Reply #19: Absolutely. [View All]

Printer-friendly format

Email this thread to a friend

Bookmark this thread

This topic is archived.
First thread | Last thread

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007)

Jawja (1000+ posts)

Thu Jan-19-06 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #1

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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

No more legacy Presidents.	sarcasmo	Jan-19-06 02:26 PM	#0
An amendment against legacy Presidents?	Sammy Pepys	Jan-19-06 02:28 PM	#1
Absolutely.	Jawja	Jan-19-06 03:00 PM	#19
Grassroots Prez	toymachines	Jan-19-06 02:30 PM	#2
as much as I love the idea (and I really love the idea)	YOY	Jan-19-06 02:30 PM	#3
With the Democrats controlling all three branches in 08.	sarcasmo	Jan-19-06 02:35 PM	#6
So what if some guy who happens to be a descendant of James Polk	YOY	Jan-19-06 02:40 PM	#10
If you don't stop Legacy's do we get Jeb and then some drunk offspring	sarcasmo	Jan-19-06 02:42 PM	#12
They're supposed to stop themselves in reality.	YOY	Jan-19-06 02:48 PM	#15
Wasn't the current President a DRUNK at one time in his life?	sarcasmo	Jan-19-06 03:13 PM	#22
Not while his family was under a microscope n/t	YOY	Jan-19-06 03:50 PM	#26
What if Chelsea Clinton turns out to be	BOSSHOG	Jan-19-06 02:32 PM	#4
What if power never leaves the hands of a small group of families	JVS	Jan-19-06 02:35 PM	#7
Thanks for making my point JVS. It's to much like a family Dictatorship.	sarcasmo	Jan-19-06 02:36 PM	#9
No one is prevented from seeking public office	BOSSHOG	Jan-19-06 02:43 PM	#13
But you can't be President because you didn't go to Yale is a defacto...	JVS	Jan-19-06 02:52 PM	#17
I don't understand	BOSSHOG	Jan-19-06 02:58 PM	#18
and you base this Yale requirement on the fact that	onenote	Jan-19-06 04:10 PM	#27
2004 had no non-Yale candidate leading at any time	JVS	Jan-19-06 05:39 PM	#29
what about Edwards, Clark, Gephardt	onenote	Jan-19-06 06:32 PM	#31
If they were polling higher than Dean, I'd suspect that was when Kerry...	JVS	Jan-20-06 03:33 AM	#32
AMEN	JVS	Jan-19-06 02:34 PM	#5
Oh, I'd like a couple of amendments	Warpy	Jan-19-06 02:35 PM	#8
Heheh...well	Sammy Pepys	Jan-19-06 02:44 PM	#14
First, this is my fantasy, so stop pooping on my parade	Warpy	Jan-19-06 05:00 PM	#28
Some feel RFK would have been better than JFK and that	WI_DEM	Jan-19-06 02:41 PM	#11
Just say "NO!" to Dynasties!	ck4829	Jan-19-06 02:49 PM	#16
No FDR?	onenote	Jan-19-06 03:02 PM	#20
No relations period. The Legacy thing has to end with this current IDIOT.	sarcasmo	Jan-19-06 03:09 PM	#21
wow... a lot of vacancies..	onenote	Jan-19-06 03:44 PM	#24
If you think about the insanity of the legacy is should include Governors.	sarcasmo	Jan-20-06 11:12 AM	#34
How do you define legacy?	Xithras	Jan-19-06 03:15 PM	#23
Does legacy really mean husband or wife	leetrisck	Jan-19-06 03:45 PM	#25
Rich is not the issue legacy is the issue and another Clinton would be a	sarcasmo	Jan-20-06 11:12 AM	#35
I hear that!	EOO	Jan-19-06 05:42 PM	#30
Until we get true campaign finance reform...	KitchenWitch	Jan-20-06 03:37 AM	#33

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007)

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.