Sunday, April 01, 2007

Robert Enders for President in 2008!

The current state of the world today leaves us with many questions to ponder. Will there be victory in Iraq? Will mankind reach Mars in our lifetime? Will Americans be willing to vote for a candidate who doesn't have a history of substance abuse?
We will find the answers to these questions soon. I am proud to announce that I will be seeking the Libertarian nomination for President of the United States in 2008. I look back at those who have been chosen in the past to lead this great nation, from Gerald Ford to Bill Clinton. And I think that if the country is more or less intact after their stewardship, then there can't be any harm if I take a crack at it. Assuming of course we survive the stewardship of the current president.
Many naysayers claim that because I'm only 28, I am too young to be the next president. The Constitution says that I must be 35 years old in order to become commander-in-chief. But if that document doesn't get in the way of George W. Bush as he pursues his vision for America, then I won't let it get in the way of me!


  1. You get my first vote!!!

  2. Dear Mr. Enders,

    Sorry to intrude on your personal blog, and i know it can be rude to read other peoples blogs sometimes, But I do agree with your comments, and views on the current state of the united states of america, but I may have a slight bias, My name is Matthew Robert Enders, friggin neat eh!! im am 24 year old musician from East Coast Canada,..., so please run for Cammander in cheif, and I promise I will move, and attempt to receive u.s. citizenship, just so i can vote for a guy with an incredibly Suave, sexy and cool name!!
    You've Got My Support!!
    Matthew Robert Enders

  3. Which parts of the Constitution has the President violated?

  4. Article 1 Section 9.

    The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

    While I have very little sympathy for Jose Padilla, the rule of law must be followed. He is either a civilian and should be tried or an enemy soldier and is entitled to POW status.

  5. Matt,
    This is a public blog, everyone is permitted to veiw it.

  6. The Jose Padilla thing bothered me, too, because he is a U.S. Citizen and was picked up in the United States. I would have thought that such a person would be entitled to habeas corpus and relatively speedy criminal trial. But, if I recall correctly, the Supreme Court decided that he did not have the right to habeas corpus. As I was told in law school the Supreme Court is always right (even when they are obviously not, as is in Kelo v. City of New London) because their is no appeal from its decisions. Soldiers are entitled to POW status, but soldiers wear uniforms, represent countries, carry arms openly. I have seen a lot of comments about the detainees at Gitmo being entitled to POW rights under the Geneva Convention, but t'ain't so.

  7. That is certainly NOT what the Supreme Court ruled.

    The Bush administration placed him into the civilian court system before the appeal to the Supreme Court because they feared what would happen.

    Padilla appealed his case to the Supreme court anyway but they refused to hear the case since his detainee status had been changed...