Could Obama, or any president, change the term limits and run for a 3rd term simply by approval of Congress?
If Democrats control the house and Senate in 2015 then if he wanted couldn't Obama pass a law allowing him to run for a 3rd term. Same question if it were a Republican in their 2nd term in the White House and Republicans controlled both houses. Could we possibly see Obama-Biden 2016 or bring back Bush-Cheney 2016 or the same with anyone else who has served 2 terms or does. Same question applies to Republican or Democrat presidents. I think Clinton would have gotten re-elected in 2000 had he been able to run and certainly Ronald Reagan would have in 1988 though Bush would have lost in 2008.
Why does Congress need 60% "Yes" votes to pass any legislation?
The rules haven't changed in a few decades, but the customs have.In both houses of Congress, you still need a majority (50%+1) to pass a bill. In the House of Representatives, that's the only consideration.In the Senate, the rules are a bit more complex. If the bill makes it to a vote, it needs only 51 votes. But you need to debate before it gets to a vote. The Senate fancies itself the "world's greatest deliberative body", and they'll deliberate as long as somebody wants to. You can force them to stop deliberating by a cloture vote, and that takes 60 votes. It used to be that it took 67 votes to invoke cloture, but cloture meant literally shutting somebody up. In order to deliberate, they had to talk. That's the climax of the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. That was changed in 1975 so that it wasn't just a talking contest: Strom Thurmond once talked for 24 hours. They removed the requirement to talk but lowered the margin to 60 votes.As soon as that happened, it became possible to block any measure forever if you had 41 Senators. For a long time it was done rarely, not because of the rules but because of the customs. In recent years, however, the use of filibusters has spiked, and it is now considered essentially mandatory on any bill except the most banal. You can see that the rise started as soon as the rules changed, in the 95th Congress, but it really took off in the 110th Congress, starting in 2007. At this point, unless you're planning to name a post office, you're going to need 60 votes.
What can Americans do if Congress refuses to act?
Hey there,Congress refuses to act, as in what? Why should we care, unless the enemy is at the gate?Congress has powers limited to the Federal government. The Federals are not a central government. Hell, they aren’t even all that much of a democracy. Feature this:Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate pass legislation. The House has 435 members divided up by population and represent the people of their districts. The more people a State has the more Representatives it has. The Senate, with 100, has two elected Senators per State irrespective of the population. The upshot is that the mob doesn’t rule with the Senate being able to put one the brakes.Congress acts on external affairs, defense, and smoothing the way(s) between the States. It’s all in Article. I., Section. 8. of the Constitution,[1] give it a read and see what they can actually do before you get disappointed.The States are actually where democracy pretty much happens, and where governing the We the People happens. The Federals don’t run the States. The States may share sovereignty with the Federal government, but unless it has to do with interstate commerce the Federals are not involved. That’s why the POTUS cannot pardon criminals convicted of breaking State laws. NO POWER under the Constitution.Amendment X[2]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.Look to your own State first if you really think something ought to be done. If it isn’t printing money, making war, approving treaties, etc., chances are Congress isn’t the place to be looking. Just like Trump isn’t the head of the country, he is just the CEO of the Federals. I really don’t get why there is so much fuss over this need for the folks in Washington DC to do something this or that.You want something done look to your governor and legislature.Ciao.Footnotes[1] The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription[2] The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
Do you support more government intervention or less?
less The more the government is involved in my life, the less liberty I have. Additionally, I have found, when people say they are making decisions, that affect my life, and are acting in "your best interest", it is usually anything but my best interest...in fact, it is usually to my detriment.
Does the USA need presidential election reform??? Our system is outdated!!!?
1. should we abolish the electoral college system described in the US Constitution and simply go for a direct vote for the leader of the executive branch? I have no intentions to dismantling the rest of the democratic republic process we rely upon in voting in Congress and other lower level offices, but the electoral college just seems so-outdated and unnecessary. An individual vote is almost worthless in an EC system. Direct elections. One vote per citizen for the President. 2. Iowa??? New Hampshire??? We're relying on two small states to determine a large portion of the USA political future? The president is the leader for all US citizens and should reflect the majority of voters found throughout the land and not two small-time states of little importance. 3. I envy the British and their election process of a Prime Minister. It lasts only a few weeks. For us, it lasts 1 and a half years now!!! It's overtop and wasteful. It also makes us jaded and apathetic.