Tuesday, November 27, 2012

President Obama and a Third Term – the Reasoning, the Right, The Left, the Money and the Constitution

The Steps, in brief, to amend the Constitution -image thisnation.com

There’s a great deal of “talk” about President Obama running for a Third Term and being successful, and talking heads as well as PAC’s are pushing this theory as if it were “gospel”. There is one questions to consider before sending money to a PAC or organization that would help one prevent such a scenario – especially considering how many are wedded to the theory that the United States is going to “hell in a hand-basket” over one man in the White House.

How would the President, with Congress and a majority of the States push through a repeal of an amendment in time for the President to qualify for a third term? The answer is simple. The 22nd Amendment was passed with what was considered “blazing speed”: it was brought before the Congress and passed on March 24, 1947. It was ratified on February 27th, 1951. (U.S. Constitution.net) That’s three years from the time the Congress passed the amendment, until it was ratified. The processes (There are two): :

1. A Bill must pass both Houses by a two-thirds majority. Once passed, the Bill goes to the State’s to “ratify”. Each State must vote on whether or not to adopt the amendment, again, the magic number is two-thirds of the states. A note: There is generally a time-limit written into the Bill, and that time limit is generally seven years.

2. A Constitutional Convention may be called. This involves two thirds of the states legislatures asking for a Convention to be convened for amendments. Once the states are convened, Proposed Amendments are then sent back to the states to be ratified.

When looking at both Constitutional paths to changing an amendment, one understands that the process is both lengthy with no guarantees of passages given the diversity of the States, especially in the two-party system in which the U.S. functions.

Yes there are other methods not discussed about, the Informal Amendment (or those interpretations of the Constitution brought before the Supreme Court), and the Popular Amendment which has never been attempted. The later would require a national election, which on the surface sounds very simple, and yet, neither of the aforementioned are specifically written in the Constitution itself, the Popular Amendment was proposed by one of the framers. For more information on the above refer to: uscontitution.net.

What would anyone gain from spouting off about a change to the 22nd amendment? A change that would be speedy enough to allow for a third term for any President (unless the process was started in Congress previous to that Presidents second term) – is technically impossible. Anyone who donated or supported candidates during the 2012 election might find that they are receiving robo calls from PAC’s in late November! Calls that warn of impending crisis, and how donating to that PAC will allow them to fight for the freedom’s one is losing, has lost or is about to lose. Seriously. There’s a lot of money at stake. One can point to the right, but one also has to understand that there are also PAC’s on the left, looking for continued employment and a source of income – from the individual “patriot” or “progressive”.

Could they be that devious, or money-grubbing? You betcha.

The 2012 election was won and lost for one reason and one reason only – the Republican Party failed to get out the vote. (Or enough of the vote to compensate for the 3 to 4% cheating one can anticipate from the Democrats). It is not an impossible task. It has been done before – before there were multi-billion dollar campaigns, and anyone with reason understands that messaging costs. However, the 2010 election should be the model for all elections, as there were PAC’s, but little to no real involvement from the national parties, with the exception of a few blessings (those candidates generally lost), and a change in the House that was historic based on the motivation of the people. One would think people were motivated in 2012, and the truth of the matter, they were obviously not motivated enough. There is an exemplary article written by Erik Erikson at Red State: “A Primer for Rich Donors Who Got Taken to the Cleaners by Republican Consultants” It is suggested reading for those on the right and those on the left of the political aisle.

The President won, the Progressives within the Democrat Party may want to enact social changes that those on the right are not simpatico with, and however, there is nothing done that cannot be undone. When one hears: “Obama Care! We’ll be stuck with it for-ever!” Think again. It is an Act that is constantly being changed by those currently in power. Waivers are granted, rules being written and re-written, before the Act takes full effect! In four years there will be yet another election, and if the people are disgusted by the left, then the people will vote for the more “right’ candidate. That will bring about a change in the Administration as well as all facets of the government, and new rules will be written. That is, of course, unless the Act itself is struck down once more on the basis of Religious Freedom (see Liberty University Health Care Suit).

A reasonable person might be tempted to hold onto their wallet. The reason: there are those that are espousing the third term, even talk show hosts are on the third term bandwagon. These are smart and savvy radio personalities that appear to have nothing to gain – except audience share and their advertisers (who happen to have a good deal to do with prepping for disasters, investing in gold, etc.)who both benefit from – fear. They may also believe some of what they are espousing, but again, as with anything else that needs to be verified, research the possibilities. If one doesn’t trust “Google”, then head to the local library and look it up!

Finally, there is always the next election, and to date, there are a few names being bandied about – from the Senator from Florida, Rubio, to the latest conjecture , Jeb Bush, or Bush III as the Drudge Report noted. However, those of us in the trenches know one thing for certain, regardless of which major party one is affiliated with, the power brokers are already choosing the next contender. If one is on the right or a Republican, one might look to who ran and lost previous to Mitt Romney. The old – “It’s your turn now” nonsense that continues to push a candidate that is clearly unelectable, unless it is a “dynasty” in which case, that may also be a mistake. (See McCain, See Romney). If one is on the left, get ready for Elizabeth Warren, the newly elected, Jr. Senator from Massachusetts, touted by some Progressives as the perfect candidate to Replace Barack Obama. Gone will be the race card, replaced by the “Feminist Card”. Watch the GOP try to match that. In the meantime, perhaps there will be a movement away from both major parties – towards the Libertarian Party, or if there is any sense in this world – the Tea Party (get organized please). This would allow for what the founding fathers actually envisioned – (Read: the Federalist Papers) a Republic that was free of strong Political Parties.

When the math doesn’t add up, there’s usually a reason: those factors not considered. For example, the polls and the possibility for a sweep by the Republican’s were there in 2012. What one did not account for was the fact that voters would sit this election out – for a multitude of reasons, including failure of software (nothing beat s boots on the ground). That said, the math for a third term, no matter which way one slices it, doesn’t add up – but what does add up is the money that will be sent by the gullible to either support or defend something that simply will not occur.

No comments:

Amazon Picks

Massachusetts Conservative Feminist - Degrees of Moderation and Sanity Headline Animator

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Map

Contact Me:

Your Name
Your Email Address