-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Back in the fifties and sixties, some southern governors figured a way around the non succession laws (they could not hold consecutive terms in office). They ran their spouse in their place. Everyone knew that by voting for the spouse, they were actually voting for the governor. Hillary Clinton is running for president this fall and a large block of the voters that will vote for her will do so because they believe that they are voting for Bill. The ideal ballot for this group will be a Hillary/Michelle ballot. They can vote for both their idols.
My friends, we need to wake up. Where's our candidate?
My friends, we need to wake up. Where's our candidate?
K
He gets away with it because we are quickly moving into those last days where people only care about self, power, greed, and have lost the love for God. I know they are saying Christianity is growing at a higher rate then it ever has before, but has anybody sat back and wondered if the reason for this is the gathering of the great multitude that is spoken of in Revelations. The angels have been sent to the four corners to start gathering the believers. Just a thought!!!
Plus the thing that really gets me is how everybody is so focused on Obama and his wrong doings, but the same ones that do this and there are even some on this site that in turn praise Putin. The forget that the bible speaks of Russia being driven by the evil one along with Iran. Gog and Magog war ( This is were Russia and Iran come up against Israel ). Both of which has stated recently that they want to wipe Israel out.
Plus the thing that really gets me is how everybody is so focused on Obama and his wrong doings, but the same ones that do this and there are even some on this site that in turn praise Putin. The forget that the bible speaks of Russia being driven by the evil one along with Iran. Gog and Magog war ( This is were Russia and Iran come up against Israel ). Both of which has stated recently that they want to wipe Israel out.
K
The 22nd amendment does limit the president to 2 terms, however it was ratified in 1951 meaning that changes and/or additions can be made to the amendment. One of those additions was that the presidential term can not end during the involvement of a major war. In other words if we are in a major war when Obama's term ends then he will continue in his second term for longer than previously meant to serve for. It will not be a third term, it would be a continuation of the second term. As soon as that war is over then a new presidential election can take place.
B
Those fundraiser events can be comical and full of trash-talking. I assure you if it was serious about Obama seeking a 3rd term, FOX would have been all over it to this day. I watch FOX regularly and really never heard it mention about Obama's so-called 3rd term. FOX would have "slobbered" over this. LOL !!
A constitutional amendment can only be changed via another constitutional amendment since once it is ratified it is a permanent part of the Constitution. This is basic high school US Government class information. Since the 22nd amendment states no exception to the two term limit and no subsequent amendments adds an exception, THERE IS NO EXCEPTION.
U.S. Constitution › 22nd Amendment
[h=1]22nd Amendment[/h] [h=2]Amendment XXII[/h][h=2]Section 1.[/h]No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
[h=2]Section 2.[/h]This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.
U.S. Constitution › 22nd Amendment
[h=1]22nd Amendment[/h] [h=2]Amendment XXII[/h][h=2]Section 1.[/h]No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
[h=2]Section 2.[/h]This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.
K
I guess you as well have not seen the executive order that states that in the case of a major war if a president is at the end of his term he will continue in that term until the war is over, or is in no danger to the presidential election.
As was the case with the Gulf war. By the end of Bush term the war was no longer a major threat, and there was no threat to a presidential election because there was no threats to attacks on U.S. soil. However if we are at war with Russia and/or China at the end of Obama's term that would be a major war, and attacks on U.S. soil is very well capable.
Notice once again it says continues in same term, not elected for another term.
As was the case with the Gulf war. By the end of Bush term the war was no longer a major threat, and there was no threat to a presidential election because there was no threats to attacks on U.S. soil. However if we are at war with Russia and/or China at the end of Obama's term that would be a major war, and attacks on U.S. soil is very well capable.
Notice once again it says continues in same term, not elected for another term.
A
That is correct. A constitutional amendment is greater than a presidential executive order just like a royal flush is greater than a flush... lol.
Bill Clinton used to refer to his executive orders like this, "stroke of the pen, law of the land" but then he smoked dope and screwed interns. Wait, Barry was a sexually immoral pothead with a taste for nose candy too. Well, at least Bill stuck only with the female interns.
Anyways, the Supreme Court can nullify presidential executive orders.
And, Congress can pass a law invalidating an Executive Order or making the opposite of the Executive Order the law. The President still has to sign the law, or if he vetoes it, the legislature then has to override the veto by a 2/3 vote.
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20846.pdf
Bill Clinton used to refer to his executive orders like this, "stroke of the pen, law of the land" but then he smoked dope and screwed interns. Wait, Barry was a sexually immoral pothead with a taste for nose candy too. Well, at least Bill stuck only with the female interns.
Anyways, the Supreme Court can nullify presidential executive orders.
And, Congress can pass a law invalidating an Executive Order or making the opposite of the Executive Order the law. The President still has to sign the law, or if he vetoes it, the legislature then has to override the veto by a 2/3 vote.
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20846.pdf
The problem is obama doesn't respect the rule of law or the Constitution, and the congress is too feckless and cowardly and afraid to be labeled a racist, to impeach and imprison him. Since he has already broken his oath of office numerous times with no ramifications, why would it be such a stretch to see him attempting to break the 22nd amendment?
As I already explained, to demand that a self-funded religious institution employ people who are starkly opposed to that religion's principles is wrong. However, if that institution garners government funding after signing a contractual agreement then the organization must abide by common law and governmental employment practice.
Forcing self funding christians into going against their beliefs is one thing, but to think you're above the human rights of others' is entirely another.
I understand your argument perfectly, AgeOfKnowledge, and you should be aware that I don't struggle to understand any one of your arguments perfectly - the issue is not that I'm too unintelligent to comprehend, it's that I'm far too smart to give your conceited viewpoint the recognition you think it deserves - because it deserves to be laughed at.
There is absolutely no difference between you demanding to be given juridical preference over an 'immoral person' because you mistakenly believe that your moral compass is given by the sole, supreme God of the universe than there is in any religious person of any faith demanding the same - but your arrogant, pompous view of yourself means you can't see it, so for some similar pontifical reason you think you shouldn't have to be under the same common rule as us commoners.
So I guess we'll just let religious people live by whatever special laws they like, AgeOfKnowledge. Hold on while I call Al Qaeda and let them know.
I can already see your response:
'You're false analogy is false because you still fail to acknowledge that your relativistic secularism fails to comprehend the almighty God-given metaphysical reality wherein the Christian people reside - and the fact that our God-given right to moral freedom seems to be importunately misconceived by your neocortex obviously shows that it does not incorporate the higher cognitive ability required to fathom my premises' ...
Forcing self funding christians into going against their beliefs is one thing, but to think you're above the human rights of others' is entirely another.
I understand your argument perfectly, AgeOfKnowledge, and you should be aware that I don't struggle to understand any one of your arguments perfectly - the issue is not that I'm too unintelligent to comprehend, it's that I'm far too smart to give your conceited viewpoint the recognition you think it deserves - because it deserves to be laughed at.
There is absolutely no difference between you demanding to be given juridical preference over an 'immoral person' because you mistakenly believe that your moral compass is given by the sole, supreme God of the universe than there is in any religious person of any faith demanding the same - but your arrogant, pompous view of yourself means you can't see it, so for some similar pontifical reason you think you shouldn't have to be under the same common rule as us commoners.
So I guess we'll just let religious people live by whatever special laws they like, AgeOfKnowledge. Hold on while I call Al Qaeda and let them know.
I can already see your response:
'You're false analogy is false because you still fail to acknowledge that your relativistic secularism fails to comprehend the almighty God-given metaphysical reality wherein the Christian people reside - and the fact that our God-given right to moral freedom seems to be importunately misconceived by your neocortex obviously shows that it does not incorporate the higher cognitive ability required to fathom my premises' ...
Last edited:
The irreconcilable differences between us are effectively matters of how much comparative importance we place on ourselves. I don't consider myself morally justified to infringe another persons' common human rights, whereas you consider your rights superior to non-Christians'.
I know lots of religious people who think likewise. That's why government laws are common, not autocratic premises that give special exemption to religious types.
I know lots of religious people who think likewise. That's why government laws are common, not autocratic premises that give special exemption to religious types.
Last edited:
B
Sadly, most of the American people see Obama & his administration as the lesser of two evils. Those people who are desperate to remove Obama, will need to do it at the ballot box in the 2014 midterm elections and take the Senate instead of playing into Obama's hands by attacking issues that will not influence voters. Ex-VP Dick Cheney's trash-talking doesn't help Republicans either since it reminds all voters of the hypocrisy that existed in the Bush administration. Except for ex-VP Cheney, the Bush administration is keeping a very low profile to avoid tarnishing the future aspirations of the Republican party. Having both House & Senate will give the Republican Party incredible leverage and can become very persuasive in limiting Obama's use of the executive power. Both House & Senate will also give Republicans a greater boost to elect a candidate to challenge the Democrat frontrunner is the 2016 presidential election. Bickering among Republicans is what allowing Obama to roam freely.
Last edited by a moderator: