No more legacy Presidents.

[sarcasmo]

This means no Hillary, no Jeb, no Carters, no Kennedy's etc.. This legacy stuff has to end with this IDIOT. We are not a country that should be run like a rich frat house. If the Democrats end up controlling all three branches I think this should be a new amendment. No more legacy Presidents.

[Sammy Pepys]

1. An amendment against legacy Presidents?

I don't think you'll ever get that passed :D

[Jawja]

19. Absolutely.

We need an amendment to the Constitution that requires siblings, heirs, spouses, nieces, nephews, etc. to wait 20 years before being eligible for the Presidency. That way, we insure ourselves against and "elected" monarchy.

[toymachines]

2. Grassroots Prez

thats what we need

[YOY]

3. as much as I love the idea (and I really love the idea)

I have no idea how you could pass such a law.

also you forgot NO TAFTS! (Ohio would thank you!)

[sarcasmo]

6. With the Democrats controlling all three branches in 08.

I feel that it could pass. I am so sick and tired of this frat boy mentality we have in the White House.

[YOY]

10. So what if some guy who happens to be a descendant of James Polk

Wants to run? He may not be from the frat boy mentality but would technically be a legacy (not that Polk was a champion by any stretch of the imagniation.) The family may no longer be in the big money circle either.

Look, I hate the idea of legacies, but justification on those grounds is difficult.

[sarcasmo]

12. If you don't stop Legacy's do we get Jeb and then some drunk offspring

Of Jeb, W, or worse yet the drunk twins offspring.

[YOY]

15. They're supposed to stop themselves in reality.

Take a look at the Kennedys. The twins with their drunken exploits will do the same as long as the media covers it (and they do at times...).

and Jeb with his Crackhead daughter and miscreant son will never become president...the pubs don't like mixed marraiges as well (and he's a Catholic...the fundies hate that.)

[sarcasmo]

22. Wasn't the current President a DRUNK at one time in his life?

[YOY]

26. Not while his family was under a microscope n/t

[BOSSHOG]

4. What if Chelsea Clinton turns out to be

a brilliant mind and administrator and powerful leader (already is?)? I agree with you, no more barbara bush spawn in the white house but let us not shut the door on potential greatness.

[JVS]

7. What if power never leaves the hands of a small group of families

Oh wait! That's already happened.

[sarcasmo]

9. Thanks for making my point JVS. It's to much like a family Dictatorship.

[BOSSHOG]

13. No one is prevented from seeking public office

in this country (for president, over 35 and born in the United States) but I don't see the upside in writing into law a prevention caveat. You can't run for office because of who your Daddy or Mommy is (was??) You can't join the military because your father served? You can't be a successful entrepeneur because your uncle was? Don't sound like America to me.

[JVS]

17. But you can't be President because you didn't go to Yale is a defacto...

barrier today.

[BOSSHOG]

18. I don't understand

There is no such barrier today. Voters decide who is elected (barring diebold machinations.) We should not concentrate our efforts on barring legacies, rather educating the electorate should have a higher priority. bush is president today because there are an inordinate amount of ignorant Americans who vote, not because he is a bush.

[onenote]

27. and you base this Yale requirement on the fact that

Dubya and his daddy both attended Yale as undergrads and Bill Clinton attended Yale Law? That's it? Hell, only one other president ever attended Yale and that was more than a hundred years ago. Something like seven presidents have attended Harvard, including Dubya (Harvard Bus School). And even if its true that a lot of Yalies run for President, are we supposed to bar not only "dynasties" but also restrict a person's eligibility for office based on where they went to school? Y'know, there hasn't been a Jewish president. Let's amend the constitution to require that every so often we have to elect a Jewish president, or a Muslim, or an atheist.

Or wait...why not just amend the constitution to say that the Presidency has to alternate parties... every time there is a repub president, the next president has to be a Democrat and so on...

:sarcasm:

onenote

[JVS]

29. 2004 had no non-Yale candidate leading at any time

whether it had been Dean vs Bush or Kerry vs Bush, a yalie would be president. A bonesman in the latter case. This is a concentration of power in such few hands that it should not be tolerated.

[onenote]

31. what about Edwards, Clark, Gephardt

At varying times, each of these candidates polled higher than Dean. Not a Yalie among them. And I'm pretty sure it was Democratic voters that decided that Kerry should be the nominee, not a secret Yale cabal. (BTW, are all Yalies interchangeable? Chimpy = Kerry = Dean = Gore = Clinton)?

onenote

[JVS]

32. If they were polling higher than Dean, I'd suspect that was when Kerry...

was leading. Yalies have a stranglehold on our country

[JVS]

5. AMEN

[Warpy]

8. Oh, I'd like a couple of amendments

The first would prevent legacy presidents for, say, five generations. That's about a century, enough for most families to reconsider the whole thing.

The second would prevent any member of the Bush family from holding any kind of office in government, elected or appointed, for the next 200 years. That whole bunch is crooked, and it seems to breed true. That family just aint right. 200 years might give them time to dilute the pernicious DNA that turns them all into psychopaths, thieves and fascists.

The third would prevent Texas and California from fielding presidential candidates for the next hundred years, giving them both time to consider cleaning up their own houses as far as political corruption goes. We can't afford another Nixon, Reagan, Poppy, Asshole, or even Johnson. That doesn't mean other states don't have their own corrupt sacks of shit, it just means Texas and California have been consistent at offering us corrupt sacks of shit. It's a bad habit on both those states' parts, and it needs to be ended.

My final amendment would restore the fatal flaw in our system of government, as adapted from the Iroquois Confederation. The separation of powers was good as far as it went, but the whole thing was fatally flawed without the veto power afforded the "grandmother lodge," an assembly of the elder women whose power consisted of being able to veto warfare. They kept the Iroquois Confederation out of a lot of wars the men wanted, and that kept them incredibly prosperous. Grannies are easy enough to find, just pick 'em out of a phone book and let 'em serve 6 years just like Senators, meeting only when war was being considered to approve or disapprove.

[Sammy Pepys]

14. Heheh...well

The first would prevent legacy presidents for, say, five generations. That's about a century, enough for most families to reconsider the whole thing.

Every single family member, biological and by marriage, including cousins and things like that? Good luck.

The second would prevent any member of the Bush family from holding any kind of office in government

That would probably be a bill of attainder, and unconstitutional.

The third would prevent Texas and California from fielding presidential candidates for the next hundred years

Also unconstitutional. Full faith and credit clause, I think.

My final amendment would restore the fatal flaw in our system of government, as adapted from the Iroquois Confederation. The separation of powers was good as far as it went, but the whole thing was fatally flawed without the veto power afforded the "grandmother lodge,"

Might be considered a title of nobility, which would be unconstitutional.

[Warpy]

28. First, this is my fantasy, so stop pooping on my parade

and second, any amendment becomes part of the constitution, and can't be called unconstitutional.

After all, look at Prohibition. That was clearly unconstitutional had it been passed as a Federal law, and I do believe it had been struck down several times at the local and state level. However, pass it as an amendment, and it becomes constitutional by the very virtue of becoming part of the constitution.

[WI_DEM]

11. Some feel RFK would have been better than JFK and that

as a Senator EMK is better than both of them.

[ck4829]

16. Just say "NO!" to Dynasties!

[onenote]

20. No FDR?

Related to Teddy. Or is it just a parent/child thing? And what would the justification be assuming anyone would think to introduce this in Congress or the states (which is never ever going to happen)? And why stop at the Presidency. Why not bar children from succeeding a parent as a senator, or member of the House, or as Governor? Pretty silly.

onenote

[sarcasmo]

21. No relations period. The Legacy thing has to end with this current IDIOT.

[onenote]

24. wow... a lot of vacancies..

Bye-bye Teddy and Hillary. See ya Chris Dodd. So long Evan Bayh. Toodooloo John Dingell. Not sure which one of the Sanchez sisters gets a going away present. Good thing Gore got in and out already. I guess Salazar can stay since he's a Senator and his brother is congressman.

And why limit it to the Feds? Someone tell Tim Kaine to leave his job as governor of Virginia. After all, his father-in-law was governor once upon a time.

onenote

[sarcasmo]

34. If you think about the insanity of the legacy is should include Governors.

[Xithras]

23. How do you define legacy?

Just curious. How far out do you push relations? What about in-laws?

[leetrisck]

25. Does legacy really mean husband or wife

The Clinton's were not rich - now Hillary Clinton works her ass off and always has - bush ruins the country but we can't have them Clinton's in there.

[sarcasmo]

35. Rich is not the issue legacy is the issue and another Clinton would be a

Legacy.

[Initech]

30. I hear that!

I'm absolutely disgusted by the way that Dubya is going out of his way to make sure that people think he's a great president. Can we have no more staged town hall meetings while we're at it?

[KitchenWitch]

33. Until we get true campaign finance reform...

we will be stuck with legacy presidents.