Amendment XXVIII

Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 4:22 pm

Who is whose "Commander"?

A President of: of XXII with "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."

A President of a Congress expected to have so much federal business such that:  "The Congress shall assemble at least once in a every year, and such Meeting shall be on…" showing up maybe as the only instructive sentence that shows up twice in such Article?

A President of "Commander in Chief of the …" and yet a Congress to a holding of right and duty in declaration to war?

Ready for XXVIII?

How to Order anew to a more perfect Union?

To an Order to Posterity for greater domestic Tranquility on regulations of commerce?

To greater domestic Tranquility to "professional limitations" to our office of the President and all spouses or "intimates" as relevant in respect to contracts of marriage and such "union" of souls and to a more perfect "holding"?

Again, in light of the times of the writing and ratifying of our XXII amending, it helps to consider that such eightieth Congress was a new Republican Congress of near as large and vast an electoral sweep as we have just recently witnessed.

Amendment XXVIII ???  A bar to lawyers being sworn in, if elected, as "lawyers"?  A natural professional conflict for our "Executive"?  A Order to a more perfect Union respectful to domestic Tranquility and Constitutional Posterity to a general Welfare so ordained to a wilful suspension of "status" as "lawyer" as an "officer of any court" or bar association so dedicated to profession code to being prepared as "lawyer" daily anew each day to be able to argue both sides of each issue equally?

Can a lawyer sworn in as a lawyer actually profession execute such duties of our office of the President and not have their "personality" and "character" open enough to be Commander in Chief and of "the buck stops here" presider to issues executive in pressing/denting we the People?

Amendment XXVIII ???  A lawyer if elected to our office of the President, and with any other "elected" to a co-holding in marrital "two-fer" to those times acknowledged of "intimate holdings" as another "acting as President" … shall willingly and wilfully surrender their law license until such time as they are no longer a holder of our Executive Office and to such time that a "review committee" can be convened to entertain a petition for new certification?  Such Article to be expected of any other to a co-holding of office as per full respect to marriage laws so naturally to an intimate ’holding’ and such as so many since Martha Washington as acted as President, wilfully? 

So our Constitution moved the conscript to a Congress meant to be so involved that it needed only issue it as ordained to meet at least once a year and even at such times as writs were issued and approved years later to just change the date upon which it must meet, that "once per year"?

Being a "lawyer" is just to great a different "responsibility" or "duty" than our office of the President that such seems now proven to be a deterent to clear and concise executive decision making.  Anyone?  Anyone also see it a conflict that a President as a "lawyer" distracted from listening more to the majorities and minorities for a sense of right and wrong or direction and to a "professional" standard/duty to rethink and rethink and lose time each day to being equally to both sides and maybe to no decision?

{I lost my first draft of this post this morning after clicking wrong icon before having "saved" – will think about such for edits to this less "dramatic" rewrite for tomorrow.}  


Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 9:21 am

Remember the Howard Dean campaign? 

Remember the "yYAAAAAA" SCREAM?

When our doctors go bad and to a lower (political) standard what comes next?

Howard Dean M.D. is a Democrat from the "most white" state in America and arguably an admitted "socialist" - this is American, our "melting pot" so such "presented" as "fact" not "judgement."

However, it was in his own words after loosing such old campaign that he summed his loss up with a confession/an analysis that he had run afoul of the "mental health clarity act" — as a doctor who had been trained to know better.

Dumbing down political speak for political advantage does have risks, such is what he must have been admitting to having known that he should have ‘known better’ than to have done himself, time, and time, again, during such campaign.

As a doctor Howard Dean was expected to use his "education" to avoid "mid-term probation" in an academic metaphor and not to once or regularly "ignore" his "higher education" for personal political play and advantage.  At least, as interpreted, within "first do no harm."

When our doctors go bad and to a lower (political) standard what comes next? Professional review board? Public license revocation?

Yes, if President Obama were a "doctor" and not a lawyer "expected to argue both sides of each issue" and be "prepared to argue and defend both sides" he could be so accused now, professionally, as still Howard Dean and Dems persist.

I do not know what the American Bar Association "legal" and "professional ethics" may expect from politicians of their association, but do know it was Howard Dean M.D. in his own words after his defeat speaking lightly with a confession that "he had run afoul of the mental health clarity act." (remembered, not source quoted - so maybe paraphrased here by me.)

We had President Clinton to impeachment review and a few disbarring professional knock-downs and while prosecutor Ken Starr seems to have thought he had enough to also pursue First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, Esq. Was First Lady Clinton at least a willing accomplice?  Did her "insistance" to "official" West Wing "duties" open her up to more public scruting - judicial prosectution than "First Lady" office usually allows?  (hmmm — better check back and look for more detail on what it was Starr thought he could "get" "Hillary" on with his legal pen.)

Senator Kerry has spent years dumbing down issues in our foreign policy for partisan political advantage and no more maybe than with his "anti-war" revival cored with Iraq made into a one issue conflict.

Former Senator Al Gore has spent years dumbing down issues with faulty "science" and such to much fault in crashing our economy so that "housing bubble economy" of Clintons’ "dumbing" stumbled and secured an more damaging "down-turn."

When our doctors go bad and to a lower (political) standard what comes next?

Were 2008 elections our most "uniformed" deciding by us our People in our history as a young nation? 

Are many in main stream media now wondering how to mend themselves and clean their hands of such?

Were 2008 elections our most "uniformed" deciding by us our People in our history and because the Democrats were knowing and purposeful to a "dumbing down" for partisan political advantage that did harm first to our nation’s general mental health welfare?

Bush may have "lied" he may have had "general Welfare" in mind and "greater good" - I cannot say if he was "right" or "wrong"!

I can say that Democrats did "lie" more to work a "misunderstanding" across our elections for partisan political gain!

When lawyers play fast and loose and choose to "represent" only their partisan minority, while elected to lead "majority"?

Anyone?  A doctor?  A lawyer?  An ethics board?  A Congressional "committee"?

Democrats have been lying more - haven’t they?