A third term for Bush...?

_Z_Ryuken

Newbie
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
3,835
Reaction score
0
Friend's bulletin from somewhere. I make no assumtpions to the credibility of the source.

Yes you heard me right. According to this website http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/DownTheMiddle/1032.html
congress quietly passed legislation on January 5th, allowing for only a handful of the elected legislators to be able to create or change laws in time of natural disaster, contagion, attack by another nation and including a terrorist attack. This new law, tagged the "Doomsday Legislation", contradicts the Constitution, which specifically states: a majority of each Chamber shall constitute a quorum to do business. In other words, Congress can manipulate laws to their liking during a time of crisis, to allow our president to run for a third term.
Scary, no?
-
In my opinion, this is in no way a "time of crisis".

TIMES ARE GOOD IN THE U.S.

Bush, congress, get over your ****ing selves for God's sake.
--

We are only a few steps away from a tyrannical, oppressive government. (ed: Meh, wasn't looking at my sig when I wrote that, but good James might be a truely great prophet.)

(ed2: ) Eh, I just looked at the date of the atricle. April 05. Kinda old, neh? Still relevant maybe.
 

Ikerous

Newbie
Joined
Aug 10, 2004
Messages
5,622
Reaction score
0
Wouldn't happen.
And if dems win this year it couldn't happen.
 

_Z_Ryuken

Newbie
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
3,835
Reaction score
0
gh0st said:
stopped reading.
Edited for your sake. :rolleyes:

Ignore it if you want. It doesn't change whether Congress is working secretly to undermine the consitution.
 

gh0st

Newbie
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
6,023
Reaction score
0
_Z_Ryuken said:
Edited for your sake. :rolleyes:

Ignore it if you want. It doesn't change whether Congress is working secretly to undermine the consitution.
no they arent. because to do so, the president would have to sign the action into law, the supreme court would have to verify that it is constitutional, and to change the consitution would require a 2/3 vote. this would be all over the mainstream press by now if it were true. the fact that its from some myspace bulliten gives it no credibility whatsoever.
 

_Z_Ryuken

Newbie
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
3,835
Reaction score
0
DreadLord1337 said:
Zomg MySpace conspiracy.
Zomg it has nothing to do with myspace you moron. That's just where I got the link. :rolleyes:
gh0st said:
no they arent.
Patriot Act.
gh0st said:
the fact that its from some myspace bulliten gives it no credibility whatsoever.
See above.
 

sinkoman

Party Escort Bot
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
7,460
Reaction score
21
_Z_Ryuken said:
See above.
I love how you ignored everything he said, quoting only what you actually had a retort to.

Quote minage.

You fail.
 

_Z_Ryuken

Newbie
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
3,835
Reaction score
0
sinkoman said:
I love how you ignored everything he said, quoting only what you actually had a retort to.

You fail.
It was irrelevant. I will show you.

gh0st said:
because to do so, the president would have to sign the action into law, the supreme court would have to verify that it is constitutional, and to change the consitution would require a 2/3 vote.
Patriot Act.

gh0st said:
this would be all over the mainstream press by now if it were true.
That's why I stated the thread in the form of a question, and alluded to it's probable lack of credibility.

It's not my information, it's not my source, I am not claiming this particular thing happened.

The fact they tried is what's scary, and whether it is made into law or not is not important at this point.

Sinko - Your comment is rendered null and pointless, as is everyone elses, but Ikerous as he is the only one to avoid being a complete jackass.
 

Ludah

Newbie
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
534
Reaction score
0
No. Such legislation would have to jump through so many hoops that the media would have caught onto it. That is if it actually happened. Which it didn't.
 

_Z_Ryuken

Newbie
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
3,835
Reaction score
0
Ludah said:
No. Such legislation would have to jump through so many hoops that the media would have caught onto it. That is if it actually happened. Which it didn't.
All I ask for right now is some evidence to compliment your statement, and some good reasoning as to how you think it cannot be implemented. I believe it is possible.
My outlook on this issue is somewhat pessimistic.
 

Ikerous

Newbie
Joined
Aug 10, 2004
Messages
5,622
Reaction score
0
It'd be suicidal for the republican party to allow this to happen. Especially when you consider Bush's poll numbers. If the republicans ever wanted a chance at getting re-elected they wouldnt force a president on us, especially one we don't like.

I think in the end they'd lose more than they'd gain
 

_Z_Ryuken

Newbie
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
3,835
Reaction score
0
Ikerous said:
It'd be suicidal for the republican party to allow this to happen. Especially when you consider Bush's poll numbers. ...
I think in the end they'd lose more than they'd gain
Mulled over this for a few minutes and I think you are right. Even if he was allowed to run another term he would not get re-elected. The Republicans would be shooting themselves in the foot.

Thank you for the serious consideration of this matter.

I will not reply to any further posts.
---
(ed)
All posters posting after this, will recieve at least one PM. I see there are various errors in judgement and comprehension floating about.
 

Glirk Dient

Newbie
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
3,509
Reaction score
0
_Z_Ryuken said:
All I ask for right now is some evidence to compliment your statement, and some good reasoning as to how you think it cannot be implemented. I believe it is possible.
My outlook on this issue is somewhat pessimistic.
Are you asking for him to find evidence that this didn't happen? That's a logical fallacy.

Since your the one making claims, the burden of proof is on you. Find a more credible source than a myspace bulletin first.
 

Ludah

Newbie
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
534
Reaction score
0
_Z_Ryuken said:
All I ask for right now is some evidence to compliment your statement, and some good reasoning as to how you think it cannot be implemented. I believe it is possible.
My outlook on this issue is somewhat pessimistic.
The burden of proof is on you to prove that this conspiracy exists or is at least credible. A link from MySpace isn't going to cut it.
 

15357

Companion Cube
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Messages
15,217
Reaction score
19
That is AWESOME! Long live the Americanized version of the Yu Sin Constitution!
 

15357

Companion Cube
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Messages
15,217
Reaction score
19
99.vikram said:
No country is that totalitarian :|
If you're talking about Bush having a third term:

I'm sorry, but I take offense to that. Our President, General Park Jung Hee also had three+ terms. And we weren't totalitarian. The Yu Sin constitution, which made the general president for 19 years, was voted in by 91.5% of everyone.
 

sinkoman

Party Escort Bot
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
7,460
Reaction score
21
_Z_Ryuken said:
Mulled over this for a few minutes and I think you are right. Even if he was allowed to run another term he would not get re-elected. The Republicans would be shooting themselves in the foot.
Wow, you're an ignorant fool.

You ignore every post saying the exact same thing, except for ikerous', right after you stated that he was the only one "not being an ass".

The politics board is such a funny place.
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2003
Messages
8,110
Reaction score
-2
_Z_Ryuken said:
Patriot Act.
:LOL:
The Patriot Act has nothing to do with adding ammendments to the constitution.

edit: LOL You've used that as a reply twice and each time it had nothing to do with it and didn't make sense. Do you even know what the Patriot Act is? Criticism of it is worth taking time to look at and speak up about but if you don't even know what you're talking about or what it actually does then you should probably keep your mouth shut.
 

SAJ

Newbie
Joined
Jun 23, 2004
Messages
813
Reaction score
0
Its easy to check. Any legislation would have made it to official websites and would be searchable.
If you cant find it , it aint there.

Guess what? Its not there.
 

Raeven0

Newbie
Joined
Jan 16, 2005
Messages
2,495
Reaction score
0
Now that the flaming is done, let's look at the article intelligently.

The first five paragraphs are completely irrelevant filler material. Ignore.

On January 5th of this year, Congress quietly passed legislation, allowing for only a handful of the elected legislators to be able to create or change laws in time of natural disaster, contagion, attack by another nation and.......oh yes, that would include TERRORIST ATTACK! This new law, tagged the "Doomsday Legislation", contradicts the Constitution, which specifically states: “a majority of each Chamber shall constitute a quorum to do business.”
The article provides no bill number, and as I recall no media ever noticed the legislation. Wikipedia has no results for "Doomsday Legislation", and the top Google result provides for special elections if 100 members of the House die simultaneously--meaning "legislation in the case of doomsday", I guess. Americanfreepress.net has more on the legislation, with actual quotes. The quotes provided are sufficient for me to find the law at the House Web site. Please stand as we read from Clause 5 of Rule XX, with bold added for emphasis:

5.

[...]

--(c)(1) If the House should be without a quorum due to catastrophic circumstances, then_

----(A) until there appear in the House a sufficient number of Representatives to constitute a quorum among the whole number of the House, a quorum in the House shall be determined based upon the provisional number of the House; and

----(B) the provisional number of the House, as of the close of the call of the House described in subparagraph (3)(C), shall be the number of Representatives responding to that call of the House.

[...]

--(3) For the purposes of subparagraph (1), the House shall be considered to be without a quorum due to catastrophic circumstances if, after a motion under clause 5(a) of rule XX has been disposed of and without intervening adjournment, each of the following occurs in the stated sequence:

[...]

----(B) The Speaker_

------(i) with the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader, receives from the Sergeant-at-Arms (or his designee) a catastrophic quorum failure reports, as described in subparagraph (4);

------(ii) consults with the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader on the content of that report; and

------(iii) announces the content of that report to the House.

----(C) A further call of the House (or a series of calls of the House) is closed after aggregating a period in excess of 24 hours (excluding time the House is in recess) without producing a quorum.

--(4)(A) For purposes of subparagraph (3), a catastrophic quorum failure report is a report advising that the inability of the House to establish a quorum is attributable to catastrophic circumstances involving natural disaster, attack, contagion, or similar calamity rendering Representatives incapable of attending the proceedings of the House.

----(B) Such report shall specify the following:

------(i) The number of vacancies in the House and the names of former Representatives whose seats are vacant.

------(ii) The names of Representatives considered incapacitated.

------(iii) The names of Representatives not incapacitated but otherwise incapable of attending the proceedings of the House.

------(iv) The names of Representatives unaccounted for.

[...]

----(D) Such report shall be updated every legislative day for the duration of any proceedings under or in reliance on this paragraph. The Speaker shall make such updates available to the House.
So let me simplify this for you.

First off, this law doesn't apply to all of government, just the House of Representatives. Only House members can take XTREME ACTION in catastrophic circumstances.

Second, the House still has to have most of its members present to do anything. House operation continues as normal unless the following conditions are met:
- a significant number of the House Representatives have been incapacitated due to attack, natural disaster, or similar calamity;
- a report has been prepared on those incapacitated and those not incapacitated;
- both the Majority and Minority Leaders of the House convene and agree on the legitimacy of the report;
- the entirety of the Report is announced to whatever of the House remains.

Third, this law does not allow as few as 15 people to spontaneously make judgements. The House has to call its members up--all 435 of them--72 hours in advance, then see how many couldn't come because they were incapacitated.

The MySpace bulletin and any articles you've read about this are worthless fear-mongering and any bad feelings about it are completely insubstantiated. Which is probably why the media never got into it.
 

gh0st

Newbie
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
6,023
Reaction score
0
_Z_Ryuken said:
Erroneus post. Meant for PM.

Everyone is getting one.
why dont you just post here so we can make fun of you more.
 

kirovman

Tank
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
0
He doesn't need a third term, the Bush family still has Jeb Bush left.
 

clarky003

Tank
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
6,124
Reaction score
1
Ikerous said:
It'd be suicidal for the republican party to allow this to happen. Especially when you consider Bush's poll numbers. If the republicans ever wanted a chance at getting re-elected they wouldnt force a president on us, especially one we don't like.

I think in the end they'd lose more than they'd gain
Yes it would be suicidal... If they weren't planning a dictatorship that is. muhahaha ha!
 

jverne

Newbie
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
4,303
Reaction score
0
15357 said:
If you're talking about Bush having a third term:

I'm sorry, but I take offense to that. Our President, General Park Jung Hee also had three+ terms. And we weren't totalitarian. The Yu Sin constitution, which made the general president for 19 years, was voted in by 91.5% of everyone.

of course you're not totalitarian! :LOL: :rolleyes:


emm: once my teacher said...what kind of a democracy is, where someone gets 90% of votes. He had a point, afterall.

does s. korea have any alla "hitler's yunght"?
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
6,938
Reaction score
2
jverne said:
of course you're not totalitarian! :LOL: :rolleyes:


emm: once my teacher said...what kind of a democracy is, where someone gets 90% of votes. He had a point, afterall.

does s. korea have any alla "hitler's yunght"?
...I don't understand what you said :|
 
Top