This is really a diary to start a discussion on a subject that I think hasn't been debated much in the blogosphere. Do we need to amend the constitution to prevent another unitary executive president? Before people react negatively to the politically difficult idea of amending the constitution consider this. A number of amendments were added to the US constitution after presidents pushed "current" (then) accepted constitutional boundaries, or constitutionaly elected official created chaos.
For example the machinations of Vice Presidents who before 1804 could be a different party then the president (or "better" said even their bitter rival) lead to the amending of the US Constitution. In the United States Presidential election of 1800 sometimes referred to as the "Revolution of 1800", Vice President Thomas Jefferson defeated President John Adams. This lead to The Twelfth Amendment (Amendment XII) to the United States Constitution replaced Article II, Section 1, Clause 3, which pertained to Presidential elections.
Franklin Roosevelt by choosing to run for election for more then 2 consecutive terms (prior to Franklin Roosevelt, few Presidents attempted to serve for more than two terms. Ulysses S. Grant sought a third term in 1880 after serving from 1869 to 1877, but narrowly lost his party's nomination. Theodore Roosevelt, who served from 1901 to 1909, sought to be elected in 1912 non-consecutively for a second time) directly lead to popular support for the Twenty-second Amendment.
My question to you fellow Kossacks are:
- Does the conduct of President Bush expose any constitutional flaws that only an amendment can repair?
- What should the text of the amendment read?
- What popular support do you believe exist in America for this type of remedy?
I hope this generates some great discussion!?!?!
BTW My pick is that I think a clearer deliniation of war powers is needed.