http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060731...060814gillers_1

Steven Gillers from the Nation, by way of Yahoo says Bush seeks to postpone election until the Iraqis "stand up" and he may have the legal right to do so. Can anyone else find ANYTHING else about this?

Article posted before it disappears...
though it was dated june 21.

What Did 'Four Years' Mean in 1789?

WASHINGTON, June 21, 2008. President Bush, citing his authority as Commander in Chief of the armed forces and his inherent constitutional power over foreign affairs, today ordered a postponement of the 2008 presidential election in order "to protect the American people in our war on terror."

In a speech during a surprise visit to Baghdad, where he celebrated the summer solstice with the troops, Mr. Bush told the nation that the election will be "rescheduled as soon as a change in leadership does not create a security threat and not a second later. When the Iraqis stand up, we'll vote."

"Elections are important," the President acknowledged. "I know that. I believe in elections. I'm President because of an election, sort of. But protecting the nation from another 9/11 is more important than holding an election precisely on time."

The President noted that as Commander in Chief he had already approved telephone wiretapping without court warrant, incarcerated alleged "enemy combatants" indefinitely without trial and, in a February 2002 order, now rescinded, had authorized the armed forces to ignore the Geneva Conventions when "consistent with military necessity," so long as everyone was treated "humanely."

"If I can do all that, I can defer an election," the President said. "Look, as between not voting on time and getting locked up without all those Geneva rules and such, which is worse?"

In a Washington press conference following the President's speech, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales laid out the legal basis for his department's conclusion that the President could postpone the election.

"Legally, it's simple," Mr. Gonzales said. "It depends on what the meaning of 'four years' is. The Constitution says the President 'shall hold his office during the term of four years.' It does not say 'only four years' or 'four years and not a day more.' The Framers intended 'four years' to be a preference, not a rigid number. We should not take it literally any more than the words 'hold his office' means no woman can be President. A woman is running now.

"Time meant something different in 1789," Mr. Gonzales added. "This was before airline schedules and self-winding watches. People didn't run their lives by the clock. Many Americans didn't have clocks."

In a speech on the Senate floor, Joseph Lieberman (IND-Conn.) supported the President's decision. "While I do not believe we should lightly suspend the exercise of the franchise," he said, "protection of the nation cannot be and must not be a partisan issue. As Americans, we can all agree that security is the most important job of a President. We can have a country without an election, but we cannot have an election without a country. It's as simple as that."

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), the likely Democratic nominee, had no immediate comment, but her office said she will hold a news conference following the results of early polling. A spokesperson for her campaign, granted anonymity because she was not authorized to speak to the press about anything, said the senator "is absolutely opposed to postponing the election as such, but she is amenable to rescheduling the day designated for the actual vote. There is a difference."

Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he was "troubled" that he had not been consulted on the President's decision. He vowed to "hold hearings following the day that should have been election day if I am chairman of the committee at that time. Unfortunately, we're backlogged on judicial nominations at the moment, and then there's the summer recess. People have plans and nonrefundable tickets."

At his press conference, Mr. Gonzales denied that the Supreme Court's 2006 rejection of military tribunals meant that the President could not delay an election. That decision, known as Hamdan, rested on federal statutes and the Geneva Accords. "Hamdan was about trials, not voting," he explained. "Geneva doesn't apply to voting. It's a mistake to confuse the two."

Asked if he expected a court challenge to the President's decision, Mr. Gonzales said he was "resigned to the prospect that some may cynically try to use this for their own political advantage." But he added that he was "confident that if the case reaches the Supreme Court, five Justices will agree with our interpretation of 'four years.'"

This will NEVER fly. The American people won't let this happen

What?! You gotta be kidding me! Please let the American people revolt and kick him outta office.

LOL

That's a suspicious news story. I just searched Google News, and that's the only article on it that I could find. It's funny nonetheless though. I've just got to print it out and show it to a few liberals I know. Can't wait to see their faces...

hehe my point exactly.

read the date. 2008. it is an opinion piece. not real (yet.)

I just started to read the first few lines, and it's complete bullshit...

C'mon guys, he is quoted all the time, and he say things like "I'm president because of elections,.... well sort of" (and how about the attorney general saying: "many Americans didn't have clocks back then" )

Besides, let's even assume in a very very fairytale way that he has this idea. Do you guys really think he can sell that to the Republican party? Not a chance in hell.

(btw, what you can start to see from now on is the big famous "legacy" feeling you often see in second term US presidencies: They don't have to go for any re-election anymore, and they know their political career is coming to an end: so they are willing to take risks to tackle big issues.

You saw it when Reagan went to talk to the Soviets in his second term, and you saw it when Clinton organized peace talks between Israel and Palestinian, the famous (failed) Camp David agreements...

Let's see whether Bush jr. wants to keep this tradition, and if he is ready to stick his neck out!

Even the Republicans want him out. No one would ever fly for this

satyr.... SCARY satyr

oh, and on a lighter note...back in the old days of the US if we didn't like someone we tarred and feathered his dumbass AND/OR had a public hanging! I say hang Bush anyway!

it simply will not happen

afaik only one president has ever served more than two terms in office. and that was during WWII. this whole war on terrorism deal imo, isn't quite as dire as either world wars.

FDR Served 3 almost 4 before he died. FDR also aproved an admendment allowing only 2 CONSECUTIVE terms in office. So technically (the last elected President) Bill Clinton *could* run again if he wanted to. And that's what we need in fixing the screw ups Bush created.

And yes, Bush *could* extend his "Presidency" but that would cause a massive revolt.

I say impeach him and throw him in jail. IMO.

Clinton could run again?

By the wording of the Current laws, yes he can. He had 2 consecutive terms, another president was in office, and in 2008 could indeed run again...and then have 2 consecutive terms...

But Clinton isn't going to run again. In 2008 I see his wife running, and indeed winning.

The date clearly shows it is a fake story. However the point of such article is to show what could happen. Indeed I can quite clearly picture Bush trying something like that. Not that I believe anybody would go for it. But trying it? Yes, I believe he is the kind of person who would at least think about it.

leave it up to raum to leave fake stories around...he should recheck he sources.

That might be true, but the point is that it's not his decision, it's the Republicans that have to decide this... If you look at the trouble the white house already has with the Republican party, I can't see that happening.

And don't forget, there are heavyweights in the republican party that really aren't amused with the neocon influence on Bush. They will not mind a new republican candidate that is more "old school" GOP.

And finally: do you guys think the American public will agree that there is such an emergency state going on that justifies the huge exception a third term is? I even think the heaviest Republican voters will scratch their heads.

The republicans are already planning for the next election as well as the democrats are, and are beginning to distance themselves from Bush little by little in order to direct any negative feedback that has been thrown at Bush away from themselves as much as possible.

As for a "state of emergency" to where Bush can run for a third term? I highly doubt that would ever take place. We would have to be in World War III in order for that to actually take place, and even if that were the case, I highly doubt the American public would allow it, just look at Bush's approval rating now, the majority of his supporters no longer support him.

what the hell, who told you that bullshit.

the rule is Two Terms of 4 years each. it doens't matter if it is consecutive or not. once you hit 8 years, you're done, you can't run for president anymore nor can you run for or be appointed vice president because of the possibility that the vp can succeed to the presidency given that the president dies or is incapable of ruling.

it's in the constitution.

what FDR tried to do was extend the term to allow it to be 4 terms which means 16 years if i remember, actually now that i think about it, i think he wanted to make it so that he can stay president for as long as he can, but congress said that would destroy the government and possibly turn it into a dictatorship. progression would be slow and the country would be split.

wow...almost 2 months later

Which brings us to the question: Who is right???

This was the 22nd amendment that was ratified in 1951.

As for FDR, he died in office while starting his fourth term. In 933-1937, 1937-1941,1941-1945 and 1945 for the year which he died.

In 1947, the 22nd amendment was proposed. By the amendment, the MOST someone can serve is 10 years, if they succeed as the vice president. Bush, fortunately, does not have that. The ONLY way he can become president again is if he is the vice president for a candidate who steps down or dies in office.

If you don't know what opinion is, and how it is relevant to news, you have no place having a Guy Fawkes picture on your avatar, you damn wannabe non-conformist. Sad thing is you probably don't even know what V is inspired by.

I posted it in the political sanctuary, by the way, not the Antiseptic Hall of Nonfiction. This is a political reality, if there were a catastrophic event, on American soil, we would suspend our electoral college. Inceidentally, After this piece was released, Al Qaeda said for all muslims to leave the US, and spoke of a Hiroshima type event. If that happens, we will suspend elections.

As far as The President's approval, lessee... Last time I checked his rating (from CNN, as of 9/22) it was 42% approval, which is pretty good for a wartime president after Vietnam. Regardless, his numbers are up across the board. Congress also just recently unanimously passed and cleared an additional 70 billion dollar budget for the war in Iraq.

But I really don't think you know all the factors that go into presidential approvals, and that since Carter that is really is just a basis for judging how people feel about gas prices.

anon!
raum.

wrong... once a president has served his FULL term (8 years/2 terms) he can no longer be Vice President.

he can serve one term/4 years, lose the next election, and somehow be appointed VP, and if he succeeds, his max to serve as president is one term/4 years, since he'd already served one term. After the VP, it's the Speaker of the House that succeeds to the presidency.

Actually, the courts have never ruled on the vice-presidential ability for a former president.

Its a loop hole in the 12th/22nd amendments. The 12th amendment refers to citizenship, age, and residency, but it makes no mention of former presidency.

There is no official verdict on this, but popular opinion leans to say that a former president cannot be vice president. But its not law nor a ruling by a court

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL32471.pdf

These were the findings of a legislative deliberation that was held in reference to the aforesaid contingencies.