<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV>Charlie </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 4/5/07 4:32:19 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
paa@crosierbiomed.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>Defend the Constitution. Restore U.S. values.
Impeach!<BR>Come to our Apr. 9 impeachment forum
http://www.paa-tx.org/node/2511<BR><BR>Bill<BR><BR><BR>At 3:49 PM -0500
4/5/07, Amy Branham wrote:<BR>>Cheney: Bush Administration May Challenge
22nd Amendment in 2008
Election.<BR>><BR>><http://www.newyourketimes.com/content/article76649.html>http://www.newyourketimes.com/content/article76649.html<BR>><BR>>By
PHILIP MCKRACK; April 1, 2007<BR>><BR>>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.<BR>><BR>>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."<BR>><BR>>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.<BR>><BR>>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.<BR>><BR>>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.<BR>><BR>>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.<BR>><BR>>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:<BR>><BR>>the assertion that The Geneva
Conventions do not apply to U.S. detainees captured on the
battlefield,<BR>>suggestions that the legal definition of "torture" only
includes activities that cause death or organ failure,<BR>>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,<BR>>Attorney
General Albert Gonzales's testimony before Congress that the Constitution
doesn't guarantee U.S. Citizens a right to Habeas Corpus,<BR>>The
Administration's claim that the FISA law does not apply to their warrantless
wire taps of Americans.<BR>>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.<BR><BR>-- <BR>Bill Crosier<BR>paa@crosierbiomed.com
713-641-4941<BR>Progressive Action Alliance
http://progressiveactionalliance.org/<BR>Fear Ends, Hope Begins...
http://kucinich.us/<BR><BR>---------------<BR>Progressive Action
Alliance http://progressiveactionalliance.org/<BR>Discuss mailing
list Discuss@paa-tx.org<BR>To subscribe, unsubscribe, access the
archives, or change your options on this list, go
to:<BR>http://paa-tx.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_paa-tx.org <BR><BR>To reply
only to the person posting this note, use "Reply".<BR>To reply so that
everyone on this list receives your note, use "Reply All".<BR>Check the "To:"
field in your message, before sending, to ensure it goes to the correct
address.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT><BR><BR><BR><DIV><FONT style="color: black; font: normal 10pt ARIAL, SAN-SERIF;"><HR style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px">See what's free at <A title="http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503" href="http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503" target="_blank">AOL.com</A>. </FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>