How We Move Toward Socialism
by Big Dog on Jan 16, 2009 at 19:36 Political
What do Socialist countries have in common?
They have leaders who are “elected” time and again and basically serve for life. Hugo Chavez is a good example as was Saddam Hussein. The election results in those countries usually come in with an unusually high percentage for the dear leader. Those who voted for others might never be heard from again…
The United States did not have term limits for the president until 1951 when the 22nd Amendment was ratified. Up until that time presidents served two terms in order to prevent a monarchy type system where one person ruled forever. Franklin Roosevelt was elected to 4 terms and died a few months into his fourth term. Many cite his popularity and World War II as the reason for his continuation past two terms.
Two terms was an unwritten rule that many believe George Washington instituted by deciding not to run after his second though many scholars say he decided not to run because of his age. In 1807 Thomas Jefferson wrote:
“if some termination to the services of the chief Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally four years, will in fact become for life.” Thomas Jefferson: Reply to the Legislature of Vermont, 1807
Most presidents honored the unwritten rule though a few ran for more than two terms. Those who did, with the exception of FDR, were defeated.
Many Americans like term limits and their only regrets on the matter is that they do not extend to Congress. Jefferson warned about the chief Magistrate serving for life but he failed to mention the members of Congress who, for the most part, get elected and have a job for life. This is why their performance is poor and their approval ratings low.
It has been said that continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. The American people keep reelecting the same people (with a few exceptions) to office over and over. Why do we expect that their performance will be any better than it has in the past?
Why mention it? It is important because now that Barack Obama has been elected the left is looking for a president for life. They are betting that this oh so popular sensation will be a hit and could keep getting reelected time and again but the XXII Amendment is a bit of an obstacle. In steps Jose Serrano (D-NY) to provide a remedy for that pesky little problem. It is called House Judicial Resolution 5: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President. Here is the text:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
‘Article–
‘The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.’. Gov Track
I doubt this will see the light of day and if it does make it to the full Congress I am fairly certain it will not be passed. They need two-thirds of each house which means they do not have enough votes without Republicans supporting it and there is no certainty that all Democrats will. Then they would need three-fourths of the states to ratify it so it is a safe bet that it will never make it anywhere.
However, the fact that this guy has introduced it is disturbing. We can’t get these people to pass Flag protection Amendments. I know the liberals will say that the courts should handle it (like Hillary did) but when the states enact rules the courts rule they are unconstitutional. I have a better solution than an Amendment but that is beside the point.
The reason it is hard to amend the Constitution is so that it will not be changed in a haphazard fashion.
Thank God our Founders had the sense to do that or the liberals would change it all the time.
In any event, this is what they are pushing for, Socialism with a leader for life who we can all bow down to and worship. A leader who can send government forces after us if we don’t march in lock step with them.
First they go for the guns, then they impose their will on those with no means to resist. It worked for Hitler and they think it will work for them. The tyranny is about to begin.
The most dangerous weapon in the world is an American with a gun who is trained to use it.
Maybe that Russian was right about a coming civil war here.
Buy guns and ammo…
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.[/tip]
Tags: Democrats, gun control, monarchy, Obama, socialism
I love how the action of one Democrat is the will of the party. You might as well say all Democrats want a draft since one of them keeps pushing for it. No, the Democrats are not setting up for a leader for life.
I also love how you make it the Democrats who want to change the Constitution so haphazardly. Don’t forget the last major push for an amendment was for the stupid anti-gay marriage amendment by the folks on your side who lost their minds.
The amendment you discuss was the defense of marriage which would have clearly defined marriage as it has been for thousands of years.
It was necessary, as is the Flag amendment because activist judges keep finding rights that are non existent. They also overturn the will of the voters as they did in California which is why they had to do it again and make it stick in the Constitution.
We would not have to change it if judges did not legislate…
One keeps pushing for the draft and last time he had a few co-sponsors. The importance is that for years you lefties kept sending emails to college kids telling them Bush was going to start the draft back up despite NO evidence whatsoever. The MSM, the lib blogs, the commies at colleges all harping about Bush and the draft. The idea that Bush wanted the draft morphed into Republicans.
The truth is, only one party has a person who keeps trying to have the draft and it is the Democratic party.
Just because something does not benefit a gay person does not mean it is anti gay.
Affirmative action does not benefit white people but we don’t call it anti white.
Oh, the amendment was pro-straight marriage, not anti-gay marriage? Keep dreaming.
Funny how every amendment that fits your preference is of the utmost importance and if it doesn’t then it must be liberals wanting to haphazardly change the US Constitution.
I couldn’t find a single thing saying what this Dem’s logic was for wanting to roll back the 22nd, so until you find something then maybe you should hold off on the conspiracy theories. You’re getting as bad as those 9/11 truther idiots.
He does not have to say why, the truth is there. It is funny that if Bush farted you were in line with all the impeach him nuts and now you ask for constraint.
The amendment defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Many states have that definition and the courts keep over turning it. They usurp their authority and legislate.
When they do say it is unconstitutional (based on a state’s Constitution) then the states work to change their Constitution as California did. We see how that caused problems because the will of the people does not matter, only the will of the victim groups.
And no, I don’t have to welcome anyone straight or gay. I believe gays should be afforded the same legal rights as others. Marriage is a religious institution and government does not belong involved in it.
But, if we are to say that the will of the people is important than it is important when the votes go against what the victim groups want. It has to be both ways.
The homosexual marriage amendment is an attempt to impose a non religious meaning on a religeous idea by use of government force. Liberals are always so sensitive to issues that violate the separation of church and state, yet they want religeon to call a union between two people of the same sex something that the bible doesn’t recognize. A civil union gains not one benefit by calling it a marriage. So how is defining marriage as union between a man and a woman discrimitating to a homosexual union?