Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

Eh dont know if i could give you the 22nd amendment, if you look pass it being more then an amendment its more of a tradition. Up till FDR that was never a amendment. George Washington was elected for 2 terms, then when he was up for relection the people came and asked him if wanted to be King and thats when he said he will not run anymore or be king and went and retired. This was tradition all the way up to FDR convincing the people to elect him four times because of the great depression and war. Then after FDR is when we made the 22nd amendment.

Sorry i just had a US government test on Friday and that was one of our essay questions

In my personal opiinion i am in favor of the 22nd amendment, even if its a good president no one should be able to serve more then two full terms. And as for schwarzeneggar i think we should keep it that you have to be a US born

Sorry i was just working on government hw also so that is my $0.02

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

Just out of curiousity, why?

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

Its more that i dont have anything against him. ITs the fact that it would take a ratification of the Constitution which is very hard and takes up resources. To ratify the constitution it takes a 2/3 vote of the Congress and if it gets out of there then it has to go to the states for a 3/4 votes and i just dont see it happening

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

I don't necessarily agree that just because it is difficult to add a new amendment, then we should keep it the way that it is. I'm sitting here next to my box of 500 constitutions (don't ask) and looking at some great amendments we have that went through that exhausting process...I may be slightly biased to the 19th being my favorite. Whether something should change should be a matter of how pertinent and important it is to a country, and the pros and cons of the issue; not how logistically difficult it is. If it is important enough, change will happen, as it has 27 times (well more like 18 times since the bill of rights was one bulk package and then there were 17 more amendments).

Moreover, who ever said politicians today aren't ready for a good fight on amendments? It may be just used as a wedge issue but enough Republicans have been fighting to make the Federal Marriage Amendment a front and center topic. The difficulty of making this an actual amendment, coupled with overwhelming opposition (myself being one), didn't stop them.

This isn't a post advocating or protesting the citizenship requirement for the Presidency. That's another time, another thread. I guess to tie this back into the original topic of the thread, my message is don't stop fighting for something just because you don't think you can make a difference or it's difficult, especially in this election. Whether you live in a blue state, a red state, a swing state...whether you're a Kerry, Bush, or even Nader supporter...whether you can or cannot vote...it's always important to learn about the issues, get active, and make your voice be heard.

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

i Def agree with you on everyone makes a difference. I def learned that in 2000 in Florida. This election i am out campaigning for the candidate that i want to win. I encourage everyone to learn the issues and make there decscion. The worste thing i think someone could do is not know the issues and vote for someone becasue thats who there parents voted for.

As my government professor said this could be the biggest election in history.
Let me explain his logic why and after hearing it i also agree with him.

As everyone knows there is 9 supreme court justices and when you are approved for the supreme court the term is for life. Well within the next four years one has already said she will retire (dont remember her name) and there are few that are well into age that might not make it to the next election. So if you put two and two together there is basically a possiblity of 4-5 vacant spots in the supreme court. Now since the president appoints these people whoever is in office is going to pick from there party. So if the assumption is correct at the end of four years in the supreme court we could have total switch of power. Please correct me if i am wrong but i am pretty sure the supreme court is democratic as of now. So now if this does happen the way things have been decided will totally change if a republican is president So please everyone if you can vote learn the issues and vote.

*NOTE: i will not say who i am in favor for becasue that debate should not be for Chiefdelphi. I did vote on the poll tho.

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

I hate to take this thread even further off topic, but I have to say that a "total change of power" from Democratic to Republican in the Supreme Court wouldn't be a huge thing, and definitely wouldn't make this election the most important in history. I'm not just saying that because I'm Republican (and yes, my parents are Republican, but I tend to agree with more conservative views anyway), but because our county has gone on since its beginning with different people in power, and these people haven't always had the same views on things.

My point is that although it might initially seem like a disaster to you if the Supreme Court were no long Democratic, our country has been run by people on every side of the fence and hasn't been destroyed.

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

Um it could be a poteintally big thing and no i am not goint to say its going to destroy our country at all i am a republican. I am saying if the supreme court go's republican alot of laws and court cases will be challenged. The supreme court has been democratic for over a decade. I guarentee you if it goes republican that youw ill see court cases like rode (sp?) vs wade go challenged and most possibly overturned

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

Ok, this really should go back on topic but I just need to clear up some things beforehand because there's some misinformation floating around here.

1. Supreme Court Justices are neither Democratic or Republican. Those are political parties and judges are supposed to be non-partisan. Of course, they do lean certain way in ideologies. Which brings me to...

2. Besides the fact that President's don't pick someone from their party because of the aforementioned fact, they don't necessarily pick someone with their own ideology. There are 7 Republican-President appointed Justices: Rehnquist (Nixon), Stevens (Ford), O'Conner, Scalia, Kennedy (Reagan), and Souter and Thomas (Bush Sr.). There are 2 Democrat-President appointed Justices: Ginsberg and Breyer. However there's hardly ever been a vote that's been 7-2 favoring conservatives. Why in the world does this happen? Well, a lot has to do with the fact that the Senate has to confirm the nominees so justices aren't straight party line with the President who nominated them. So having a shift in Presidency won't dramatically affect the Supreme Court depending on who's in control of the Senate.

3. Where one would get the notion that we have a Democratic (or even liberal) Supreme Court is a little puzzling to me. This Supreme Court article along with many other articles about court rulings all generally say that Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas are typically conservative leaning, Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer are typically liberally leaning and O'Connor's a swing voter that based on history, usually leans right.

Sorry for the government lesson. I DO believe this election is important, but less so for the Supreme Court element.

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

Actually it probably be possible to get the 2/3's of the states. It would probably die in Congress though.

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

Everyone (since I've seen this mistake repeatedly, and I'm nitpicky):
Please check the constitution or your history books. It's requires ratification by 3/4's of the states to pass a constitutional amendment, not 2/3's. The 2/3's that you're thinking of is generally the first step of passing a constitutional amendment; the percentage of each house of the federal legislature needed to pass the proposed amendment. Although, there's another 2/3's that you could be thinking of which is the other possible first step in passing a constitutional amendment; the 2/3's of state legislatures calling a Constitutional Convention and passing a proposed constitutional amendment. In any case, the ratification by 3/4's of the states is necessary to pass a constitutional amendment.

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

I saw Nadar will win. I feel bad for him...id vote for him if i can vote. I think that Bush isnt doing a very good job with this "conflict" (i dont call it a war for various reasons). If Kerry wins, he wont do much of a better job than Bush is doin right now. But yet, if Nadar wins, everyone will hate him and he wouldnt know what to do. But for right now Nadar would have my vote.
-Court-

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

So wait a second..... What you are saying is that none of the candidates know what they are doing? :p

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

mmmm ya I guess you can say that. lol
:D
-Court-

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

From a FIRSTer's standpoint, Kerry is the candidate I would choose, because he said in his speech to increase funding for science and technology. That could mean more money for FIRST :D ! Unfortunately, since Bush is significantly ahead now, he might win this election, but then there are three debates between now and November 2 :yikes: . That should even out the playing field.


I agree with CourtneyB in that nobody can win in Iraq. The best solution is to retreat.

Bush offended the world not once, but TWICE. Remember when he took office, he refused to sign Kyoto Protocols and such. The world then wished to help us after the tragic events in September, but Bush offended the world AGAIN by going to war with Iraq, which was not only unpopular in the world, but also RIGHT HERE (there were major protests in almost every city). Even worse, the unpopular war is anything but a success.

In addition, Bush offended me. His typical elitist right wing conservatism made me feel (I was born in Lafayette) like I didn't deserve to be an American. There's only one problem, and that was that I was born here, while my parents were legal residents of this country. I was also offended by his Louis XVI-style starving of the poor (reducing education and healthcare benefits and throwing many in jail). "I didn't leave Bush. Bush left me!"

There is also the issue of environment, which you can cover up, but will never go away. Rather, it is catching up right now. The weather is evidence that something has gone wrong. It is not normal under any circumstances. Bush is covering it up, letting the problem get worse (like cutting down forests to save forest fires). How about signing the Kyoto, getting Zero-Emissions Vehicles, and slowly nulling CO2 emissions (like what Kerry would do, but not immediatley). Kerry is an advocate for the environment, and environment is the only issue where Kerry leads Bush by miles.

Kerry isn't miles better than Bush, one could argue. He DID vote for the Iraq war. He doesn't have a solid point of view. But it is important to support The Lesser of Two Evils . ABB (anyone but Bush).

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

This isn’t aimed solely at you, but more broadly at young voters (especially here in FIRST).

If you’re going to nonchalantly cast your vote for whoever is listed first on your ballot, or if you vote for a candidate only because you feel sorry for them, or if you throw your vote away by not voting at all then you have no one to blame for the inadequacies and shortcomings of this country but yourself. You have not, in good faith, supported the candidate with whom you share beliefs that are important to you as a human being. You must also recognize the repercussions of the vote you cast. In a perfect world a third, fourth or fifth party candidate for president would be viable, but this is not a perfect country (we can discuss the history of political parties, etc. if you want).

Many of us are registered voters in very important places for this upcoming election, and need to understand that voting for Ralph Nader instead of John Kerry (if you have moderate to liberal social beliefs, and/or conservative to liberal fiscal beliefs) is counterproductive to your social and fiscal interests. Due to his inevitable defeat, voting for Nader while harboring either misgivings towards Bush or ambivalent to supportive feelings towards Kerry makes it more likely that George Bush will be re-elected.

It is necessary, as a voter, for you to keep yourself informed as to the candidates’ positions so that you can better decide for yourself which candidate deserves your support and in the end your vote. If you believe that George Bush is failing our country in Iraq/Afghanistan, and you believe that John Kerry might or definitely will do a better job than the status quo isn’t that a good reason to vote for Kerry (assuming, of course, that you agree with his positions on other issues, or that you don’t agree more with Bush)? You also must be weary of many political advertisements. Political advertisements are the candidates’ “cliffs’ notes” of their positions and plans, and there is mass deception on both sides in these advertisements. There are many scare tactics used claiming that one side will ban bibles, require everyone to go to church, ban guns, require everyone to own guns, ban abortions, or require every woman to have an abortion, etc. To really enlighten yourself you should read each candidate’s platform, each party’s platform, and independent groups’ assessments of their plans and be able to read between the lines (recognizing possible bias one way or another from certain sources) and then decide for yourself which you agree with more.

http://www.factcheck.org/

You must take a proactive role in politics or at the very least be a politically knowledgeable American if you want to change things in America for what you believe is the better.