Bills to Repeal 22nd amendment? WTF?!!

[undergroundpanther]

Two of the most passionate congressional advocates of such a move – Rep. Steny Hoyer, ***D-MD,**(Aaaargh! amn IDIOT ans a DEM) and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-WI – have teamed up to sponsor a resolution that would represent the first step toward that change in the U.S. political system.

"The time has come to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, and not because of partisan politics," explained Hoyer. "While I am not a supporter of the current President, I feel there are good public policy reasons for a repeal of this amendment. 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."


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52246
If they want to extend preidential terms,than Someone introduce a bill to allow the people to vote the psychopaths out of office if they are a fuckup Like Bush is and get them OUT of power if the ass refuses to be checked...
FUCK THIS SHIT!!

[Journeyman]

1. If the 22nd were repealed, Bill Clinton could be President again. . .

Consider the positive, instead of dwelling on the negative.

On edit: This proposed amendment, like the 22nd, would specifically exempt the sitting President -- so if its officially proposed while Bush is in office, but only becomes law after he leaves, he would still not be eligible for a third term. President Clinton could run again, but George W. Bush could not.

[4morewars]

3. I don't think that's what these a-holes have in mind.

Sorry, but recent history tells me this can't be good.

[Journeyman]

6. You may do well to read the proposed amendment. . .

as well as the Constitution, for every similar amendment -- including specifically this one -- rules the present occupant of the White House, and anyone in the office when the Amendment passes, ineligible for its benefits. George W. Bush is specifically precluded from a third term.

[4morewars]

12. Well, you edited your post AFTER I posted,

And while I appreciate that you pointed this out, I'm going to stand by my original statement.

Here's a recent quote from the idiot that occupies the WH now:

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a god damned piece of paper."

Sorry that I can't share your optimism, but didn't we just suspend habeas corpus last week ? I believe that was once in the Constitution.

[ISUGRADIA]

14. But if this ever does get ratified it's likely to be after Jan 2009

when Bush is out of office.

[Journeyman]

48. Within the article, and within the Amendment process, the President. . .

at the time an amendment is introduced, and any President in office during the ratification process, would not be effected by the terms of the new amendment. The 22nd was introduced in Truman's first term, and ratified during his second, and it specifically exempts him from the term limit. So if we're going to revoke the 22nd at any time in our lifetime, let's introduce it while George W. is in office so he will not be eligible.

[boston bean]

24. I think people should be able to vote for whomever they want to vote for

I would have certainly voted for Clinton again. But I voted for Gore instead.

I think it helps Dems more than it hurts them.

But then again wtf do i know about any of this anyhow. It is just one woman's opinion.

[Blackthorn]

54. Can he attach a signing statement to it?

[Journeyman]

55. No. The President has nothing to do with the ratification process. . .

of Constitutional Amendments.

(Article IV, U.S. Constitution, reaffirmed by Supreme Court Decision Hollingsworth vs Virginia, 1798)

[cornermouse]

4. Looking back at Clinton's record especially through the prism of

Dubya's presidency makes me wish we could erase the last 6 years and take up when Clinton left office again, but not even for a return by Clinton would I want to see the 22nd amendment repealed.

[Leopolds Ghost]

49. Clinton's record:

NAFTA
Telecom Act
Consolidation of the media
Consolidation of the music industry
Consolidation of the IT industry
Stock market bubble
HOPE-VI
Elimination of public housing
Elimination of Welfare
Corporate sponsors to pay for the Smithsonian, NPR, PBS
Endless sex scandals
School privatization
Final dissolution of US manufacturing
"New Urbanism" -- gentrification and elimination of industry
Final dissolution of the working class --
"The remnants of the working class will need retraining"
"Masterful" economic plan composed entirely of targeted tax cuts
FTAA, CAFTA, WTO

Hmm.

No more Clintons or Tony Blairs, thanks but no thanks.

[undergroundpanther]

5. Dwelling on the negative??

Umm in case you haven't noticed Bush co isn't about to give up power, they will not go willingly.They are trying to destroy the constitution mind you.Bush wants to be a dictator.And the fucking stupid congress if they let this shit pass will enable him to be a dictator. Oh yeah Bill clinton re-elected..on a DIE-BOLD vote stealer machine.Built by and for republicans.yeah dream on.It isn't dwelling on the negative when things in reality are as fucked up as it is. It's just looking at how things are and asking myself why why change the 22nd amendment NOW when tyranny is so close at hand..I am suspicious,also considering how spineless the DEms have been with thier"dry powder" and all. Take off the rose colored glasses.Look at what is happening..

[Journeyman]

7. So you post items but do not read them before you do so? . . .

And then make snarky comments about my inability to understand what's going on.

Interesting.

Well, nothing to share here anymore. Good night.

[onenote]

36. please learn some history

The introduction of bills proposing an amendment to the constitution to repeal the 22nd Amendment is an annual event and has been for years. I only checked back as far as 1989 (the 101st Cong) and it appears, in fact, that every year several such bills are introduced. Sometimes by repubs, sometimes by Democrats, sometimes by both. Usually the bills only have a couple of co-sponsors. But in 1989, 120 members of Congress co-sponsored a 22nd Amendment repeal amendment. It didn't even get a hearing.

In other words, its not a big conspiracy and its not worth losing sleep over.

[leesa]

33. I don't want him to be President again. He's too cozy with the Crime

Family for my taste. There are planty of people to be president. We don't need to keep running the same people and families.

[Journeyman]

46. Wow. Do you expect your only choice throughout your lifetime. . .

to be Clintons and Bushes? Constitutional laws are put in place to govern the process, not individuals. This sort of thinking is what resulted in the 18th Amendment -- drink is a problem for some citizens, so no citizens should be allowed to partake.

[shadowknows69]

37. I don't want Bill Clinton as King either

term limits are there for a reason. There are always people with similar philosophies to elect.

[Journeyman]

43. Then vote the "King" out -- that would remain an option. . .

Yours is the same argument the Republicans made in 1947 when, frustrated that FDR was elected to four terms, they sought to change the playing field rather than field better players.

If straight repeal of the 22nd is a problem, and the idea of free Democracy scares you so much, consider a proposal put forward recently that would bar Presidents from serving more than two consecutive terms. This would give a President an opportunity for the nation to try an alternate route and, if dissatisfied there, return to proven leadership.

[Leopolds Ghost]

50. That proposal already exists, it's called the 22nd. n/t

[Journeyman]

52. You should read the 22nd Amendment. . .

I do not believe it says what you think it says.


<Snip>

Section 1. 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.

[shadowknows69]

56. That I could probably live with

But given the questions about our voting system that have arisen I don't want to take the chance of Bush being cheated into office for the next 20 years.

[kentjay]

2. i think there should be terms limits

for all govt. personnel.right now we have 600 idiots ruling 300 million people.535 in the congress,9 sc,1 president and his stooges.

[Eurobabe]

8. Term limits by FAMILY, in case of BUSH one was enough in 88!!

NO MORE BUSHBOTS in office!! End nepotism now...

[Prophet 451]

11. Agreed

Relatives of a President (including, but not limited to: Siblings, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, sspouses and ex-spouses) should not be allowed to run. The office should not be synonymous with one family. OK, that means no Hillary but it also means no Jeb.

[Raksha]

41. What? You mean Chelsea Clinton could never be President?

Someday, she just might be the best person for the job.

[Leopolds Ghost]

51. What makes you think Chelsea should be Prez? Entitlement?

Noblesse oblige?

Why aren't you supporting your next-door neighbor for president? She is just as qualified for the job as Chelsea.

[Prophet 451]

53. It's a price I'm willing to pay

So long as it means no Jeb and no Bush twins, it's a worthy sacrifice.

[bluedogyellowdog]

21. That's a thought...

Except we would never have had FDR if this had been the law. Nor would Hillary Clinton be able to run. I'm not so quick to amend the Constitution. All actions have unintended consequences. The problem isn't with the Constitution as written now, it's with arrogant power grabbers like Bush and Cheney who think they can just ignore it.

[Prophet 451]

9. Don't people push these all the time?

I seem to remember that this isn't the first attempt to repeal the 22nd.

That aside, even if the wording of the bill precludes DimSon from a third term, I suspect he'd find a way around it (perhaps by having his pet SCOTUS strike that part down?) or find some other way to stick around, he's too power-crazed now to go willingly.

[rasputin1952]

25. There was talk about it during the end of Reagan's little era as well....

It all comes down to R's despising FDR, 4 terms is a bit long, but FDR was quite the extraordinary president. He had his flaws, but he guided the nation through the catastrophe brought on by Coolidge and Hoover, and he was pretty adept at dealing with all kinds of problems leading up to our entry into WWII.

When FDR died shortly into his 4th term, many an R eye glinted w/glee. They were determined to make sure that never happened again.

[magellan]

10. This has been languishing in committee since early last year

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.'.

[HereSince1628]

16. It's brought in almost every Congress since it was adopted.

It hasn't any better chance of being passed and ratified by the states than the last many times. We needn't get our jammies wrapped into knots over this.

[Chipper Chat]

13. A president should serve one 6-year term. And only one.

This would eliminate the need for a 3-year concentration on getting re-elected during her first term.

[Bucky]

18. Al Haig wants this, too. But think about what six year of a sorry pres--

um, I guess you don't really need to use your imagination to figure out what six years with a sorry ass president would be like. But still, the option of getting rid of them after four years seems desireable to me, even if we the people didn't exercise it effectively (enough) this last opportunity.

[Chipper Chat]

20. What sorry-ass president do you have in mind?

This one possibly?

[Selatius]

47. Venezuela may have solved that question for us.

Each president serves 6 year terms in Venezuela. A president in Venezuela can only serve 2 terms at most. However, if the people are not satisfied with the leader, then they can remove a sitting president through recall referendum half-way through a president's term. This means if you have a crappy leader, the people can sack him after only three years instead of waiting for four.

[izzie]

15. I think it was a GOP thing because of FDR and look at this

If it is true that the world is going liberal, wanting govt. to do things. and more people around the world vote it looks to me like it is really a more liberal voting field here and world wide. I can not see the GOP letting that happen as liberals may stay in power. You may say I am off the mark but it looks to me that the things wanted by the people from their govt. have moved up in wants and that is liberal. Also look what the so called party that is not liberal has done. Made govt. bigger. I think we need the exchange of different parties in power. Best is always one part of Congress being a different party. If people do not want them in power they will vote them out. I also do not like this really 12 years of a Bush then 8 years of Clinton and another 8 years of Bush and now maybe another Clinton. Give me a brake from this mind set. Like having the Royals back. Almost like they are all evil because they have been feeding off the tax payers to long. They all come from the same think tank also. A few elite colleges. They are starting to look like clones.

[Ioo]

17. to repeal it would take another Cons Amendment, never pass ever...

So don't worry...

[bluedogyellowdog]

19. This comes up every congress

A bill to repeal the 22nd comes up every session and never goes anywhere. In the past it was always a handful of Democrats sponsoring it. A symbolic thing I would guess because the 22nd was originally passed in opposition after the fact to FDR. I wouldn't worry about this passing. Bush is so arrogant anyhow that if he wants a third term he would just issue a "signing statement" saying he reserves the right to run for a third term and the Constitution be damned. He wouldn't care one way or the other.

[onenote]

31. exactly.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Every Congress literally dozens of consitutional amendments are proposed (ban income taxes, return election of senators to state legislatures, deny citizenship to childen of noncitizens, etc etc etc).

[Bucky]

22. Why I like the 22nd Amendment

Normally I dislike institutional term limits. When they're proposed for Congress, I argue against them. But the power of the president in age of the imperial presidency is so great and so subject to abuse that I think it's best to set the limit forward that a president simply can't continue in office for a third term.

Our democracy is not so short on talent that we need to keep in office any one individual person. But human nature is weak enough and vain enough--and these flaws are the basis for most of the checks and balances built into our Constitution--that some limitations really ought to be placed on the individuals being entrusted with so much power and priviledge.

The Framers envisioned a differently balanced government than what we have today. They wanted the legislature to be the source of most federal authority. That hasn't worked out. The executive branch has taken over the most important function of the Congress--creating a budget for the government. Congress still votes for it, but the executive makes all the important decisions. Much of our public policies and the final authority of the government to accept responsibility for unaddressed public problems has shifted to the executive and judicial branches--mostly as a result of the irresponsibility of the federal and state legislatures.

With all that power, you really need to set up some hefty roadblocks along the road to tyranny. The 22nd Amendment does exactly that. Much as I love and admire the Big Dog, he did have a certain arrogance problem. For that matter, so have most of our presidents in the last century. It's probably endemic to the personality type it takes to get elected in the first place. Arrogance and inflated egos are key ingredients in creating demogogues and tyrants. Confidence in the ability of the country to produce new and equally capable leaders in times of need is the cure for that danger.

[mmonk]

23. Let's keep the amendment. If you ever needed proof of

the need for its existence, the last 6 six years have been it. It doesn't matter if it doesn't apply to bush as we could get another neocon in the future.

[JerseygirlCT]

26. No, Steny. What's undemocratic are the two elections the current

president stole.

[Mass]

27. Clinton and Bush's supporters teaming up to create a monarchy.

Do we really think there is only ONE man able to be president?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

28. Arnold must have slipped Steny some $$$ under the table...

[onenote]

30. huh?

what does arnold have to do with this?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

34. Oh, my mistake. I was thinking of amendment so that non-native born

could become prez.

[zulchzulu]

29. One stipulation: you'd have to read a paragraph without fucking up

That rule would stop Bush from ever being able to run for President again.

[atreides1]

32. For now

Until the final conference yanks that provision out of the final agreement, like they usually do.

And the people won't find out about it until it's too late.

[Cleita]

35. Sooo, if they get this passed before 2008, Bush can run again

and another election can be rigged. It could backfire on them though.

[onenote]

40. Big and insurmountable if.

Its not going anywhere, just like the dozens (and I mean that quite literally) proposals similar to this that have been introduced every year for the past 17 years (and almost certainly longer if I wanted to take the time to check) have gone absolutely nowhere. If you want to worry about this one, I suggest you also worry about the annual proposal to amend the constitution to eliminate the income tax or the occasional proposal to return elections of Senators to state legislatures (instead of popular vote). None of these things have any chance of actually going anywhere.

Among the many reasons it won't go anywhere? Even if it could get out of committee, it won't get the necessary votes in either the House or the Senate (there isn't even a Senate companion proposal AFAIK). How can be so sure? Well, the fact that virtually no one is co-sponsoring it is a pretty good indication.

And even if it did get out of the Congress within the next year, it would still have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, which also isn't likely to ever happen and certainly couldn't happen before the 2008 primaries, etc.

Plus, chimpy couldn't get elected dogcatcher, rigged voting or not.

[BlackVelvet04]

38. I agree that this is a very bad idea.

Given the insecurity of our voting system it would be too easy for any president to see that the elections are skewed in his favor, over and over and over again.

[DiverDave]

39. This is a BAD bill

No way, no how is this a good thing for the people of this country.

[napi21]

42. Bad idea. First of all, MOST of the time, after 2-4year terms, the

American people are tired of that one guy, and want someone different!

Second, I don't know why these twoReps want to repeal this ammendment, but it takes YEARS to ammend the US Constitution, whether you are adding and ammendment or changing an existing one.

Third, I seriously doubt they would eever get 2/3 state approval!

These calls for ammendments are always politically motivated, and I'm sure this one is too. I just don't know their motivation YET!

[Initech]

44. God, if they find a way to keep this asshole in power...

I honestly dont know what I will do. I'll leave the country even on the minuscule budget I have.

[Selatius]

45. GOOD then! We just need ANOTHER FDR in there!!!

That will make Sensenbrenner rethink his fucking position, wouldn't it???

[bamacrat]

57. How fast would Clinton be flown to Washington if this happened?

[warrens]

58. 22nd Amendment was a Repuke, anti-Roosevelt effort

They're all for term limits. For Democrats. Not for them.