Ben Carson: The People Will Stop Obama's Third Term!

[DonViejo]

WorldNetDaily has become infatuated with a bizarre conspiracy theory that President Obama will remain in office after his second term expires, and today the far-right outlet, best known for promoting birther claims, decided to ask likely GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson the question on everyone’s minds: “Who would stop Obama from remaining in office past his second term?”

Rather than just dismiss the absurd statement outright, Carson said that the people will rise up to defend the Constitution’s limitation on a president serving more than two terms in office against Obama.

President Obama leaves office on Jan. 20, 2017 – or does he? The Internet’s abuzz with talk about the myriad of ways Obama might seek to extend his White House role – sparked in part by radio conjecture from conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh – and now at least one likely presidential candidate, Ben Carson, has weighed in to say: Don’t worry, Obama will leave.

First, the question from WND to Carson: “Who would stop Obama from remaining in office past his second term?”

And Carson’s reply, via email: “We the people would oppose it through our Constitution, the 22nd Amendment of which forbids more than two terms. Even some of the timid people in the other two branches of government would be willing to stand behind the fortified walls of our Constitution.”

Sounds reasonable – but the buzz persists.

- See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ben-carson-people-will-stop-obamas-third-term#sthash.a1sQxmTy.dpuf

[leftofcool]

1. Obama's running again? Awesome!

[monmouth4]

12. Oh it'll be an Obama alright, but this time Michelle will be the candidate. Think I read that..n/t

[BlueCaliDem]

2. Aw man, if only President Obama can run again. If only. eom

[madokie]

3. Just tell 'm that he's going to run again after hillary's two terms

depending on how things go if he'll do it after her first four years.

We're talking gop heads exploding here with this

[leftofcool]

5. Oh my Gawd! Let the pants pissing begin!

[gollygee]

4. LOL, although I remember reading similar stuff about GWB here at DU

But it didn't happen with GWB, and I'm sure it won't happen with Obama.

[A HERETIC I AM]

7. That's what I get for not reading the thread completely.

Yes, you are right - the same crap was bandied about here.

[Arkansas Granny]

11. Yes, and the rumor was linked to fema camps a martial law.

[A HERETIC I AM]

6. The right said the same thing about Clinton and the left said the same thing about Bush.

Every time there is a two term president, dating back to at least Reagan, the opposition has been saying this same old bullshit.

And low and behold, come inauguration day we have a peaceful transfer of power.

Every.

Single.

Time.

(With the exception of the 2 presidents assassinated while in office, but the point is made)

[rogerashton]

8. It raises a more interesting question.

If we could, would it be wise to repeal the 22nd amendment?

The amendment was passed with Republican support after FDR's four terms, to prevent what they supposed could be a succession of lifelong Democratic administrations. But would that have happened? In 20-20 hindsight, probably not.

Since the amendment was passed, only five presidents have completed a second term and thus been in a position to seek a third term, and only two before the 1990's. Of the five, three were Republicans. Two, Eisenhower and Reagan, were in their seventies so that a third term would have been unlikely just for that reason; though it is hard to be sure about Reagan. One, Clinton, probably would have been elected for the third and perhaps even a fourth term -- and we would have been much better off if he had: no Iraq war and thus probably no ISIS, possibly no 9/11/2001, and in all probability a better economy during 2000-2007.

Of course, repeal would not enable Obama to succeed himself -- it would apply to future presidents after the repeal had been complete. The fundamental case for repeal is that the people should be free to elect whom they choose. The counterargument is that the power of an incumbent president would itself limit the capability of the people to do so, more seriously than the amendment does. In hindsight, the counterargument seems to be false.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. I think not.

A president who knows he can't run again is more likely to do what he thinks is right, rather than popular, and that's probably a good thing more often than a bad one.

[rogerashton]

17. So why is that a good thing?

And if it really is, wouldn't that point toward a one-term limit?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. I think a one-term limit is far from an absurd idea.

The argument against it, however, is that either you have very long terms - making democracy less responsive, which is arguably a bad thing (although arguably not) - or your presidents don't have long enough to accomplish anything.

Conversely, lots of perfectly functional democracies - like mine - don't have term limits. Either way can work fine.

The one thing that always does set off warning bells about the health of a democracy is changing term limits in a way that applies to the incumbent. If someone is elected with a term limit, a constitutional amendment to let them stay in power is a very bad sign; changing term limits to stop an incumbent running again is also a fairly bad one.

[rogerashton]

19. You say "a constitutional amendment to let them stay in power is a very bad sign;"

but I explicitly excluded that, and it was also excluded by the 22nd amendment, the only precedent for it under the US Constitution.

Let's see: You're British, if I understand correctly. Your "functional democracy" does not have a written constitution but can be accurately described by the Hobbesian conception of an absolute dictatorship of a council. Yet you seem to take a good deal of interest in amendments to ours. Interesting! But I wonder why.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. American politics are much more glamourous than British politics.

We don't have anyone as entertainingly mad as your Republicans. And they have a significant impact on the UK, and the world a whole.

Incidentally, you're slightly wrong to describe the UK as "the absolute dictatorship of a council" - the House of Lords still has the power to delay or even veto legislation the Commons has passed. I semi-regularly defend the UK's constitutional monarchy as a good system, but there is no getting away from the fact that the presence of hereditary peers in the House of Lords is a national embarrassment.

[rogerashton]

21. UKIP? Scot nationalists?

They both seem pretty mad to me.

On the other matter: would it be less embarrassment if they were life peers only? I must admit that a body with some legislative power, comprising people distinguished by their accomplishments in the arts, science and rock'n'roll, is not a bad idea.

[Rex]

9. Kewl! I can't wait to vote for him again! nt

nt

[ck4829]

10. How low do you have to go to set up some sort of strawman like this?

Only the Tea-addled would see the leaving of office as some sort of victory for them.

It's going to be a little funny, but very sad really, if a Republican is elected President; as all of these people who see every action by Obama as some sort of act of tyranny, every person who supports him as either a stooge or a conspirator, and every single thing they do as an act of resistance will be the first people to say anyone who criticizes their man as treason as their cries of 'dictator' are replaced with their calls for unquestioned and unlimited power.

[Paladin]

14. And to think people trusted their brains to this man. (nt)

[TheCowsCameHome]

15. He should leave his brain to research. n/t

[Capt. Obvious]

16. All Ben Carson stories need to include his photo

[itcfish]

22. Do These Idiots

Ever take a peek at the constitution? The Amendments? Anything?