Is there any way, we can change Constitution in time for President Bush to be allowed a third term ?
113331
Someone I once knew would probably become rabid..if he isn't already.
542121
Why?  Quite simply because the constitution was written that way.  One other attribute of the constitution was that changing it is very hard to do.  Changing the constitution to require term limits for US Senators or House Members would require them to support it; and that isn't going to happen now or probably ever.
240857
He can't. President Bush only has a little over two years left, and it's time for him to start thinking about his legacy. At this point nobody likes him (not even his dog). If he is going to do anything REALLY productive before the Republicans in congress and the senate COMPLETELY turn on him, he's going to have to stop listening to his advisors, stop listening to his wife, stop listening to the Pentagon, stop listening to the press, and sit and think about why he REALLY wanted to be President Bush in the first place.
1142443
THANK GOD, BUT HELL NO HE CAN'T!\n\nIT WILL BE A GREAT DAY FOR ALL AMERICANS WHEN HE IS OUT OF OFFICE!
888111
Congress can amend, make changes, to the constitution by creating amendments that are added to it. Now take note that I said 'added' and 'amend'. \n\nThe reason is that Congress can NOT actually change the wording of the constitution... they can only ADD to it. \n\nThese amendments may be descriptions or clarifications of portions of the constitution that already exist but they are not alterations.
300452
By definition, the Bill of Rights can never be changed.  That is because it is defined as the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.\n\nBut the Constitution itself can be amended.  The most recent is the 27th amendment, which states that when members of Congress give themselves a pay raise, they have to wait until after an election for it to take effect.  It was proposed in 1789 and ratified in 1992.
454103
Common misunderstanding, but laudable that you are asking, because it is theonly way we can become self-governed again. \n\nThe U.S. Constitution only grants one right. The fist 10 Amendments, added twelve years later, are called "The Bill of Rights," and are probably what you're thinking of.\n\nA "right" is something granted by law, something you can take to court and win. A privilege, can be taken away at any time at the whim of those few in power.\n\nLike someone in the military has almost no rights. But they have lots of privileges. An underage child has no rights, but has privileges. \n\nThe one test to find out if you have a right, e.g., the case of a child, is to find out if this person or entity can sue or be sued. If not, then there are no rights. \n\nRead the Constitution on my web site listed below, then read the explanation of the Amendments. You'll find that the one main reason for the Constitution was to set up a Federal Gov't, and at the same time, limit their power. Their greatest fear was that the Fed would become more powerful than a State, and rule the States from afar and dictate their laws, and invade our states at will. But of course, that has happened anyway hasn't it, because nobody is policing the police (the Fed) or enforcing the Constitution.\n\nThey tried to weaken the Fed by breaking them up into 3 branches; Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary. If those three ever came together, we would have a totalitarian dictatorship, similar to a King ruling us dictating our every move. For examply, only Congress can pass new law, which represents each State. But the President (Executive) decrees new laws every day by executive order. The courts (Judicial Branch) interpret and change laws every day. So the inevitible has happened; all three branches are acting as one, and nobody seems to care.
475871
We can go a long way into stabilizing the situation by voting in November. If we can replace one or both of the houses with a democratic majority it will return  some checks and balances to the government and slow Bush down, and maybe even stop him from doing something worse then he has already done.
839937
I think that if you change the constitution in any way to suit the terrorist threat then the terrorist have won. While maybe not a threat from this president it could be in the future and I know I would not like the gestapo knocking down my door and taking me away and locking me up without due process. This is an awful law and people who say it is all right to change the constitution are traitors to the American way of life. Our freedoms are precious and should not be written away without a fight. I hope that even with the Supreme court being a right wing majority that they will throw this law out as being what it is and that is unconstitutional.
85208
Bush can´t be the next president because he can´t be re-elected (he already had 2 terms of office).
491154
A written constitution is not as open to imterpretation by time and circumstance as an unwritten one. A favorite argument from the UK is that the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. is a relic of a time gone by, when in reality it remains the will of the majority of the American people today. When we want a change, we affect that change, like the 13th and 19th Amendments.
123500
Definitely, the constitution of this once great country has become a joke, your rights are guaranteed to you only as long as it is convenient.
404079
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how it can be amended. One has never been used.\n\nThe first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).\n\nThe second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.\n\nRegardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states. The amendment as passed may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.\n\nIt is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 USC 378 [1798]):
1154154
It is impossible for this to occur as an amendment to the Constitution after FDR's reign declared no one could hold the Chief Executive Office for more than two terms (consecutively or otherwise).  Thus, it would be impossible for someone to assume the number 2 position having already held the number 1 for two terms.
849817
Ummmm....the US Constitution?
808622
Uh, no- Bush was elected for his second 4 year term.  Bush will be forced out of office by law in 2 more years.  A person can only be president 2 times, then they're banned for life by federal law
287527
Too late. Thanks for asking though. This is Bush's second term and we can't elect him because he can't run for office. \n\nDemocrats will decide after 2 years that Kerry or anybody else should run.