At the very least, no one could complain of his "hidden agenda", he would never promote any stupid, ill-conceived, or harmful legislation, and he would sign no stupid legislation. The more I think about it, the better he sounds.

There is always a postive in a negative so to speak.

On the one side, there are the folks with the "wait-and-see" view and the ACA was some sort of moral imperative that was the necessary outcome of years and years of struggle.

On the other side, there's folks like me who believe Obama simply lied to the American pulbic, and time will likewise tell. Further, instead of a $2,500 premium reduction (another lie), there's a pretty good chance that the ACA will cost well over $1 Trillion dollars a year. That equals to about $3,250 per American citizen. Someone has to pay, of course, so there goes $13K from my household assuming everyone in my household has to pay for someone else's healthcare.

So, assuming it's a flop, I suspect those who backed the ACA will be leaving DC and a new regime of politicians will take the helm of the ship. If so, the social progressive agenda will be set back a great deal. Or, maybe the scales have tipped and those who receive something from the government will simply keep on voting for those politicians who give out the benefits to their voting base.

Time will tell. However, time is running out since the numbers and the math point to one inescapable conclusion and that is the federal goodies given to many can no longer be supported. What will happen then ? If it becomes too late to correct our problems, who will be blamed ?

One man's goodie handout is anothers valued government service.

Or tax incentive, or subsidy...

Who has to amend anything, he does what he wants and no one does anything about it now.

We are only one Justice away from Obama choosing another Justice. Given the age of the existing members, it is totally possible that we could lose one of the conservatives. If this happened, he could have an SC that would go along with repeal of the two term limit amendment. Yeah, I know that it is actually supposed to require a constitutional convention, but Obama has proven that he won't let something as silly as the constitution get in his way.

Given the media being friendly to him and the number of dumb as a post ideologues that will support him no matter what, the chance of him serving a third term is remote, but not totally out of the question. God help us all.

That's frue enough. He just flat out broke congressional law. As I recall a few of his staff members were convicted. Of course Reagan knew nothing of what was going on.

SCOTUS cannot negate an amendment. Whether there is a convention (never been done before) od both houses pass a bill which is passed on to be voted and accepted by 3/4 of the states, the SCOTUS is not part of the process. The only thing thd SCOTUS does is determin whether laws are in accordance with the COTUS. Any amendment would obviously be in accordance with the COTUS as it would be in the COTUS.

Did you not read the words "go along with?" With the senate doing things with a simple majority, it would be very easy to get the same thing from the house THEN with all that illegality ignored by the dumb as a box of rocks public, and an SC to support such decadence, it's done.

He's already been spitting in the face of the constitution, and the senate has been changing the rules to suit themselves, the SC and the house is all he has to get in his camp. He has proven that he has no problem making his own rules.

Amnesia.

SELECTIVE Amnesia

Term limits for ANY elected position is a good thing. It combats businesses from owning a particular elected official.

I did only say "combats", not prevents.

The citizen's united ruling was quite the stripping of our rights.

You are hard to please!:D
It got ratified when there was enough political support to do that. That is the way the system is supposed to work.

Maybe. But there isn't really such a thing as term limits, only on paper; they move on to the next spot.

And you have to ask your self: do you really want unexperienced politicians to be running the show?

Oh no, I'm quite satisfied. The Constitution should be hard to amend. My point was that removal of term limits isn't going anywhere fast, certainly won't happen in the next 3.1 years.