Third Term??
 

I want some of what he is smoking.....:rolleyes:

Professor: Obama Should Be Allowed to Run for a Third Term

End presidential term limits - The Washington Post

I read the first 3 paragraphs, then started searching for barf bags.

In part, the article reads or can be summarized as stating ... In The Washington Post, Jonathan Zimmerman, a history professor from NYU, has written an article claiming that all of America’s problems would be soloved–GET THIS–if only we would allow Barack Obama to run for a third term!

He wants to amend the Constitution and abolish presidential term limits.


I bet the intellectual elite would agree with prof. Zimmerman's conclusions. At least the really smart guys who say everyone else is a dummy. And, why shouldn't America have four more years ? Our BO has done such a bang-up job. Bush incurred, and rightfully so, a good bashing. However, our BO has even outdone Bush and performed worse and, on top of that, our BO has created even longer lasting problems. So, why not sink another torpedo in a crippled ship, the USS America.

Abolish term limits? We should be going the other way- one six-year term for any elected office.

One ivory tower nimrod.

Have a field day guys.

You're calling him a "mighty hunter?"

Personally, good luck in amending the Constitution, sir...

It sounds like a good subject for a college term paper.

What makes anyone think he'd want another term?

The same thing was said about GWB. Probably every two-term Pres.

While We appear to be sliding on our way downward to becoming a Third World Country I don't think We are quite ready to have a "President For Life" yet.
Due to Obama's unique Accessory connection when He is done being President here he can go become a President For Life in His Fathers Country if He and that Country wants that.

That has already been done. They created the Presidential Term Limits because of President FDR.

The last amendment took 200(!) years to ratify.

No kidding!

Insecurity is in the air, and it smells like leftover turkey.

Just you wait. These are the earliest drumbeats to keep the dictator in office FOR LIFE!!!

^Nah, at the last meeting of the left winger world dominance .org, we voted for Hillary for that role, due in part to her partner; and everyone contributed 1.28 billion in soft money. Bill G. and Paul A. were the chief contributors but Howard Schultz brought coffee change. He always does :D

Change is part of the game. Throw a little hope to the SHEEP in you and keep the SLAVE in you off guard.

Funny how the R. Pres gives big money a windfall in war profits and financial scams then a D. Pres is elected to give big money windfalls in social programs. All the while big money *****es and moans because it ain't fair that they are so put-upon. They got you comin' and goin'.

I am not in favor of term limits for any office. I think folks should be able to elect anyone they wish.

What would keep Prez O from being a "write in" prez to start the third term?

The constitution. I am not sure about a third term if non consecutive. Maybe Bubba will run again!;)

LOL

Not that this will happen, but until his death Roosevelt served 3 terms and started his fourth.

And as a historical fact:
Likewise, another Democrat, Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, introduced a similar proposal six times in recent years, also regardless of which party was currently occupying the White House. Hoyer introduced such proposals in 1995, 1997, and 1999 (all during the presidency of Bill Clinton), and again in 2001, 2003, and 2005 (all during the presidency of George W. Bush).

Other members of Congress who have offered similar proposals in the last twenty years include the following:
Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts (Democrat): 1995, 1997, and 1999 (all during the presidency of Bill Clinton).
Rep. David Dreier of California (Republican): 1997 (during the presidency of Bill Clinton).
Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York (Democrat): 1995 (during the presidency of Bill Clinton).
Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky (Republican): 1995 (during the presidency of Bill Clinton).
Rep. Guy Vander Jagt of Michigan (Republican): 1991 (during the presidency of George H.W. Bush).
Rep. Martin Sabo of Minnesota (Democratic-Farmer-Labor): 1991 (during the presidency of George H.W. Bush).

So enjoy your tinfoil hats folk if you think this is anything new. Yawn.

Prohibited -- the language in the 22A is absolute ("no person shall...") and doesn't limit itself to consecutive terms.

Obama can have his third term after Reagan gets his third term. Otherwise, no dice.

Too much zombie BS in this country already...

Although who could say whether a dead man would be worse than a live one... seeing as how the last few live ones turned out...

I think you've convinced me...
Re-elect Reagan.

The most recent polls put Obama at a 38% approval rating and he has a long three years to go. It is unlikely he will hit 50% again. Even with a vast majority of minorities who give him a thumbs-up regardless, his numbers are apparently permantently tanked to some degree. Bush (the 2nd) had an average rating of 49% during his 8 years. His first term average was 62% and second term was 37%. Bush's low point was 25% and his high point was 90%. Obama's average is tracking at 49% for his first five years. Obama's all time high is 69% and his low dipped to 37%, which may have risen a smidge over the past month or so.

As much as Bush was (and is) villified, Obama is doing no better. Further, much of Bush's downturn in popularity was hinged to the popularity of Obama who promised "Hope-and-Change" and who did spend a large amount of his time bashing Bush over the economy. If the next guy in the opposite party(ies) does the same exact thing, then I suspect that Obama's numbers will appear even worse in hindsight. Compounding matters for the concept of an Obama third term are three signficant factors which are really not discussed on the media or the academics to any degree. I exclude the hype.

1. If the ACA a/k/a Obama-Care fails or performs lack luster, then that will most likely tarnish the legacy of Obama. So far, it does not look so hot, but time will tell.
2. If the public debt (and deficit) really receives some matrure attention, the public will see that our children and grandchildren are signficantly impaired. If the young or younger start to internalize this issue, and they voted overwhelmingly for Obama, there will be a backlash to some degree.
3. If the US Dollar, which is tied to the USA's posture in the world slips moreso, then our overall "buy-our-way-out-of-a-jam" is somewhat gone, then what do we do? Right now, world perception has us at #2 for the most part. That all happened in the last few years.

So, I doubt Prof. Zimmerman spent any real time looking at the numbers. Just as America loved Bill Clinton after the fact, there was a lot of Clinton fatigue during his eight years. As for Regan, he seems to have survived the passage of time to some degree. No third term for Reagan, however ... he's long gone.

As you say, time will tell on Obama's approval ratings.

As for Clinton? Yeah, the right was fatigued of him. He was sort of the energizer bunny who kept on going. He probably could have been elected to a third term in a heartbeat.

People simply liked him.

Kerry and Gore? not so much.

If Gore had utilized Bubba to campaign for him he probably would have won too.

Gore bought into the Right's retoric about how bad Bubba was.

If approval ratings had any direct relation to elections then our congress would be all freshmen...

The 9%: Congress's Approval Rating Hits the Single Digits | TIME.com

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Congressional Job Approval

They do to some degree. If there was a real measure of the incumbency advantage, turn over rates, and the competition, those ratings actually do have some value.

So, if you could remove the incumbency advantage, those poll ratings have much more value. Plus, unless the "other guy" runs a decent campaign, most folks have no clue who the competitor is. I am thinking of an Eddie Murphy movie right now, but the name escapes me ...

Approval ratings don't mean a whole lot. The election is all that matters and in an election you are comparing the candidate to a real person who has to show themselves well as opposed to comparing the candidate to some mythical ideal office holder.

Zombie Reagan Raised From Grave To Lead GOP - YouTube

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.

I would prefer an inexperienced thief breaking into my safe for my $$.

Given as an example of what the experts have done to this country over the past 100 years or sso, I am all for letting amateurs have a go at it.

And I always thought this was the greatest country in the world...:confused:

Meet the new Boss,

Same as the old Boss...

This country was founded by amateur 20- and 30-somethings.