he committed malfeasance.

The doom-and-gloom crisis and various political situations mean nothing.

No matter the other situations, when the term is up the President leaves. Else the Secret Service (who all swear an oath to the Constitution, not the president) would escort him out the door.

If some insanity got hold of the secret service detail then a court order would send in plenty of FBI and DC cops.

And lets not forget the 3d Infantry Regiment... stationed at Ft. Myer, VA doing ceremonies but an INFANTRY unit with the mission of guarding the seat of government. While they would not intervene except in the wildest cases... Congress or the LEGAL president can call on them if it gets that bad.

Bottom line the scenerio you provide is never going to happen. The only thing close would be if there was a nuke attack and the President-Elect and VP-Elect were killed.... that puts a constitutional crisis in place, at least until the Electorial College electors can meet (their terms go until the new president is seated) to determine a new president-elect.

He's worse than a demogogue. He's a nothing... an empty shell... totally void of ideas, or ingenuity, and sorrowly lacking in necessary skills to be proficient in ANY profession. He's a rich daddy's boy... and he does whatever Cheney and the PNAC tell him to.

You forgot one part. He is also a winner, twice now, against the best candidate the Democrats could muster.

Guess the taste of defeat is more than some folks can tolerate. Best of luck in 2008. :D

If John Adams could hand over the presidency to one of his fiercest opponents, Thomas Jefferson, at a time of uncertainty and instability in American history, then I have absolutely no fucking doubt that George W. Bush, a moderate Republican bent on pleasing everyone (and ultimately pleasing no one), will step down in January 2009.

If he doesn't step down, he'll be forcibly removed.

Nuf said.

2 things first: I wouldn't see the constitutional problem of "no more than 2 periods" too strictly. You can rather easily amend that.

And I think the comment on JFK wasn't that he'd try to make himself dictator, only that he would have had the trust of the people to run a 3rd time if he wanted, and (unlike Bush) I think he would have easily gotten the amendment to actually do it.

That aside, I don't think Bush would run a 3rd time. He's a muppet. Why bother keeping your muppet up when you can more easily replace it with a similar hand puppet. Slip Bush off your hand, toss him aside, pick up a new one, have him run for the next term.

I'm quite sure we'll see someone surface in the near future that's going to be installed, made popular and prepared to run for presidency. New Orleans would've been a perfect opportunity, if it only happend a wee bit later. I mean, it's still 3 years to go, people tend to forget 'til then.

Doubt it. Why? America has a strong tradition of practicing democracy. It's firmly implanted into the culture of the American people. Plus, maybe the American people can overthrow a dictator should they finally realize the truth...anybody know why guns were legalized into the US constitution?

The second ammendment to the constitution would actually come in very handy if any president stayed past his term illegally . It would never happen in the United States . His bodyguards would need bodyguards and the White house would ahve to be a bunker. And it still wouldnt save his ass . They may try to change the term limit to make it legal .
But I doubt that it would ever be ratified . Can you see Bush trying to get the term limit changed ? :D File this under implausable ( or left wing nightmare scenario ) .

Which is why I said for it to happen, for a President to remain a third term, he would have to be insanely popular. Which will never happen, due to the huge split in the country.

Which is why I said for it to happen, for a President to remain a third term, he would have to be insanely popular. Which will never happen, due to the huge split in the country.

Uh, the president is constitutionally bared to 2 terms.

OK, remember that this is speculation. I have no proof that Bush will insist on staying on after his term expires, nor do I believe he will. However, I do think it's a good question as to what would happen if, on the 19th of January 2009 or maybe sooner, Bush decides to make one grand "national announcement" and take over the airwaves to announce that he's not stepping aside and letting his successor take over.

We have to set the stage first. The economy's in a bit of a recession but not in disaster mode. The housing bubble is long forgotten; instead, there's an "energy bubble" seen in the light of competing fuel sources now that the price of oil is over $100 a barrel. The city of Miami, FL is in ruin after Hurricane Yolanda, a Category 5, batters the city in early September. In anger, washed-up actress and singer Jennifer Lopez accuses the government of slighting Hispanics. Another swarm of white-collar crime has landed several top executives in jail, with the most exposed picture of this being the CEO of Verizon (hey, I can dream) being hauled out of the building in handcuffs while fighting police officers.

In Congress, the House is still narrowly controlled by the GOP and the Senate is dead-even. The Federal Marriage Amendment was recently proposed and didn't even get a third of the Senate's support. The hottest issue is the protection of overtime rights, and the Bush administration tries to push through a law that allows employers to skimp on OT if an employee fails to work 168 hours in a month. It's shot down easily, and the Democrats regain a majority in the Senate.

Iraq's turned into another mini-Vietnam, and the U.S. is the only nation with any troops there. The UN won't touch it, and the U.S. has thrown out election results recently because a theocratic Shi'ite party won a strong majority. North Korea has developed a nuclear program, though rumors are circulating that Kim Jong Il is in poor health. Iran also is dangerously close to nukes, prompting Israel to declare its nuclear program. Also, Saudi Arabia is defying the U.S. and announcing its plans for a nuclear program.

Also, the Democrats win in 2008 with a margin of more than 100 electroral votes. America's top issues are Iraq and labor rights. The words "moral values" are off the national radar, as eight U.S. states have legalized same-sex marriagess and/or civil unions since early 2006. Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana is the new President-elect, with New Mexico governor Bill Richardson as his VP.

OK, all this leading up to the grand announcement to take place on 6 January 2009 when the President figures everyone's home. At 8 PM EST, outgoing President George W. Bush makes a grand speech thanking everyone for their support throughout his eight years as Commander-in-Chief. After making a lot of statements about uniting the nation, finishing what he started, and preserving the values for which America stands, Bush announces that he will continue to serve as President even after his term expires and will step down at another time. He has voided the 2008 Presidential election results, though he says nothing about the Congressional results.

I ask this question: What is the response of the American people? What does the military do? How about the Congress and the Supreme Court? Does the new Democratic-controlled Congress try to impeach and remove Bush? Does the military stand behind the President or behind the election results? Would the Supreme Court intervene? Can Bush possibly pull off becoming a President-for-life? Would the country follow his lead, turning perhaps into a capitalist dictatorship or a corporate theocracy (if you can imagine that)? Or would they round him up and park him back in Texas? What about a civil war? Is that a possibility, and how would the country be divided? By state? County? City? Household?

After that, who wins the war and what becomes of the U.S. afterward? Does the U.S. become imperialistic? Or has it seen its final days atop the world leadership? I apologize for the length of this, but a stage had to be set.

Bush should be president for life.
All of you anti Bush are fucked.

Yeah you can never get enough Bush !

No, no, no and no. I'll explain why I said "no". The US presidency is very weak compared to say the Mexican President, or the Argentine President. These two countries have systems similiar to our own but yet again different (Argentina is a federal republic). The US presidency is too weak for him to declare that. You can deal with total ignorant hypotheticals, but that does not matter when the reality does not reflect that. Why am I so harsh? Well in the United States, I think the Congress has slightly more power then the presidency.

I have to disagree.

Abraham Lincoln pretty much suspended the Constitution during the Civil War. He even declared Martial Law in the state of Maryland to keep it from Seceding from the union.

We maybe considered a weak government but the fact is that the President has the ability to suspend the Consitution and declare Martial Law.

The President does NOT have the right to do so. The fact that Lincoln got away with doing it is something very different. He didn't have the right he did so anyway.

Since everyone is belittling this hypothetical scenario, let me add to it: What if Hillary Clinton won? How many right-wingers would then urge Bush to take this action?

If you think the answer is zero, let me ask another question: How many people wish that Bush Sr. had refused to step down in January 1993, rather than allow Bill Clinton to take over? I know a couple of them myself, so it's greater than zero.

Now, I'm not saying it's likely, but I know a disturbing number of people who would be perfectly happy with a one-party dictatorship as long as the Republicans were in charge.

Bush cannot run again. The constitution does not allow it.

But Bush can propose an amendment to the costitution to allow him to stay another four-year term, eight-year term, or indefinitely. Not saying it'd pass, just saying he could.

Sometimes I wish scare-mongerers would pick with one version of Bush and stick with it: either he's so completely incompetent he'll lead the US to its doom or so dastardly evil he's going to turn the US into a dictatorship. He can't be both, can he? :D

If Bush decided to remain in office despite his term being over then I say we have a bloody revelution! Time to overthrow the business run government for a more sensible one that lasts a couple of decades before becoming business oriented again.

Yay!

OK, remember that this is speculation. I have no proof that Bush will insist on staying on after his term expires, nor do I believe he will. However, I do think it's a good question as to what would happen if, on the 19th of January 2009 or maybe sooner, Bush decides to make one grand "national announcement" and take over the airwaves to announce that he's not stepping aside and letting his successor take over.

We have to set the stage first. The economy's in a bit of a recession but not in disaster mode. The housing bubble is long forgotten; instead, there's an "energy bubble" seen in the light of competing fuel sources now that the price of oil is over $100 a barrel. The city of Miami, FL is in ruin after Hurricane Yolanda, a Category 5, batters the city in early September. In anger, washed-up actress and singer Jennifer Lopez accuses the government of slighting Hispanics. Another swarm of white-collar crime has landed several top executives in jail, with the most exposed picture of this being the CEO of Verizon (hey, I can dream) being hauled out of the building in handcuffs while fighting police officers.

In Congress, the House is still narrowly controlled by the GOP and the Senate is dead-even. The Federal Marriage Amendment was recently proposed and didn't even get a third of the Senate's support. The hottest issue is the protection of overtime rights, and the Bush administration tries to push through a law that allows employers to skimp on OT if an employee fails to work 168 hours in a month. It's shot down easily, and the Democrats regain a majority in the Senate.

Iraq's turned into another mini-Vietnam, and the U.S. is the only nation with any troops there. The UN won't touch it, and the U.S. has thrown out election results recently because a theocratic Shi'ite party won a strong majority. North Korea has developed a nuclear program, though rumors are circulating that Kim Jong Il is in poor health. Iran also is dangerously close to nukes, prompting Israel to declare its nuclear program. Also, Saudi Arabia is defying the U.S. and announcing its plans for a nuclear program.

Also, the Democrats win in 2008 with a margin of more than 100 electroral votes. America's top issues are Iraq and labor rights. The words "moral values" are off the national radar, as eight U.S. states have legalized same-sex marriagess and/or civil unions since early 2006. Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana is the new President-elect, with New Mexico governor Bill Richardson as his VP.

OK, all this leading up to the grand announcement to take place on 6 January 2009 when the President figures everyone's home. At 8 PM EST, outgoing President George W. Bush makes a grand speech thanking everyone for their support throughout his eight years as Commander-in-Chief. After making a lot of statements about uniting the nation, finishing what he started, and preserving the values for which America stands, Bush announces that he will continue to serve as President even after his term expires and will step down at another time. He has voided the 2008 Presidential election results, though he says nothing about the Congressional results.

I ask this question: What is the response of the American people? What does the military do? How about the Congress and the Supreme Court? Does the new Democratic-controlled Congress try to impeach and remove Bush? Does the military stand behind the President or behind the election results? Would the Supreme Court intervene? Can Bush possibly pull off becoming a President-for-life? Would the country follow his lead, turning perhaps into a capitalist dictatorship or a corporate theocracy (if you can imagine that)? Or would they round him up and park him back in Texas? What about a civil war? Is that a possibility, and how would the country be divided? By state? County? City? Household?

After that, who wins the war and what becomes of the U.S. afterward? Does the U.S. become imperialistic? Or has it seen its final days atop the world leadership? I apologize for the length of this, but a stage had to be set.


Other than the overly specific details...I could see this as a possibility. HE does feel he is above the law, the constitution, and the people.

Would a huge backlash be created? The depends on whether or not he suppresses the ability to bear arms, meet in public places, and other such activities that would allow the people of the US to rise up against him.

Right now he has everyone cowed. Here in the US people pay more attention to who got kicked off survivor than the # of people dieing in Iraq, Afghanistan, or the Hurricane zones. How hard would it be to stay on, violate the constitution, and have the fattened american people do nothing about it?

The constitution is a piece of paper,
Isnt the Constitution written on parchment?

Other than the overly specific details...I could see this as a possibility. HE does feel he is above the law, the constitution, and the people.

Would a huge backlash be created? The depends on whether or not he suppresses the ability to bear arms, meet in public places, and other such activities that would allow the people of the US to rise up against him.

Right now he has everyone cowed. Here in the US people pay more attention to who got kicked off survivor than the # of people dieing in Iraq, Afghanistan, or the Hurricane zones. How hard would it be to stay on, violate the constitution, and have the fattened american people do nothing about it?

It is not a possibility.

Sometimes I wish scare-mongerers would pick with one version of Bush and stick with it: either he's so completely incompetent he'll lead the US to its doom or so dastardly evil he's going to turn the US into a dictatorship. He can't be both, can he? :D

Why can't you have both? An extremely dastardly evil overlord who's always tripping over his shoes, choking on pretzels and driving his bicycle into the local constabulary :p

Why can't you have both? An extremely dastardly evil overlord who's always tripping over his shoes :p

Gerald Ford as an evil dictator? Nah, I just can't see it. :p

Gerald Ford as an evil dictator? Nah, I just can't see it. :p

Course you can! You just need a little imagination. Just picture him trying to do anything as an evil overlord and put in a little competence and incompetence in the mix. Just think of the possibilities.

The President does NOT have the right to do so. The fact that Lincoln got away with doing it is something very different. He didn't have the right he did so anyway.
Exactly right, which is one of the reasons that John Wilkes Boothe gave for assassinating him. :(

I notice a lot of you treat the constitutional amendment process casually. It's notoriously difficult to pass an amendment to the Constitution, which is why there are have only been 27 in over 200 years. (And, if you ignore the Bill of Rights, only 17 in about 200 years.) If Bush decided now, in 2005, to throw the idea out there, it'd take years and years before a final version of the amendment was drafted, and longer still for the amendment to work its way through the political system. He'd be out of office before such an amendment even passed. Something to think about. Also, the President has absolutely NO FORMAL ROLE in the amendment of the US Constitution. He can express any opinion, but the rest is left up to Congress and state legislatures or conventions.

Since everyone is belittling this hypothetical scenario, let me add to it: What if Hillary Clinton won? How many right-wingers would then urge Bush to take this action?

If you think the answer is zero, let me ask another question: How many people wish that Bush Sr. had refused to step down in January 1993, rather than allow Bill Clinton to take over? I know a couple of them myself, so it's greater than zero.

Now, I'm not saying it's likely, but I know a disturbing number of people who would be perfectly happy with a one-party dictatorship as long as the Republicans were in charge.
I find it fascinating that many right-wing people were wondering much the same thing when it got close to the end of President Clinton's second term. Many wondered out loud whether he would step down, or declare martial law and refuse to leave.

Strange.

the people that blame Bush for all the problems of the world and ascribe all evil motives to him make about as much sense as those did that thought Clinton to be the focus of evil in the modern world

Remember, folks, this is a hypothetical situation that assumes that Bush tries to stay on after his term expires, not that he runs for re-election. This is also assuming that he does, not asking if he would; I don't think he would try it either because of all the perceived backlach, but for sake of speculation, this is arguing that he does so. Hell, Clinton could have tried the same thing in 2000 and might have had a better reason for it, what with the dispute between Bush and Gore that would have been better solved with a fight to the death anyway. (Now wouldn't that get America's attention?)

I am pleased with the response this thread has gotten, and I imagine that Bush would be snuffed out if he tried this, but let's say he had been planning it for some time and had a support base (let's say, a corporate base as well as a good chunk of the military) that would allow him to try this (or allow his puppetmasters to do this, if you prefer) then how quiescen would the American people be? Certainly there would be clamoring for forcible removal of the President, and certainly there would be clamoring for obedience to the new President-for-however-long-he-feels-like-which-is-probably-life.

The only way I could see it happenning was if al-Q were to detonate one or more nuclear devices in the US, and/or released smallpox.

Everyone would demand that the President do something about it - and I would bet that the Constitution would be suspended in the name of a national emergency.

Of course, millions of Muslims and foreigners would be rounded up and placed in camps - not to mention anyone stupid enough to open their mouths.

The majority of Americans, pissed off and afraid, would GLADLY go along with it.

It goes without saying that ANYONE who was President at such a time would DO THE SAME.

Remember, folks, this is a hypothetical situation that assumes that Bush tries to stay on after his term expires, not that he runs for re-election. This is also assuming that he does, not asking if he would; I don't think he would try it either because of all the perceived backlach, but for sake of speculation, this is arguing that he does so. Hell, Clinton could have tried the same thing in 2000 and might have had a better reason for it, what with the dispute between Bush and Gore that would have been better solved with a fight to the death anyway. (Now wouldn't that get America's attention?)

I am pleased with the response this thread has gotten, and I imagine that Bush would be snuffed out if he tried this, but let's say he had been planning it for some time and had a support base (let's say, a corporate base as well as a good chunk of the military) that would allow him to try this (or allow his puppetmasters to do this, if you prefer) then how quiescen would the American people be? Certainly there would be clamoring for forcible removal of the President, and certainly there would be clamoring for obedience to the new President-for-however-long-he-feels-like-which-is-probably-life.

I think he'd receive very, very, very little support. I know nobody in Congress would support him, the Court would be outraged--they're much more serious about the integrity of the Constitution than both the legislative and executive branches--his Cabinet would turn against him, most Americans would call for his removal, and every government on this planet would condemn him. See, Bush is hardly a Hitler in terms of popularity and charisma and there's really not enough crisis in American society at the moment (see: we're not recovering from a thoroughly destroyed economy like Germany after WWI) to bring the great bulk of normal people to Bush's side. I'd also take this hypothetical more seriously if we stopped using "Bush" as shorthand for "any president." I get that Bush is a somewhat relevant example since his term's up in 2009, but since nobody believes this will EVER HAPPEN and you're just posing a hypothetical to see what would happen if a president did decide to usurp power, I say we stop calling this hypothetical president "Bush."

<snip> the Democrats win in 2008 with a margin of more than 100 electroral votes. <snip> Bush announces that he will continue to serve as President even after his term expires and will step down at another time. He has voided the 2008 Presidential election results, though he says nothing about the Congressional results.

I ask this question: What is the response of the American people?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=445652
What does the military do?Uphold the Constitution of the United States. The White House Marines would drag him from the building.
How about the Congress and the Supreme Court? CMH & Clemency for all damage done by said Marines.
Does the new Democratic-controlled Congress try to impeach and remove Bush? Won't need to.
Does the military stand behind the President or behind the election results? We would stand behind our Oath - to the Constitution.
Would the Supreme Court intervene?Would neither be able or have to. Can Bush possibly pull off becoming a President-for-life?In a word, no. Would the country follow his lead, turning perhaps into a capitalist dictatorship or a corporate theocracy (if you can imagine that)? Same word. Or would they round him up and park him back in Texas?Levenworth or a Body Bag. What about a civil war? Is that a possibility, and how would the country be divided? By state? County? City? Household? Not likely, as most of the people with guns aren't the Revolutionary type (thank god MoveOn as anti-gun...) and actually understand - or at least will defer to - the Constitution.
After that, who wins the war and what becomes of the U.S. afterward? Does the U.S. become imperialistic? Or has it seen its final days atop the world leadership? I apologize for the length of this, but a stage had to be set.No war necessary. Bush does not have any real die-hard troops behind him and never will. I don't know if you are USian or not, but the entire question indicates a vast gulf in your understanding of the US Military and of the (armed) US population. We would not accept a Dictatorship even if it were run by Jesus Christ...

(ok, some would, but that particular loony-fringe are actually NOT the majority of the Armed...)

The President does NOT have the right to do so. The fact that Lincoln got away with doing it is something very different. He didn't have the right he did so anyway.

I love ignorant statements.

The President does have the authority to declare a state of emergency as well as to suspend the Consitution during the crisis.

As many people are pointing out, it wouldn't happen that way.

How it would happen, if at all is as follows:

On November 4, 2008, a small-yield, dirty nuclear device explodes at the largest polling station in Miami Florida.

An immediate state of emergency is declared at the federal level. Relief efforts begin.

Several republican pundits and lawyers push for the current election counts to go forward anyway, warning about a possible constitutional crisis otherwise. Lawyers for the Democrat side, realizing that any hope of gaining Florida's electoral votes are gone without Miami sue under the equal protection clause calling for a re-vote.

The Supreme court supports the Democrat suit that calls for re-vote, but remands the conduct of such back to the state level. At the state level, Governor Jeb Bush, opposes any revote as being physically impossible and pulling much needed resources away from the relief efforts, besides, given the massive death toll, it's impossible to even tell who would be eligible on the rolls.

Elections are suspended while Florida gets its act together. Due to a severely underfunded and over-extended FEMA, this takes a long time and come January 19th, no re-vote has been done. As the Supreme Court has declared that one must happen, and one hasn't been done, the election is declared null and void. Bush addresses the nation in a televised address telling them that in this time of great emergency and upheaval, he will continue to serve as President until such time as a vote can be properly held according to the constitution.

As the constitution gives no leeway for voting periods after the confirmation, Bush gets another 4 years.

I don't think there is any question they're going to run Jeb in 2008, so GW would stand aside for his brother.

this takes a long time and come January 19th, no re-vote has been done. As the Supreme Court has declared that one must happen, and one hasn't been done, the election is declared null and void.
In such an instance as this, the Speaker of the House would automatically become President.

The majority of Americans, pissed off and afraid, would GLADLY go along with it.
"Ding"...... time out .... ...there's where you get it wrong ..when we get pissed off we do not get afraid ( maybe for a minute or two or three) we kick ass and get even , and god help who we get pissed at . Especially the president if he decides to do a nazi type round up ! Your NUTS if you think I would go along with that . I know a bunch of people who would be with me standing in front of the people being rounded up Armed and ready to protect them from a despot. Especially in this country . It would happen over my dead body .

Not really. The President holds slightly more power. He controls the army, and can pull a state of emergency, eliminating the powers of Congress. So, in the end, the President holds all the power.

However, he would never be able to accomplish this theory, simply because he is not popular enough today.

If JFK was alive to finish out two terms, he might have been able to do it.

The whole JFK popularity thing was retrospective, he wasn't particularly popular whilst in office.

Sacrifice someone, always increases their popularity. Look at Jesus...

I firmly believe Bush would love to be president for life because he really thinks he was born to be it and Jesus wants him to (his whole family seems to confuse "president" with "king").

Several people have outlined "state of emergency" scenarios, and if any president were to try to stage a coup, that would definitely be their best bet. They would have some time to cement control while the Congress, military and public try to sort out what just happened and until we figure out that this is a coup, not a legitimate emergency. Then, the wannabe dictator would probably fail because a large enough number of generals, troops and law enforcement officers would side with the Congress to arrest said wannabe and all of his team. This would probably be followed by a general purging of the government which would be very showy and satisfying but in fact incomplete, leaving lots of potential coupsters still in their jobs. The End ?????

That said, there's no way Bush would ever attempt this himself because, delusions of grandeur notwithstanding, he doesn't have the real balls it would take. He is a puppet of the neo-cons and the corporate interests, and they don't want anything that might rock their boat.

But don't feel too safe, because, trust me, the candidate who runs in 2008 will be carefully chosen to be absolutely no different from Bush, so, in effect, it will be like having him be president for 3 or 4 terms, only with a different head. And the one after that will be just the same again, and so on and so on. So the only way to avoid being oppressed under a presidency-for-life is to vote Democrat in 2008!! :p

(Footnote: The next candidate will not be Jeb unless George's poll numbers get significantly better. But he may run in later elections. That's my prediction. :) )

Didn't FDR serve three terms?

Didn't FDR serve three terms?
Yep, and they ammended the Constitution because of it. Silly Democrats...

As far as I can make out, he isn't. He's just declaring that his term isn't over yet.
The constitution is a piece of paper, the question is what the people would do in response. I don't think it'd be a simple case of "all Americans would be against it because the constiution says so".

Clearly,you are not an american. Republican and Democrat alike, this would not be tolerated. I being the most staunchest of Bush supporters would go crazy if such a thing where to be attempted. The constitution to americans is not just a "peice of paper" ... but is the law which commands the most legitmacy superceeding even so called "international law"

Let's face it ... it hardly matters who is in the White House, anyway. The US is an economic oligarchy, or alternatively a corporatocracy ( to coin a term ). The real power in the US, and to a slightly lesser extent, the world, lies with a loose affiliation of major corporate stock-holders and global financiers. Most politics is little more than smoke and mirrors.
I believe the proper term is 'corporatism'

Now, I think we can all be sure that if he tried to pull something like that off without the support of a sizeable chunk of the military he would be put up against a wall and shot.


but let's say he had been planning it for some time and had a support base (let's say, a corporate base as well as a good chunk of the military) that would allow him to try this (or allow his puppetmasters to do this, if you prefer) then how quiescen would the American people be? Certainly there would be clamoring for forcible removal of the President, and certainly there would be clamoring for obedience to the new President-for-however-long-he-feels-like-which-is-probably-life.

I think that, given this situation (Which would require careful planning, something politicians are not any good at as a rule :P)

Then nothing would happen. Since less than half of americans actually vote, less than half actually give a damn who is in power. There goes any chance of a popular rebellion against the new order. Now. I know that a lot of people WOULD rise up and yes, they would be armed.

But civilians are no match for even half trained soldiers, no matter how many guns the revolutionaries have.

Of course, without the support of the military it would not be possible, no ruler can persevere without the military behind them.


But, should a major attack (Probably of the nuclear variety) upon US soil happen between now and the election, its all over for the dissenters. It would be more than possible to grab another four years out of it. And in those four years cemementing control and probably amending the constitution oh-so-subtly.....


POSSIBLE yes, but unlikely unless port security can miss 10 lbs of radioactive matter getting smuggled into the states.

I would not put it past him to try though.

Questions, as a foreigner who doesn't remember the Constitutional law from when i studied many years back, but
(a) could they amend the Constitution removing this bar and
(b) is that two terms END OF, or just two consecutive terms? IE, could Clinton have run in 2004, f'rinstance.
Of the three posts, I'll answer this one... ;)

Yes, but they won't. Certainly not before the 2008 election.

IIRC Just two consecutive. If you sit out a term you can run again.

Of the three posts, I'll answer this one... ;)

Yes, but they won't. Certainly not before the 2008 election.

IIRC Just two consecutive. If you sit out a term you can run again.

IIRC it's 2 period. It doesn't matter if they're consecutive or not.

Didn't FDR serve three terms?

3 Full terms but was really elected to 4 terms.

Then they passed a Constitutional Amendment baring any American President from serving more than 2 terms. It does make allowences so there's another provision in there regarding years. That number is limited to 10 years in office (provided the Vice President Takes over)

Let's face it ... it hardly matters who is in the White House, anyway. The US is an economic oligarchy, or alternatively a corporatocracy ( to coin a term ). The real power in the US, and to a slightly lesser extent, the world, lies with a loose affiliation of major corporate stock-holders and global financiers. Most politics is little more than smoke and mirrors.
Thank God.

Of the three posts, I'll answer this one... ;)

Yes, but they won't. Certainly not before the 2008 election.

IIRC Just two consecutive. If you sit out a term you can run again.

Yet Galloism beneath disagrees.

Just wondering if you could get Bill back ;)

Clearly,you are not an american. Republican and Democrat alike, this would not be tolerated. I being the most staunchest of Bush supporters would go crazy if such a thing where to be attempted. The constitution to americans is not just a "peice of paper" ... but is the law which commands the most legitmacy superceeding even so called "international law"

Well said Invidentias!

You are indeed correct. Even I would go nuts if something like that happened.

Yet Galloism beneath disagrees.

Just wondering if you could get Bill back ;)
Gallo is correct. My Bad.

Amendment XXII

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.

From the CRS:

Presidential and vice presidential terms and tenure are governed by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, and the 20thand 22nd Amendments to the Constitution. Article II prescribes a four-year term. Section 1 of the 20thAmendment provides that terms of office for the President and Vice President end at 12:00 noon on January 20thof each year following a presidential election. From 1789 through 1940, chief executives adhered to a self-imposed limit of two terms. That precedent was broken by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was elected four times (1932, 1936, 1940, and1944). The 22ndAmendment, proposed and ratified following the Roosevelt presidency, provides that “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice....” Further, Vice Presidents who succeed to the presidency may be elected to two full terms as President if they have served less than two years of their predecessor’s term (up to 10 years of service). If they have served more than two years of a predecessor’s term, they can be elected to only one additional term (between four and eight years of service, depending on when the Vice President succeeded to the presidency). It is unclear whether a two-term President could succeed to the presidency from the vice presidency or some other office in line of succession; experts disagree on whether this would be constitutional. Proposals for change have included both repeal of the 22ndAmendmentand the two-term limitation, and substitution of a single six-year term for the President.

Research first, post later... not the other way around. :headbang: I'm getting lazy. (sigh)

The thing is he can't run for a third term. That's constitutionally bared. If you think he's a dictator, you're ignorant. Remember this country has a presidency that is actually viewed as weak by many other nations, like those in Europe.
Remember also that the original poster said that he didn't think that this would happen. Why are you so defensive about Bush? Given his record on your pet issue, gay marriage, I would expect your support to be reluctant at best.

And I don't want to hear other people writing this nightmare scenario off either. None of this "oh Roberts would have him arrested no big deal" BS. I want people to be honest about what THEY personally will do if this ends up happening. Be an apologist? Make excuses for why ending democracy is reasonable and isn't such a bad thing? Maybe sit on your ass and do nothing? Speak out and stand up for what defines this nation? Make your choice now so that you're ready for the unexpected.
If it happened I can defeinitely picture some of the hardline Republicans continuing to support him. But I imagine that at least 75% of Americans would be against it, and they would be angry about it.

True that. Mind you, it's our fault.
Yes, it's what you get when you stuff a nation with a combination of unmitigated capitalism and political duopoly.

Alright, enough liberalism. In the first few posts, there was enough liberalism to make Ted Kennedy declare himself conservative!

Alright, I support Bush. Quite frankly he had intelligence from Israel, and Britain that Iraq was in violation of the UN. He also had intelligence from Russia that said Iraq was planning to attack us. Even Kerry agreed with the intelligence to attack Iraq, though he changed his mind when he ran for President. So really, Bush is a good president. He is truly trying, but so many people hate for doing his best and standing by his values.
What has any of this to do with the thread?

So the only way to avoid being oppressed under a presidency-for-life is to vote Democrat in 2008!! :p

That's right, guys; vote Democrat in 2008 and be oppressed by Republican-lite instead!

<snip>That's right, guys; vote Democrat in 2008 and be oppressed by Republican-lite instead!

Vote Libertarian - for a properly run anarchy! :p

Freedom or Else! :mp5:

Vote Libertarian - for a properly run anarchy! :p

Freedom or Else! :mp5:
“Liberty or Death, bitch”

The Libertarian party should run on that slogan. Along with, “Oh yeah, and legalize pot.” How could they lose with that? HOW?

He ( F D R ) was elected to four terms beginning 1932 . So now it would take a constitutional ammendment to run for more than two . Good luck with that .


Never mind I'm a few pages late ... :D

well good luck getting an amendment passed in less than 4 years anyway . ;)

That's right, guys; vote Democrat in 2008 and be oppressed by Republican-lite instead!
Yep, they've got my vote!! (Unless I escape to Canada first.) :D