U.S. Presidential Term Limit: Not quite..... Vote Bill Clinton 2004! ;-)

adambyte

adambyte

Registered
btw, the title of this thread is just to get your attention... that was not me endorsing another term for Bill.

Anyway, recently in my Political Science class, we were discussing the written and unwritten rules of the presidency... And my professor told us the strangest thing: The rule that congress made says that the president may serve no more that two consecutive terms. Apparently this means although Bill Clinton couldn't run for the presidency in 2000, he could actually run for president in 2004, and serve another two terms.... crazy, eh?
 
Yep, and if he was elected to two more terms, he could wait another 4 years and run again.
 
I've heard this rumor before, here's what the constition actually says:

"Article XXII.

Section 1.

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term."

So unfortunately for these United States, I don't see where Bill could be elected a third time without a repeal of this amendment. But I'm no lawyer.
 
If marz' citation is correct, maybe Adambyte is in to gain some extra credit for proving the teacher wrong. I'd start typing up that report...
 
Hot damn! I checked http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html , and Marz is, indeed, correct! Unless there's some discrepancy between this online government source and the actual amendment that was passed, it's true. It really IS two terms, max. Hot damn. Guess I'll start writing that paper. Maybe get me some extra credit! ;) Thanks!

Oh well. Poor Bill.

On an slightly related note, go read "Stupid White Men" by Michael Moore. It's a tiny little bit biased, and a little radical, but very well researched, and overall, a very VERY good book. An enlightening experience.
 
Let's say it is radical.
Let's say it is biased.
Let's say it is a good book.
Why do understatement? ;-)

And, you say, 'Poor Bill'. Actually, I don't know whether he'd WANT to run again. I'd say: Poor America, rather, as the US could do with a better president.
 
Well, hey, I said "poor Bill" half-jokingly... I doubt he'd want to run again.

On a somewhat related note, my Political Science class is taught from the "Elitist" point of view.... being that, the reason we have the electoral college and such is because the founding fathers wanted gradual change, encouraged by a two party system... rather than chaos from a whole bunch of parties, where nobody gets a majority of the vote.

"Poor Nader?"
 
Originally posted by adambyte
And my professor told us the strangest thing: The rule that congress made says that the president may serve no more that two consecutive terms.

I checked http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html , and Marz is, indeed, correct! Unless there's some discrepancy between this online government source and the actual amendment that was passed, it's true. It really IS two terms, max. Hot damn
Click to expand...

Does this scare anybody else? What kind of shyster moron is this professor? I only hope he was trying to make a point that the students should look it up.

Adambyte didn't so maybe that wasn't the prof's point.

No wonder my son is shaking his head when he comes back from (insurance) school where his classmates ask seriously whether Hawaii is a state and whether Canada is part of the US.

I once met a Peace Corps volunteer in Costa Rica who hailed from Washington (the state). She did not know what 54 40 or fight meant. She could not name the first president of the United States. She could not identify the Gettysburg address.

We have trained our young people to be meatheads.
 
You are not alone ! Education is not brilliant everywhere else than in the US.
----------------

Toast, I guess you mean to say that the educational crisis is worldwide and I can only agree. :^)
I work in a school here in Cairo and the capacity for independent thought is almost nil.

When I think of things back home, I think maybe it's a good thing that less than half the eligible voters do actually vote.
 
Here in Switzerland it's different for different people. While all children share the official primary school (age 7 to 12), which is, I think, quite good and 'open', people get very different education from 13 to 19.

The broadest theoretical education you'll get with a Matura, but even there you'll choose some direction (Latin/no latin, more or less math/natural, languages etc.). In the Gymnasium (leading to the Matura), you'll have about 10 different teachers, which is a very, very good thing, because they'll have different opinions. This not only gives you differentiated input (also in political matters, of course), you'll also automatically learn that it's okay to have your own opinion. This is far worse for the other schools, where you have two teachers only (one for maths/natural stuff, one for language/history stuff).

I also like the fact that we have many parties, not only two, because there, too, we get to hear different opinions...

I think part of the 'America-Problem' right now is that everything we see seems to be black and white. We don't hear very differentiated opinions out of the USA. We hear one opinion, basically, and that's the Republican opinion.

(Sure, we _can_ talk to individuals from the USA.)

With the two party system, an image is created and posted to the world, that 'the US' think binary. Yes or no. Black and white. This way or that way. While we are used to hear many opinions in our own country here in Switzerland.

Maybe that explains why we tend to think of the Americans as simple-minded unidirectional minds
 
there are more than two parties fryke.. just the other parties arent the most popular....

myself, im not registered or affiliated with any party, although i tend to lean towards more liberal candidates
 
For the life of me I can't figure out how this guy gets attention. He's like the Rush Limbaugh of the left, but he doesn't have facts or logic to back him up, just incense and outrage. He appeals to the lcd in the left, and if anything, does their cause a disservice.

I'd love to make a low budget indie film, where I follow Michael Moore around with a camera, and chronicle what groups he spends his time with, where he eats, where he buys those flannel shirts, where he eats, etc. What's good for the goose is good for the (very large and out of shape) gander, no?
 
Your post IMHO, serpicolugnut, is a sad proof of pride that's been hurt. Michael Moore is certainly provocating those feelings, but I urge you to do the following: Try to think that neither he or you are completely wrong or right about the things he's talking/writing about. The truth's in the middle, somewhere. But the fact that both of you say the other one's completely wrong should show that neither is completely right.

What good would your film do? Bashing a person for his opinion? Doesn't sound like a good cause to me. If you think he's totally wrong, just try and ignore him. If you can't ignore him, try understanding him. If you can't understand him and still can't ignore him, there's a problem somewhere that has to be fixed.
 
Originally posted by serpicolugnut
...He's like the Rush Limbaugh of the left, but he doesn't have facts or logic to back him up, just incense and outrage. He appeals to the lcd in the left, and if anything, does their cause a disservice.
Click to expand...

And Rush Limbaugh neither has facts nor logic to back him up, just loud mouthed rhetoric to incite his listeners that already agree with his specious logic.
 
Originally posted by serpicolugnut
For the life of me I can't figure out how this guy gets attention. [...] What's good for the goose is good for the (very large and out of shape) gander, no?
Click to expand...

The whole work of Michael Moore is aiming at provoking this type of reaction. Especially from people with Uncle Sam as an avatar :rolleyes: :p ;)

Serpicolugnut, don't be afraid, we all know Moore isn't impartial. Still, the facts are with him.
 
It's interesting to see the tragic flaw of the American system played out in thread. While there are more than two parties, the majority of the others are fringe and one-issue groups that are not exactly looking for concensus (sp?). They are the Michael Moores and the "dittoheads".

As change is a good thing, we find that change in America swings either to the left or to the right every other four years. What is needed is a new centrist vision that recognizes that society is an extension of family. In a family both parents have central and different roles to play, that of breadwinning and that of sharing the wealth.

Don't jump to the flame button, I don't want to stereotype anyone, just that both roles (traditionally but not mandatorially male and female) are needed, even if there is only one person to do it. That person just has a harder time.

Society needs a balance of capitalistic, stand-on-your-own-two-feet individualism (dad's push) and socialistic, let-me-help-you-when-your-down civic consciousness. (mom's love)

When you spend every other four years undoing what was done, there is bound to be imbalance. Maybe what is needed is a political earthquake that will swallow both major parties and create a reform party that really is one. Not left wing or right wing, center wing.
 
Originally posted by serpicolugnut
For the life of me I can't figure out how this guy gets attention. He's like the Rush Limbaugh of the left, but he doesn't have facts or logic to back him up, just incense and outrage. He appeals to the lcd in the left, and if anything, does their cause a disservice./B]
Click to expand...


Eh, I would just like to point out that this is, for the most part, wrong. In the back of Moore's book, "Stupid White Men," there are PAGES UPON PAGES of credits as to where he got the information from each chapter. I was simply amazed at the amount of information this man took in and put in his book. The statistics and records he cites are from various respected newspapers and books ( and, to concede, probably a few not-so respected ones, too, but I don't know). There's no doubt that Moore is fairly radical in his thinking, but at least he has lots of facts to back him up, even if you don't completely agree with the "logic."

Oi... we better watch it.... if we continue talking about "logic," we might get into my Philosophy class... ;-)
 
Originally posted by adambyte
In the back of Moore's book, "Stupid White Men," there are PAGES UPON PAGES of credits as to where he got the information from each chapter. I was simply amazed at the amount of information this man took in and put in his book. The statistics and records he cites are from various respected newspapers and books ( and, to concede, probably a few not-so respected ones, too, but I don't know).
Click to expand...

As I don't have this book, can I ask you to give a few examples from these pages ? I'd like to judge Moore's sources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top