WTF? Bush for Life? Bill in Congress to Repeal 22nd Amendment

[TNOE]

And I thought hearing a Jeb Bush/McCain ticket today was bad enough - Just recently back - but I haven't seen this:

As if there is not enough to be outraged about - it just keeps coming. Why don't they just start calling him King George and get it over with?


http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/319395.shtml

Republicans have officially started the the campaign to amend the Constitution by repealing the 22nd Amendment - the one that confines the President to two terms. If the Republicans hold their current strength, or increase it, in the 2006 Congressional elections, expect this measure to pass allowing Bush to remain President...

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. (Introduced in House)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH: (Notice this is on the Library of Congress server, where the current Congressional record is maintained)

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. (Introduced in House)

HJ 24 IH
109th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. J. RES. 24
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 17, 2005

Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SABO, and Mr. PALLONE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article --

`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.'.

[LightningFlash]

1. You might want to check the facts first....

On that congressional document......Now, and then flood the whole DNC so they can see it wide and clear.

www.democrats.org

[TNOE]

2. Are you saying not accurate?

[LightningFlash]

12. Its accurate. Just double-checking the source.

It must be sent to all members of the DNC: Do the righ thing and demand they take issue.

http://www.usalone.com/warlies.htm [e-mail]

[Cleita]

48. If it goes through maybe it will backfire on them.

One can hope :-(.

[shanti]

63. how could it possibly backfire

on them when they have DIEBOLD to sew it up? this is scary.

[Cleita]

81. This is why we have to clean up our election system.

Many of us are working on it, not just on the internet, but in the real world. If every county in the United States formed a committee to oversee these changes in their county, it could have an overall effect of stopping these machines from being used. I am working in my county, but I can only do this in my county with my co-committee members. We can't do it nationwide though. Others have to work to make change in their counties.

If perhaps we did get Democrats elected in the future, maybe we could keep them there if we got a good President in office like Clinton was.

[JackRiddler]

87. Excellent idea...

I discovered that this will NOT have an effect on Bush.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r109:1:./temp/~r109XYzF4g::

In Hoyer's words:

"Under the resolution I offer today, President Bush would not be eligible to run for a third term. However, the American people would have restored to themselves and future generations an essential democratic privilege to elect who they choose in the future."

This guy is a real idiot, by the way, and very indicative of the sorry, non-oppositional state of the Democrats. Just read this:

"Under the Constitution as altered by the 22nd Amendment, this must be President George W. Bush's last term even if the American people should want him to continue in office. This is an undemocratic result."

STEALING TWO ELECTIONS IS AN UNDEMOCRATIC RESULT!

[Cha]

89. No worries..we

don't! Have ya checked the polls lately, Fool?

[rateyes]

3. So much for that vote on "term limits" in the Contract on America.

But, hey--if they repeal it---we can run Clinton/Gore again. Somehow, comparing the economies under both administrations, I think the people would vote Clinton. Not that I'm all that enthused with Bill's newfound friends on the RW.

[TNOE]

4. Those Black Box Voting Machines

would even show a Clinton defeat.... unfortunately.

[Oreo]

5. They're mostly Dems... WHY?

This lists the cosponsors as Democrats including my rep Sabo from Mpls.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109WoWinl::

This looks valid to me... I've found several links to it.


Would Bubba run against shrub?

[Beaver Tail]

6. You MUST have seen the writing on the wall

A coworker of mine and I saw this coming

[LightningFlash]

8. It's mostly dems because they are "democrats in name only"

DINOs who must be removed and have no right to office. And this legislation is absolutely disgusting, with it being more disgusting nobody has noticed it.....

[jayfish]

32. My Thoughts On This from A While Back

A Bold Move Toward Dictatorship Is Afoot
A Bold Move Toward Dictatorship IS Afoot(Part Two)

They have been planning this for some time. Dryer spilled the bean right before the election but they have been really quiet about it ever since.

Jay

[charlyvi]

51. Sorry. But your theories do not facts make.

It takes more than Congress to enact an amendment. Three fourths of the states WOULD NOT go for this. Even Repubs know that they will not retain power forever. Look at shrub's numbers. Were the Congress to make him president for life--even if they could--this country would not let it stand. It wouldn't stand for dem or repub. Hell, it wouldn't even stand for Reagan. It's just too difficult to do--a miniscule number of amendments are passed versus how many are introduced. This one hasn't even been introduced yet, it's just in the judiciary committee--buried at that. It's pure theater, PR, ass kissing, whatever. But it doesn't have a chance in hell of being ratified within seven years.

Sorry this was in answer to your other post.

[jayfish]

57. I Know That,...

I'm just saying, look a bit deeper than just "NO ONE would want this but shrub's hardcore fundie right". Many Dems would look at this as a good thing. They would vote for it and they would burn us all. I don't see where you get the idea that this country would not let anything stand that * does. We have been doing it for 4+ years. I'm not saying it will happen but I think vigilance is important.

Jay

[charlyvi]

59. Look. I don't mean to be argumentative with you,

BUT, it is simply too difficult a thing to do. Only 27 amendments have been passed since the constitution was written. Why do you think that is? Within political parties, I can believe any amount of corruption and graft; for this to go anywhere though, three fourths of the states (people) would have to be in on it. Won't happen. Shrub barely got a majority in the election; what makes you think three fourths of the people via their states would want him in any longer. He hasn't improved with age. True conservatives, Libertarians, Greens, Democrats (voters, mind you, not the politicians) would not let this stand. It couldn't be sneaked or armtwisted through like so much of Shrub's agenda--it would have to ultimately be voted through by the people in this country. To say it could be fixed is entering tinfoil hat country--there are just too many people who would have to be corrupted. As I said in a later post, it would be easier to stage a military coup than to get the 22nd repealed. Now THAT I would get nervous about.

[silverweb]

7. Gulp!

We need some clarification and verification here... PRONTO!

:hide:

[iconoclastNYC]

9. You forget...

It has to be ratified by 3/4ths of the State legislatures...and whether that is possible is up for debate.

[AllegroRondo]

13. And that takes a LONG time also.

even if the congress were to pass it this year, its doubful enough states would ratify by 2008.

[Malva Zebrina]

10. the comments in that thread are an interesting read

especially one from the guy in Australia

[TNOE]

Yep

thought so too.

[MadisonProgressive]

11. I thought 2/3 of the states had to vote for it too?

[Rainscents]

17. Yes, 3/4 states have vote in favorite.

[MadisonProgressive]

88. Then I'm not worried!

[democracyindanger]

3/4 of all state legislatures nt

[NashVegas]

14. Ya Know ...

This is the kind of legislation I'd keep an eye on, but wouldn't go out of my way to publicize until there are a few more (R) names on it as sponsors. Then, I'd unleash the beagles.

[Oreo]

15. I'm on the phone with Sabo's office now

It's legit... he supports ending term limits!!!

WTF!!!

Posted contact info in this link on the MN forum
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=160&topic_id=11317#

[Rainscents]

18. Is he R or D?

[Oreo]

24. Dem

[AllyCat]

39. Vote him out! Damn DINOs!!!

[Larkspur]

16. If it's true, it is certainly ironic! It was the Repukes in the late

1940's who pushed the 22nd Amendment into the Constitution because they didn't want another 4-term wonder, like FDR. They could have had a 4-term Prez in Ike, but the Congressional Repukes screwed any chance of that.

[AllyCat]

23. You're reading my mind Larkspur.

These were the morans who wanted the 22nd Amendment in the first place!!

So much for term limits. What else are these folks going to do that is NOT conservative?

[Joacheme Misrahe]

68. A democrat has introduced this

Read the legislation. HOYER is behind this.

[MadHound]

19. Great, another chance for Americans to fall for the good cop/bad cop act

Gee, just what we need. This will set up Clinton vs Bush, and no matter who wins, we're all screwed.

And people keep wondering why I've gone Green:eyes:

[mondo joe]

20. Cool - then Bill Clinton can run again.

[deadparrot]

77. Yup.

Clinton would kick **'s ass.

If it comes to that. I doubt it will.

[mcscajun]

21. I wouldn't get in an uproar just yet...but I would watch it.

Most bills never get out of committee; this one hasn't even gone to markup in the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution yet.

House members propose a great many bills simply to put them into the newsletters they send to their constituents; doesn't mean they've got a snowball's chance in hell of passing.

And the other posters are dead-on when they say any amendment to the Constitution would take a few years; Bush would be out of office by then.

[Oreo]

28. Sabo wouldn't be stupid enough to put this in his newsletter

I can't see anybody in Minneapolis agreeing with him on this.

When I talked to the person at his office, she asked what I was calling about. I told her that I read that Sabo wanted to repeal the 22nd ammendment. She sounded like she didn't believe me but after checking with someone found out it's true.

[mcscajun]

30. Well, he's probably 'traded co-sponsorships' with another Rep

on a different bill. There's always a reason.

[charlyvi]

41. Exactly. He sponsored this no-where bill as a trade off.

It's done all the time. Didn't anyone listen to Kerry during the campaign?

[Joacheme Misrahe]

69. He didn't sponsor the bill

He INTRODUCED IT.

[charlyvi]

76. Yikes! Okay.....

That's different! LOL

[rox63]

22. Is that Steny Hoyer's name I see on that bill?

Isn't he a Dem? If so, WTF is he doing involved in this?

[charlyvi]

25. It's legitimate, but don't worry.....

The Amendment Process

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how it can be amended. One has never been used.

The 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).

The 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.

Regardless 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.

It 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.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#process


There's no way this puppy will get out of Congress; even if it did, there's no way three fourths of the states would pass it within seven years.

[jayfish]

34. And The Amendment Process Is Less...

prone to rigging than the elections, why?

Jay

[charlyvi]

36. Because they would have to rig too many states.

And not all states, not even three fourths, are controlled by repubs. Listen. NO ONE would want this but shrub's hardcore fundie right. Business, sensible conservatives (those that are left) and the typical working person would not want it. It would be like giving Rome to Caesar. These kinds of bills are introduced for brownie points--they did it when Clinton was president, Ike, Reagan. THIS IS NOT GOING TO GO ANYWHERE!

[jayfish]

49. Your Not Looking Deep Enough.

Check out post #32.

Jay

[charlyvi]

53. I answered your post 32. n/t

[demgurl]

54. charly....

you are assuming that they play by the rules to do all the things they need to to pass this. Did they play by the rules, in Florida, when the courts selected *? Did they play by the rules when they rigged the last elections? Have they ever played by the rules? These people are disgusting.

[charlyvi]

56. Cheating in one state is fairly easy for them,

especially when the state is repub controlled. To get three fourths of the states to ratify an amendment is not an easy task. Only 27 of them have passed in our history. Not all states are republican owned--some blue states would have to ratify this as well. As I repeated earlier, NO ONE would want this. Not even most republicans. The three fourths rule is written word for word in the constitution, clear as a bell. They cannot get around this without passing an amendment to repeal it, and then they'd run into the same problem. I'm not assuming they play fair, I'm assuming there are some things even republicans cannot accomplish. Especially this administration--they would be WAY overreaching. Why do you think you have heard nothing of this? I'm telling you, it's done with almost every president and goes nowhere. It would be easier to stage a military coup than to repeal the 22nd amendment. Now THAT I could get worked into a sweat about.

Sorry if I sound snippy--don't mean to! :)

[Joacheme Misrahe]

71. You don't pay enough attention to state politics

in many states state representatives are hopelessly naive and ignorant. Many democrats in state legislatures routinely go along with what the republicans want.

Further, many of them would like to go national. Rove and other republicans could easily get them thinking that if they played ball with them on this a nice seat in the national congress could more easily be filled by them.

[charlyvi]

79. Nope. don't think so.

Not with something this big. I'm in Alabama, and even MY simpleton congressional idiots wouldn't do it.

[Joacheme Misrahe]

58. Actually the 2nd method has been used

when the constitution was being framed/ratified.

[Occulus]

84. Ah, but that arguably doesn't count

since it was in fact before the Constitution was ratified. I do understand your meaning, though.

I find it interesting we are not taught about that second method. I never, until today, knew it was possible.

[Occulus]

83. Wow. Thanks for the information.

So, let me get this clear: the People of the United States may at any time completely bypass the permission, participation, and opinions of Congress to amend their federal Constitution.

Is that a correct assessment of the second process you outlined above? I was aware of the first, but was never taught about and never knew about the second.

[Rainscents]

26. Why do you think, Republicans are working so hard at installing

Diebold machines in every states?

[Tim4319]

27. Sounds like the beginning of Communism!

[Tinoire]

29. We're on the highway to hell with full bi-partisan complicity n/t

[bluestateguy]

31. I opposed this when Clinton was president too.

2 terms and you're done. That's it. I would, however, support term limits for memners of Congress. I'm intrigued by the idea of the citizen politician: the lawyer, doctor, farmer, homemaker, teacher who is elected to Congress for a few years and represents his or her constituents in Washington and then leaves Washington after no more than 3 or four terms (2 for the senate). It would make congressional elections more competitive, reduce entrenched incumbency advantage in elections, reduce Beltway egos and arrogance such as what we saw with Chairman Sensenbrenner, and yes it would actually give the Democrats a fighting chance to win control of Congress sometime in this decade.

[charlyvi]

47. You would lose a great deal of legislative experience and

institutional memory that way. Besides, we already have term limits. It's called an election.

[bluestateguy]

85. Eh

I've never been much for the experience argument. My own view is that serving in Congress is not rocket science and a fast learner and/or an educated person can learn what needs to be done relatively quickly. In the 19th century, turnover of 40%-60% every 2 years was common in Congress.

As for the elections as term limits argument, I used to believe that too, but I am no longer convinced that that is a workable remedy. All too often voters simply don't do their duty to replace corrupt or out of touch politicians. Obviously there was the presidential race last year, and time and time again voters just keep voting back in the same arrogant, out of touch members of Congress. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

I don't think the framers anticipated the importance of congressional incumbency advantage in elections. In fact the idea of the part-time citizen legislature is more what they had in mind for Congress.

[ISUGRADIA]

91. Yeah, but they could not fathom a multi trillion dollar budget either

term limits = more power to the lobbyists and bureaucracy. If you want competative races, end gerrymandering.

[JohnnyRingo]

33. Election 2008: Bill Clinton -vs- George Bush......Bring it ON

The 22nd is a double edged sword for the republicans that I don't think they want to touch.

If they do, I remember their track record with getting ammendments started.
Hahahahaha

[AllyCat]

43. Nope. Remember who owns the voting machines

Clinton would "fizzle" at the ballot box.

[jojo54]

35. The quick fix for this is

to get more Dems elected to the Senate next year. If it takes 2/3 of the Congressional vote and 2/3 of the state legislators then having more Dems in office might help.

But first, we have to hope that this doesn't come up for vote before the Senate elections.

[cynatnite]

37. Check out these others--updated

http://tinyurl.com/dyyun

try this

[charlyvi]

38. YOUR LINK DOESN'T WORK

Sorry. Didn't mean to yell. Didn't know my caps button was on until it was too late.

[cynatnite]

45. okay...I think I got it now

http://tinyurl.com/dyyun

[onenote]

40. before anyone freaks out about this

consider that it takes 3/4 of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment (or 2/3 to call a constitutional convention). Currently, I believe, 20 state legislatures are controlled by Dems, 20 by repubs, and the others are divided. Moreover, 27 or 28 governors are repubs, and the rest are Dems. So getting to 2/3 or 3/4 is very much an uphill road. Don't see this going anywhere.

onenote

[Oreo]

42. I'm just pissed that my Dem Rep would be for this!

Disgusting.

[charlyvi]

44. He probably traded his vote for a bill he wanted a repub

to sign onto. It's done all the time. Besides, he probably knows the bill will get nowhere.

[Joacheme Misrahe]

67. Ummm no this isn't a vote trade

Hoyer is the one who actually INTRODUCED this.

[onenote]

50. here's hoyer's statement explaining why he sponsored this

http://democraticwhip.house.gov/media/press.cfm?pressReleaseID=1028

Its interesting..and odd..that Hoyer says that Bush couldn't run for a 3rd term under his amendment. Its true that, as a practical matter, it is unlikely that such an amendment could get through the House and Senate and be confirmed by a sufficient number of states in just a couple of years, but it is theoretically possible. Moreover, if the amendment were to be ratified (and I think that there is virtually no chance of that happening), Chimpy could run again even if it years from now. Anyone have any idea why Steny said what he said?

onenote

[in_cog_ni_to]

46. The BIG DOG can run! but I personally think

this SUCKS! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHNOLD????? for prez??? :puke: A lifetime of the idiot?????? I'll leave the fucking country first!


THIS is where the filibuster will come in handy!

[Pool Hall Ace]

92. According to this site, it isn't the 22nd amendment that's keeping Arnold

from running. If it makes you feel any better:

ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5

It's an urban legend that the 22nd Amendment is blocking Arnold. It is Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution itself that bars him. Here is its text:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution States: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Note: if the Bills moving through Congress promoting making it possible for Arnold to run for President are successful in opening up a Constitutional Convention, the entire Bill of Rights and Constitution are wide-open to be totally changed.

more at http://www.arnoldexposed.com/about.htm

[alfredo]

52. What percentage of the state are Red states?

How many of the state have republican governors and legislature?

[Joacheme Misrahe]

62. The majority

Don't know if it's 3/4ths... Probably not... but you have to factor in DINOS in democratic controlled swing states. For example, a dem has introduced this legislation. Thus proving there are plenty of plants within the party.

[Norquist Nemesis]

55. Would someone please explain the language to me

that it is 3/4 of the state legislatures??? Does that mean the elected politicians and not the voters of the state(s)?

edit spellering

[Joacheme Misrahe]

60. Can be either depending on what is called for

in this case, the legislature. Which means your states elected officials in the legislature.

[Lowell]

61. Not until the ERA

Amendment is passed and ratified should we even consider this stupid repeal of the 22nd. They have shelved the ERA for years, why would they be able to put this obvious attempt at installing a dynasty on the fast track?

This will never happen, but we should vote all the DINOs who are supporting this right out of office. I would not want to see anyone have the opportunity to be "leader for life" whether it was Bu$h or the Big Dog. Just too much chance for corruption.

[NYC Liberal]

64. People introduce amendments all the time

I'm pretty sure this has been introduced a hundred times before.

Just go to www.house.gov, click "Find a bill" and search for "proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States". 50 bills come up for just this year:

1 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment. (Introduced in House)
2 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. (Introduced in House)
3 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual... (Introduced in House)
4 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to marriage. (Introduced in Senate)
5 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting the right to a home. (Introduced in House)
6 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to school prayer. (Introduced in House)
7 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to taxing the people of the United States progressively. (Introduced in House)
8 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting the right to a clean, safe, and sustainable environment. (Introduced in House)
9 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting the right to decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing. (Introduced in House)
10 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to voluntary school prayer. (Introduced in House)
11 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States... (Introduced in House)
12 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding regulations on the amounts of expenditures of personal funds made by candidates for election for public office. (Introduced in House)
13 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to equality of rights and reproductive rights. (Introduced in House)
14 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress and the States to prohibit the act of desecration of the flag of the United States and to set... (Introduced in House)
15 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding presidential election voting rights for residents of all United States territories and commonwealths. (Introduced in House)
16 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide that Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers,... (Introduced in House)
17 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to establish English as the official language of the United States. (Introduced in House)
18 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting the right to full employment and balanced growth. (Introduced in House)
19 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women. (Introduced in Senate)
20 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has... (Introduced in House)
21 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States... (Introduced in House)
22 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to allow debate to be closed on any measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate only by unanimous consent... (Introduced in House)
23 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit the number of consecutive terms that a Member of Congress may serve. (Introduced in House)
24 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with respect to the right to life. (Introduced in House)
25 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens... (Introduced in House)
26 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. (Introduced in Senate)
27 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. (Introduced in House)
28 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to ensure continuity of congressional operations and the avoidance of martial law in the event of mass incapacitations... (Introduced in Senate)
29 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide that no person born in the United States will be a United States citizen unless a parent is a United States... (Introduced in House)
30 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the Electoral College and provide for the direct election of the President and Vice President by the popular... (Introduced in House)
31 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the appointment of individuals to serve as Members of the House of Representatives when, in a national emergency,... (Introduced in House)
32 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging... (Introduced in House)
33 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right of citizens of the United States to health care of equal high quality. (Introduced in House)
34 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve. (Introduced in Senate)
35 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right of all citizens of the United States to a public education of equal high quality. (Introduced in House)
36 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. (Introduced in Senate)
37 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the maintenance of a system of social insurance that provides social security for its citizens. (Introduced in House)
38 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. (Introduced in House)
39 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the Electoral College and to provide for the direct election of the President and Vice President of the United... (Introduced in House)
40 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct popular election of the President and Vice President of... (Introduced in Senate)
41 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States which requires (except during time of war and subject to suspension by Congress) that the total amount of money expended... (Introduced in Senate)
42 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide for the direct election of the President and Vice President by the popular vote of the citizens of the United... (Introduced in House)
43 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to require a balanced budget and protect Social Security surpluses. (Introduced in Senate)
44 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right to vote. (Introduced in House)
45 . Whereas the chamber of the House of Representatives is framed by `In God We Trust' etched in stone above the Speaker's head and directly across from the Speaker is the figure of Moses... (Introduced in House)
46 . Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. (Introduced in House)
47 . Every Vote Counts Amendment (Introduced in House)
48 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to Congressional succession. (Introduced in House)
49 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women. (Introduced in House)
50 . Right to Life Act (Introduced in House)

[Walt Starr]

65. And so we've come full circle. They are the ones who demanded the 22nd

amendment because of Roosevelt.

[Joacheme Misrahe]

66. Actually no

the sad thing is a "democrat" introduced this.

The article linked to says it's the republicans behind it, but a quick check confirms it was HOYER, a dem, who introduced this.

[Amonester]

90. Yeah... Remember how much little king george the third

reich-er is so hatefully jealous of FDR's "extended" terms.

Has been since he can't remember when (grandpa musta catapult the propaganda into tha bigger ears early on...)

:crazy:

[Behind the Aegis]

70. The return of King George

Amazing...some of our ancestors fled King George, and here we are a few hundred years later, preparing ourselves to fend off another "king George." Is this not a prime example of "history repeating itself?"

[Xithras]

72. If not for the 22nd Amendment, we'd be following President Clinton today.

Sorry, but I've never cared for the 22nd amendment. In a democracy, the PEOPLE should have the power to choose whoever they want as their leader (I even advocate eliminating the Constitutional age limitations). I have yet to hear ANYONE give me ANY legitimate reason why a GOOD president shouldn't be able to server three or four terms. If the American people deem them worthy, why not?

The 22nd amendment was a direct and blatant shot at the legacy of Roosevelt. The conservatives were pissed that the American people kept re-electing a populist and progressive leader, so they changed the rule book to make sure it would never happen again. It hawkish and right wing governments of the post WWII period, the 22nd amendment was easy to pass, especially in the southern states which saw progressivism as a threat to their racist empires.

If the 22nd amendment were just being proposed today, it probably wouldn't pass.

[Joacheme Misrahe]

75. Hmmm

"Sorry, but I've never cared for the 22nd amendment. In a democracy, the PEOPLE should have the power to choose whoever they want as their leader "

That's nice in theory, but if you paid attention to the last 3 elections you would realize it doesn't quite work out like that. If bush could run again they would simply rig a 3rd election for him.

Further, the only people who are elected to congress the vast majority of the time are rich and well connected. Once you're in congress most of the time you can stay for LIFE if you want. Check the re-election rate of congress people running for re-election. Also check out how many members of congress do not have millions of dollars.

[aeolian]

73. Constitution, Article 5

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."


The states have to ratify ammendments. "passing a bill" won't do it.

[Joacheme Misrahe]

78. No one said passing a bill would

But UNLESS the states call for a convention amending the constitution must start IN the national CONGRESS. This is step 1.

[aeolian]

82. The wording of the original post implies such

I was trying to avoid any confusion.

[Mnemosyne]

74. That's not the only one

I found this a few months ago

HJ 9
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/query


Don't understand why there are 2 listed.

Anyone?

And I agree with another post, why would anyone believe that * would do it legally?

Does no one think about how simple it would be for * to call for martial law? Another 9/11 and I guarantee we will see it. He's got to be scared with all the truth coming out about his lies over Iraq, how soon can we expect an attack?

[LondonReign2]

80. PLEASE let them pass this!

Time for the Big Dog to be back in office. If with Diebold, is there any question that America would overwhelmingly go back to peace and prosperity over the current death and corruption regime?

[ElectroPrincess]

86. No, even Republicans are getting "burned-out" on * and/or Dynasty

[Independent_Liberal]

93. Don't let this freak you out...

I kind of have a feeling it won't pass. And don't worry, I'd never let anything like this happen.