Misinformed headline of the day: GOP-controlled House not going to give President Obama a third term

President Obama could get 3 terms if H.J.Res 15 abolishes term limits

OK so maybe President Obama would like to be dictator, and certainly there are those of his policies that are anathema to large segments of the American population (though, surprisingly, our liberal friends tend to give him a complete pass on civil liberties and drone killings), but ...

Let's not let paranoia creep in here. At least not that far.

H.J. Resolution 15 (which has been introduced by the same Rep. on multiple occasions and ignored each time) cannot authorize three terms for a sitting President, because, ah--that would actually take a constitutional amendment, including passage by the GOP-controlled House, the almost evenly divided Senate, and ratification by three-quarters of the State legislatures, many of whom are, you know, not controlled by Democrats. (Not that I'm saying Democrats would go for this: I think Hillary, Joe Biden, and John Kerry would all think three Obama terms was a bad idea.)

So it does behoove people in Libertarian circles to be a bit more circumspect and vet what they read with some common sense before passing it around.

Meanwhile, if you really want to read a fictionalized account about the time when such a coup was most possible, try finding a copy of Michael Kurland's The Last President. You can get a copy on Amazon for between $0.01 and $561 [I'm not kidding] if so inclined.

Comments

tom said…

As I've pointed out elsewhere, headlines like this are just FUD.

Anyone who bothers to click through to the GovTrack link (the 2nd one in the article you cite) or otherwise look up this bill would see something like "Prognosis:
0% chance of getting past committee.
0% chance of being enacted or passed."

which of course anyone even remotely familiar with the legislative process and Constitutional Amendment already knew.

April 4, 2013 at 6:36 PM

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here: chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.” The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point: Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo: Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1. Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

Search This Blog