The Presidency: Something our forefathers overlooked . . .

A

Aqeous

New member
Something has been on my mind, and I wanted to post it on my favorite forum. :) So I will attempt to make it firearms related. It is, and kind of isn't at the same time.

Bill Clinton = AWB. (There . . . now its firearms related ;) ) But seriously, our forefathers instituted a limit to how long a president can be in office for a reason. FAST FORWARD to modern day post womans liberation society, and we are now in a time where it is very possible that a woman can be voted into office.

The problem is the fact that for the first time in history, it is possible for the first lady to become the president and the former president can become the "first man". What we have is fundamental breach in one of the most fundamental checks that our country has been founded on. President Bill Clinton (AKA Mr. AWB) could in fact find himself once again in the white house with all of the power of the "first man". This is a modern day issue that the forefathers could never have anticipated when dictating the laws which this nation would be governed.

In the real world husbands and wives tend to make decisions as a whole, suffices to say that Bill and Hillary had made crucial decisions that effect our nation with at least one anothers counsel . . . possibly (even likely) at the others request or pressing.

What we have is a moment in history where a family can hold a monopoly as commander and chief of the united states of America for well over the term limit of the office of president. A thing the forefathers never wanted to happen again. The problem is that when one family, group , or individual stays in power for to long the checks and balances that make democracy great begin to dissolve into the individual views of how a small person or group thinks the nation should be run. Like say . . . the Brady bill, or no "assault weapons". And in the future, no .50 cal . . . maybe it's to dangerous for us to reload our ammo anymore being that it's "putting pipe bombs" in the hands of our youth or something else absurd like that.

Two generations of George Bush is one thing . . . but a president and first lady combination in the white house AGAIN (just flipped) I feel is a violation of one the the most fundamental laws of our great democracy.

Am I the only one who has considered this or have others as well?
 
I have thought about this for awhile. Many countrys around the world do not respect women. How do you think the U.S. will be treated with a woman President?:eek:
 
The 22nd amendment setting term limits for the US president was only ratified in 1951--not exactly by the "forefathers".
 
I guess that's my lack of historical awareness. :eek:


None whatsoever? I am surprised.

At any rate its still in the constitution . . .
 
How long is too long?

Here's another thing to consider. George H. W. Bush was sworn into office on January 20, 1989. After his two terms, we had slick Willie for two terms, now George Jr. for two terms, so if Clinton wins the election and is sworn in in 2009 and serves two terms, ending in 2017, that's 28 years that the country was served by only 2 families.:eek:

Isn't that a little bit too long?
 
"I would argue that the using the 22nd ammendment to discredit the 19th ammendment is a little backwards."


Please explain.
 
Well, the poster's clear lack of knowledge of history should cause him to pick up a book or two on the subject. I might suggest as a start the U.S. Constitution and The Federalist Papers and go from there.
 
Tonight, I rather pick up a reloading manual.


And my observation, though lacking in historical accuracy is by no means so far out there that it is ridiculous . . .
 
term limits

Just got done watching the 'John Adams' show on HBO. Not sure of the historical accuracy, but it seems that even in that day the papers and congress make it hell for the president. Watching the actor that played Washington after two terms looking forward to going home was different from the story 'history' books we read in school. John Adams sitting in the bare White House as the slaves were clearing D.C. of the woods was saddening. All alone in that large building, no furniture and reading from the light of the fireplace.
 
George H. W. Bush was sworn into office on January 20, 1989. After his two terms, we had slick Willie for two terms, now George Jr. for two terms, so if Clinton wins the election and is sworn in in 2009 and serves two terms, ending in 2017, that's 28 years that the country was served by only 2 families.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Bush 41 served one term, thanks to "read my lips - no new taxes" and his import ban on firearms. NRA ousted him in favor of BubbaTrash after 4 years.

That being said, Bush 41 was VP for 8 years under Reagan, then Pres for 4. That's 12 years, plus bubbatrash's 8 years and Dubya's 8 years, makes 28 years. Two terms of Hillary makes 36 years of the same two families in power.
 
So . . .behold, even though I may have been labeled a historical "half-wit".

According to the math: "Two terms of Hillary makes 36 years of the same two families in power." 4 DECADES is even worse then I thought when I see the numbers in front of me.

Honestly thats a little bit disturbing . . . :eek:
 
Women in power is nothing new in human history. Review your history books and see how those women handled their male companions/partners.
 
Last edited:
I have thought about this for awhile. Many countrys around the world do not respect women. How do you think the U.S. will be treated with a woman President?
Click to expand...
There are many in this country that don't respect women.

But why should we care if other nations don't like the US president being a female? Our current male president certainly hasn't garnered much respect around the world so why is it suddenly an issue to worry about? Will having a female president make things any worse on the world stage? Should we give a damn what the back-asswards countries without gender equality think of us in the first place? Shouldn't we place a higher priority on what the more enlightened societies that have had female heads of state for decades think about us?
 
Women as rulers is nothing new in human history. Review your history books and see how those women handled their male companions/partners.
Click to expand...
On that topic, I have one name for you... Eleanor Roosevelt. She arguably commanded more authority and respect than just about any other member of FDR's administration, and every D.C. insider at the time knew it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top