[PAA-Discuss] Fw: Cheney tells Military "We MAY suspend 22nd Amendment"( ...

Thu Apr 5 19:44:57 EDT 2007

I think it would be great if Bush could run again. It is very doubtful  that 
he could get the Repub nomination again since they are almost as sick of  him 
and Cheney as we are and even if he did, with his standing in the  polls south 
of 30% I think just about any Dem could beat him like a drum.  Also I saw on 
the news today that Florida has restored the right of  excons to vote (all but 
murders and sex offenders) which reenfranchises about  80,000 people, almost 
all Democrats. Since Gore lost Fla by about 500 votes  in 2000, this almost 
ensures that it will change from red to blue in 2008. This  could be monster 
good news - and it was a Repub governor who signed the  bill.
Charlie  

In a message dated 4/5/07 4:32:19 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
paa at crosierbiomed.com writes:

Why  should they stop at ignoring the 22nd amendment?  They're stomping all  
over the whole Constitution already (except maybe the 2nd amendment), and  
common law dating back to the Magna Carta.

I've been thinking that  maybe we shouldn't close down Gitmo until Bush, 
Cheney, Rumsfield, Gonzales,  Wolfowitz, and the rest of their gang are sent 
there.  Or maybe it's just  best to send them to the Hague and let the Int'l 
Criminal Court deal with  them.

Defend the Constitution.  Restore U.S. values.   Impeach!
Come to our Apr. 9 impeachment forum  http://www.paa-tx.org/node/2511

Bill

At 3:49 PM -0500  4/5/07, Amy Branham wrote:
>Cheney: Bush Administration May Challenge  22nd Amendment in 2008  Election.
>
><http://www.newyourketimes.com/content/article76649.html>http://www.newyourke
times.com/content/article76649.html
>
>By  PHILIP MCKRACK; April 1, 2007
>
>JACKSONVILLE, North Carolina.  April 1 Ñ Vice President Cheney delivered a 
speech early Sunday morning before  a formation of soldiers at Camp Lejeune in 
North Carolina. The speech was not  publicized and the prepared remarks were 
intended to boost troop morale. The  comments were fairly unremarkable except 
for one short comment near the end of  the speech in which Mr. Cheney suggested 
that the Bush Administration may seek  to challenge the 22nd amendment in the 
2008 presidential election in an effort  to ensure that the war in Iraq is 
successful.
>
>Mr. Cheney again  cited the war in Iraq as a key component in the effort to 
combat terrorism,  saying "The war in Iraq is such a crucial part of the 
greater war on terror  that we currently have our legal advisors looking into the 
possibility that  the 22nd Amendment may not apply in 2008."
>
>Because the speech  was not publicized and was held on a secure military 
base, very few  journalists were present, and none were able to ask questions 
about what the  Vice President's comments might mean. Repeated efforts to contact 
the Vice  President's Office to clarify the comment were  unsuccessful.
>
>The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution prohibits  U.S. Presidents from 
running for a third term, stating "No person shall be  elected to the office of the 
President more than twice...". The 22nd Amendment  was passed in 1951 after 
President Franklin Roosevelt broke a tradition that  dated back to George 
Washington, in which Presidents voluntarily refused to  run for a third term.
>
>Political pundits and Constitutional  experts are split on what the Vice 
President's comments could mean. Some see  the comments as an effort to extend 
the Administration's "war powers" due to  the fact that the country is at war. 
They argue that there is a tenuous case  to be made that the 22nd Amendment 
doesn't apply during war time since the  Congress waited until after WW II to 
introduce such an Amendment. Others say  that the mere fact that the country had 
just ended the war in 1951, when the  Amendment was passed, suggests that the 
Congress would have put such an  exception into the language of the Amendment 
if they had intended it not apply  during times of war.
>
>Others say that the Bush Administration  will argue that the 2000 race was 
not actually decided by an election and that  the Bush administration has 
technically only been "elected" once since the  Supreme Court's Decision in Bush v. 
Gore effectively nullified the popular  vote. Anonymous sources inside the 
White House have corrborated that this may  indeed be the Administration's plan.
>
>Arguing that it was not  actually elected would be a very interesting 
approach for the administration  to say the least, but most experts agree that it is 
certainly possible given  the Bush administration's history of creative 
interpretation of the law with  regard to such cases as:
>
>the assertion that The Geneva  Conventions do not apply to U.S. detainees 
captured on the  battlefield,
>suggestions that the legal definition of "torture" only  includes activities 
that cause death or organ failure,
>the argument  that U.S. Citizens do not have a right to "due process" if 
declared "enemy  combatants", which was recently rejected by the Supreme Court,
>Attorney  General Albert Gonzales's testimony before Congress that the 
Constitution  doesn't guarantee U.S. Citizens a right to Habeas Corpus,
>The  Administration's claim that the FISA law does not apply to their 
warrantless  wire taps of Americans.
>Critics of the Administration argue that these  cases are all the proof 
needed to believe that The Bush Administration would  try to argue that its own 
victory in 2000 demonstrates that it could run for a  third term in 2008.

-- 
Bill Crosier
paa at crosierbiomed.com   713-641-4941
Progressive Action Alliance    http://progressiveactionalliance.org/
Fear Ends, Hope Begins...    http://kucinich.us/

---------------
Progressive Action  Alliance  http://progressiveactionalliance.org/
Discuss mailing  list   Discuss at paa-tx.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, access the  archives, or change your options on 
this list, go  to:
http://paa-tx.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_paa-tx.org 

To reply  only to the person posting this note, use "Reply".
To reply so that  everyone on this list receives your note, use "Reply All".
Check the "To:"  field in your message, before sending, to ensure it goes to 
the correct  address.

************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://paa-tx.org/pipermail/discuss_paa-tx.org/attachments/20070405/0547b431/attachment.htm>