Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said last week that he would push for a constitutional revision that would allow him to remain in office beyond his scheduled departure, in 2012. After the change's near-certain approval by the parliament, it will face a national referendum. Critics said the reform would move Venzuela closer to a Cuban-style dictatorship. But Chavez, an outspoken socialist, insisted he merely wants to end term limits. "It will be the people who decide how long I stay," he said. Chavez already has virtual control over the judiciary, and his supporters control all seats in the national legislature. Personally, I don't think this is what people have in mind when they support the notion of term limits.
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=64053
Do you think it possible that Bush could pull off something similar in the United States? He does, after all, have the support of the majority of the Supreme Court to back him up on Constitutional issues. If he did make a move, it would need to be before the 2008 elections.
Thinking of the myriad of possibilities, one could envision a strike on Iran with some kind of nuclear episode enabling him to put his May directive into effect. There have been a number of articles in the foreign press lately, including yesterday's Al Jazeera, reporting on Bush's increasingly aggressive warnings to Iran and Iraq concerning any kind of "negative" collaboration in the Iraqi conflicts with not-too-veiled references to taking action against Iran if this is the way the Bush Administration interprets the collaboration.
What are the chances? And how could he be stopped?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 152
Actually, Bush would have to have a majority in Congress to get something like this passed and, thankfully, he doesn't. The Supreme Court wouldn't be any help, as Congress is the only legislative branch of the government, and that's the branch that can make laws and changes to the Constitution (which is something he would have to do, override the 22nd amendment). Plus, I honestly don't think he has the cajones to declare martial law and make himself Dictator of the United States.
Either way, it's still frightening that Chavez is doing this.
As for Bush, yes it is very possible he will pull something like that and the way things are set up (by him) Congress wouldn't have a thing to say about it. I'm mad today because Canada turned down my immigration request. Here I am bringing in my own money, I have no criminal record, I am 60 years old and just want to find nice, tame retirement community and there is no category for me. I tried "skilled worker based on my education and job history, and that wasn't professional enough for them. So all my efforts the past few weeks to make a move were for nothing.
BTW, isn't this what Palpatine did in the "Star Wars" prequels? Incite a war to get into power and then keep it going to stay there? Maybe that's where Chavez got the idea from. ;-)
My feeling is that the increased rhetoric over Iran is pointing to some kind of planned action by the BA. We all know that the September Iraq status report is not going to be good. The Sunnis have left the Iraqi cabinet in protest. Anything that is done now in that sham government will be without Sunni input and most likely against Sunni wishes. The whole point of the surge was to allow the government to get its act together. They are farther away from that now then they were in the Spring. AND Al-Maliki is strengthening his ties to Iran.
As far as Chavez is concerned, he has done a lot for the poor in his country. But, it is being funded by high oil revenues and state coffers and his actions have discouraged the overall economy from growing. He has encouraged a mass exodus of the educated and middle classes and increased inflation. He has centralized the economic power to the state and squelched any kind of oppositional speech. There is just so long a society like this can keep up in the world economy. He may want to turn his country into another Cuba - we'll see.
"With the cascade of revelations about warrant-free searches by the N.S.A., it is time for all of us to spend some time reading about when other democracies fell. There have been some notable failures.
"Some of the hallmarks are domestic spying, illegal detention and legitimization of torture. If the president's claim of the power to wiretap the telephone communications of Americans without warrants and to spy on peaceful American citizens is not blocked now, he will have prevailed in claiming that he can overrule our Bill of Rights by executive decree.
"What seems to be a gradual self-coup is well underway here, such as when a current government assumes extraordinary powers not allowed by the legislation. An example is Alberto Fujimori in Peru, who was democratically elected, but later took control of the legislative and judicial powers in 1992.
"The fall of Weimer Germany in 1933 is often mentioned, but there have been plenty of other democracies that fell to homegrown tyranny: Italy in 1922, Spain in 1936, Brazil in 1964, Chile in 1973, Argentina in 1976.
"Study these and then make up your own mind if we are living through similar times or not today in the United States of America."
Perhaps the end of the Founders' Democracy is near and we have reverted to Empire.
Armed rebellion .
Lori - not quite sure about your meaning in relation to the electoral college, but I think that we have seen in the past how the majority of the voters in this country can be blinded and fooled - look no farther back than 2004.
Does that make more sense?
How can you whittle that down to a simple statement of not agreeing "with some of his positions"????????
Which position discussed in this conversation made you come to that conclusion?
Really and who would be the secretary of that department. Oh wait there isnt one. There was an initative for faith based organizations but it was open to all faiths, which makes it constitutional
"The only president or ex-president I have ever heard advocate for repeal of term limits was President Clinton. Think about that for a minute and the reason there is term limits in America is because another democrat ran again when he was a dying man, FDR. So lets at least be honest about the debate here."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/
And, no, I don't think it's constitutional even if they say that ALL religions get equal time. I think that's bull. For instance, they bring in prayer groups into government departments and, believe me, they're not for Jews and Muslims, or for members of B'hai. No, these guys are strictly for Jesus - and the limited brand of Christianity that is against homosexuals, for instance. Sorry, I see no equal time there. And, again, I DON'T WANT MY FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS TO GO TO ANY RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION. If I wanted that, I would send it directly to a church.
As for your other comment, yes, there may be examples of certain things with other presidents, but no other president or administration comes close to establishing a dictatorship in the U.S. This is even way past McCarthyism.
Isn't there something in the constitution about separation of church and state?
How does this include people who want to maintain that separation? And those who ascribe to no religion?
And then we have people like Bill Sali to prove that some people just never quite get that "everyone is included" idea.
It's people like this that the BA has both encouraged and allowed to prosper. This is one of my main issues with this administration - they have totally sold out to the radical fundamentalist Christian crazies - not because they believe in the teachings of Jesus (obviously - their actions are the opposite of Jesus' teachings) but because they think these crazies can provide them some votes.
The constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
That is not a complete seperation. All the constituiton keeps is the government from saying "baptist" is the nations religion. And it protects us to exercise whatever religion we want. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government can encourgage religious and non-religious groups to work with it in achieving goals.
Oh, and lest you forget, the Republicans were in total charge for 6 long years where they could have passed immigration legislation so that you wouldn't be paying for those illegals, MD. Where are the laws? Please, point them out to me.
I actually can see the whole picture here. You are too busy trying to make our President the definition of pure evil which he is not. I didnt agree with this view of Clinton either. Just because we dont agree with our Presidents does not mean they are evil
There are a number of groups like this, and it will take large numbers of intelligent people who are willing to actually LOOK and THINK to combat their actions.
As for the knit-picking about the exact words, you can find all sorts of court precedents, including ruling prayer out of schools, that support the separation of church and state. I refuse to argue one original sentence you pull out. You know very well that we have a long history of legal rulings separating the two and the intent is quite clear.
People who are fanatical about their religions are called fundamentalist extremists. They will go to any extent to get their religions intertwined with the government and have their religious laws supersede the secular ones. These groups are NO DIFFERENT from the radical Islamists who try to institute sharia law into a democratic, secular government.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions
"Directory listings are not available" on a big white page.
Whether you and a court agree, this is more rhetorical crap. Faith-based groups sometimes (if not often) "give back" to their own, ignoring others in the 'community' who need and deserve that tax money.
On the religious side of this, aren't those groups supposed to give of themselves, from the kindness of their hearts? Why do they want to take government positions? Disbursement of tax money is best handled by unbiased agencies.
"Search Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Searching for Jim Towey.
No documents matching your query were found.
For suggestions on how to broaden your search, see Search Tips.
is the actual case
R071; No. 06-157; 6/25/07. The Seventh Circuit's judgment that respondent federal taxpayers have standing to bring an Establishment Clause challenge against conferences funded by Executive Branch offices created by the President as part of his faith-based and community programs initiative is reversed."
I believe that phrase "have standing" means that they have a constitutional basis for objecting to Bush's faith-based garbage, or am I reading that wrong?
This too will come to an end, though. There is hope out there for real justice. If you know your history, MD, you will know that there is NOTHING in the constitution that limits the court to 9 judges and presidents in the past have increased the size of the court to get away from just this kind of travesty. We WILL have a Democrat in office in 2009 and I, for one, will start petitioning my reps to have the president increase the size of the court immediately.
Charles Colson's Christian-based prison project on trial in Iowa
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to use taxpayer money to reimburse faith-based organizations that provided relief services after Hurricane Katrina
. . .
There is so much wrong with this picture. No one can tell me that the possible good that can result from it can in any way out weigh the whole load of bad.
"I can not believe how evil you all think the President is just because you don't agree with some of his positions"
That's an interesting way to put it, but it makes no sense. Did someone else say; "I think the President is pure evil just because I don't agree with some of his positions"? Obviously not, so what you appear to be doing is rationalizing away the blatant fear and distrust so many people have for that man. Let's put the onus where it belongs;
"You are too busy trying to make our President the definition of pure evil which he is not"
You tell me; What makes you believe he is NOT evil? And NO, simply saying no President is "pure evil" won't do. You tell me what good things that man has done, as in something which is altruistic, or self sacrificing, or even just plain ethical, which assures you he is not an immoral or amoral person?
Are you just assuming he is, cause you agree with some of his positions?
There is nothing constitutional or sacred about the number 9. Changing the number can be done, and has been successfully. Just because FDR failed doesn't mean that a Dem Congress and Dem president couldn't succeed.
Bush is the puppet of the military-industrial complex and has been manipulated because of his delusions and stupidity by a minority, war-mongering faction to support an ill-fated unilateralist policy. The Congress has been cowardly in opposing the current policy, afraid of the being blamed for the disaster in Iraq and also of losing funding from certain powerful corporate interests.
As for your Bush comments, I totally agree. Even if I agreed with his positions on things, I would still cringe every time he opened his mouth to speak and mutilated the English language and sense.
I am thrilled to see this discussion go on so long. Do you guys think there's a chance we can move a thoughtful submission with an honest-to-goodness discussion thread to the top of the "most discussed" list? This truly beats "good evening" in terms of what matters in this world.
The problem with religious charitable organizations getting government funding is not that many do good work or that many make no religious demands on the people they serve. The problem is that the potential for abuse is unlimited. Charity is big business. It's well within the realm of possibility that there could be bribery. People have religious preferences. Suppose the people who hand out the contracts to the religious charities hand them out only to the ones they like?
Oh, BTW, good afternoon, Gather, from your left wing reactionary buddy, Nippy Katz
Exactly, Nippy. How many times have we seen religious leaders misuse funds for their own edification? The list is a mile long. How do I know that my tax dollars are not buying another palatial home for some televangelist fraud?
Here's one for you:
"A yearlong investigation of televangelist Pat Robertson's activities in Africa is now over, but state officials are sitting on the final report pending a review by attorneys, reports the Virginian-Pilot newspaper. The probe focused on possible inappropriate activities involving Robertson's Operation Blessing outreach, and a private corporation he operated known as the African Development Co. Based in Zaire, the firm was established by Robertson during the rule of the late dictator Mobutu Sese Seko. The two men established close ties, and Mobutu wined and dined Robertson during one visit to the country; ADC also received vast forestry and mineral concessions, but the diamond mining operation eventually went bankrupt. Mobutu, after a quarter-century of iron fisted rule, died last year in exile from cancer. He left Zaire bankrupt and impoverished, and since 1994 had even been considered persona non grata in the United States."
Operation Blessing, my foot! Blessings for whom?
Now I am happier :-)
Thank you Sheryl...
So, if it a ruling doesn't affect you personally, right here and now, you shouldn't care about it? If the court rules to overturn precedent and grant a corporation the rights to pollute, but say it's in a state on the other side of the country from you, you don't really give a damn? Hmmmmm......
I agree, it's not going to be an easy thing adding to the bench, but if they keep coming up with these types of rulings then there may not be any choice. They are there until they die and most of these lunatics are pretty young.
When someone feels that way, it is hard to have a discussion with them. When one's values and measure of the worth of life is so different from the other person's, it is almost impossible to come to any common ground. It is like trying to discuss the value of one's life with someone committed to being a suicide bomber because they find the end glory of martyrdom so much more valuable than life itself. I can't even begin to wrap my mind around that way of thinking, much less find any smidgen of justification in it. Sorry.
AAAAAAAaaaaaaaaa!
I did.
We're not.
You moonbats are a bunch of fucking morons that normal Americans laugh at and don't take seriously.
End of story.
Dana just lacks imagination and understanding of history. Sad. Many Germans in the mid-1930's thought all was for the good with the Third Reich and accepted the erosion of their republic. As we move toward firing up the ovens to deal with whomever, the rest of the world will notice how much we have lost.
Do you not understand how the supreme court functions Sheryl? New members aren't just "added." A current justice must die or retire for a new justice to be "appointed" by the president and then approved by congress. What exactly has the current court done that constitutes "reversing years of precedent to further some kind of corporate/religious agenda. " I'd really like to hear you elaborate on that statement that you've made Sheryl.
Hitler's rise to power ultimately led to the attempted extermination of an entire group of people based on their religion and culture as well as the deaths of 60 million people. Are you telling everyone that you believe George Bush will ultimately try to extinguish an entire group of people based solely on their religion and in the process of doing so be responsible for 60 million deaths?
IS that what you're saying David?
Because if it is then it would be safe to say that you're definitely giving clark kent a run for his money in the "biggest fucking moron ever to post on gather" contest.
Charles - interesting choice of words. That's what Rumsfeld called the military personnel responsible for Abu Ghraib after he authorized the kind of behavior they demonstrated. There are groups of military folks who are speaking out against the futility and horror of this war. People who were told to run their tanks over children if they were in the street. People who were forced to treat mutilated women and children after the US military bombed their villages. And I'm sure there are countless others who are suffering the horrors of what they did day after day, trying to forget. I think you are the one who is turning a blind eye to what's happening to these people. What they are doing is not natural - they are trained to fight against an opposing army, not women and children. Me thinks you watch too much Fox.
The other side of this can't even be debated. The facts exist:
Not only is the Taliban is still in Afghanistan, they regrouped and came back stronger
There's a poppy crop explosion in Afghanistan
Osama bin Laden is still wherever he wants to be
We have spent less on reconstructing Afghanistan than we spent on Bosnia, Haiti, or Kosovo (per capita)
We still don't have enough money or military in either of the countries we are at war with - both are stagnate, quagmired, piecemeal operations
Afghanistan was more the epicenter of terrorism than Iraq and we decided to spend our money and resources invading Iraq and have still 'won' nothing