• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

House introduces bill to begin process of repealing the 22nd Amendment

Son Goku

No lover of dogma
#1
At the start of class today, the teacher made mention of this and asked if anyone in the class has heard of this. A slight google search does bring up some hits, though whether it has made it to the major national media or not, not sure. There are links to the Congressional record on this one page, on the site for the Library of Congress, so it would be possible to check this one out...

BTW, the 22nd Amendment is wrt term limits. If the proposition goes through the necessary steps to modify the Constitution (as it now stands) in time, Bush could end up being the first President since Roosevelt to be able to run for more then 2 terms. That is if the repeal would be successful in time...

http://ontario.indymedia.ca/twiki/bin/view/Ontario/BushForLifeGOPIntroducesNewBillToCongress

Bush for Life: GOP introduces new bill to Congress
by CPSC

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:
 

gonaads

Beware the G-Man
Political User
#3
They must be worried that they can't win again... without doing something, errrrrrrrrr, fishy... again. And that would be just to plain obvious. :p
 
#5
Good luck getting 33 states to ratify it. I propose term limits on congressmen and senators.

I can't remember who on this board said it first, but it bears repeating...

"Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed often and for the same reason."
 

Grandmaster

Electronica Addict
Political User
#6
I think they should then increase the length of their terms too (if a limit is placed), with the way the current system works they are pretty much campaigning non-stop.
 

melon

MS-DOS 2.0
Political User
#9
Funny. They're the ones that proposed the amendment originally, not to mention that they proposed all the state term limits amendments in the 1990s. Self-serving jackasses. I hope they get the boot in 2006.

Melon
 

Johnny

.. Commodore ..
Political User
#10
I don't look for it to happen. I would vote against it myself. I don't care who the person is, I think more than two terms not good.
 

Heeter

Overclocked Like A Mother
#11
Gonaads,

That would be an idea that I would agree with. Mind you, living in Canada, We have to live this unlimited terms for the Prime Minister, which is a crock. Extending the term Of George Bush would be a grave international disaster. We as a country see the government of the US, day by day, eroding the civil rights of all it's civilians. Continuing this under Dubya's leadership simply cannot be comprehended. Up here, the last knucklehead/thief, or whatever we can call him that was in office, he was in there for nearly 16 years. And the party that he was part of will be in there for another long while. Good thing I live in Alberta, we should be absolved from the rest of the country by 2010. Grassroots level independence is finally taking hold here.

I am sorry, but I am trying to steal the thread here, just pointing out the differences between our government terms limits.

Heeter
 

Son Goku

No lover of dogma
#12
melon said:
Funny. They're the ones that proposed the amendment originally, not to mention that they proposed all the state term limits amendments in the 1990s. Self-serving jackasses. I hope they get the boot in 2006.

Melon
Ya know, somoene brought this very fact came up in class when the teacher mentioned this... Ironic actually, and yet it is not an irony that surprises me when it comes to politics.

Too bad we don't have anyone like George Washington in politics today; who actually refused to run a third term when peeps asked him. His reason, he was very much opposed to the idea of the President becomming some sort of king (as they had before they declared independence in the first place). Instead, what we have, and looking at Congress is career politicians who seem to remain in office for life :(

Unwonted said:
I can't remember who on this board said it first, but it bears repeating...

"Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed often and for the same reason."
I don't know who said it first, but I whole heartedly agree :up: Good one, whoever came up with it :D
 

melon

MS-DOS 2.0
Political User
#13
FDR may have been able to pull off four terms, but I think he's a unique case. I would say that most everyone would be a disaster beyond two terms, Republican and Democrat alike.

Melon
 
#14
Johnny said:
I don't look for it to happen. I would vote against it myself. I don't care who the person is, I think more than two terms not good.
I'm sickened that we allow unlimited terms to happen in congress and the senate. I like Gonaad's idea too--6 years for the Pres, one shot. And do the same thing with legislator's terms too. But getting them to make a bill like that would be like getting them to vote themselves a pay cut...
 

Perris Calderon

Moderator
Staff member
Political User
#15
ha...here I am going to agree with the republican point of view on this one.

I have to disclaim first, this would ONLY be if there were a paper trail and accounatability for election results...effectively, these don't exist right now.

however, if I could be insured that voting was accurate, I have no problem with government officials remaining in office as long as they can convince their constituants that they belong in office

the real problems arise with the facilities that are available to people in office which might help them stay in office that aren't available to those trying to get into office.

things like press releases that are given more readily if you are in office then not, and contacts that you've made will endorse and contribute because they know they have an "in"

maybe problems like that can't be fixed, but if they could be fixed, I wouldn't mind letting constituants choose who they want in office
 

Son Goku

No lover of dogma
#17
perris said:
ha...here I am going to agree with the republican point of view on this one.

I have to disclaim first, this would ONLY be if there were a paper trail and accounatability for election results...effectively, these don't exist right now.
Thing is, to your list, I would have to add some things. All said though, I have very limited trust in/for politicians in general...

First there's how candidates are selected. A vote gives one the right to chose among the candidates offered, but one doesn't for all practical purposes have an unlimited right of choice. One thing can almost certainly be assured, either a Democrat or a Republican will win the presidential race. A third party, has virtually no chance whatsoever...

I don't remember the name of the case, but do remember this from Constitutional Law. Basically the US Supreme Court ruled that the right to vote not only gave one the right to choose which candidate to vote for, but also gave them the right to have representative candidates run for office. They further argued that it was the responsibility of the political parties themselves to present the people with representative choices.

And yet on that latter point, do people feel either candidate represents them? Given low voter turnout in many cases, coupled with people's reasons for not voting "I didn't like either candidate", "voting for the lesser of evils", etc, I think an argument can be made against this. South Park sumarized it nicely "voting between a Turd Sandwitch and a Giant Dousche" :laugh:

Now, to how the political parties (that hold the real power here) chose which candidate they'll put into the primary and which they won't. Back when I was living in Maine (my parents retired there when I was 16), there was a rather active Democratic party at the grass roots level. (The Repubs didn't seem so active there...) Anyhow, I ended up becomming a Delegate for Jerry Brown, almost became an elector (except my town was on the district line itself...), had been on the county committee, and was vice chair on the town...

At one of the meetings, I asked someone I knew had been elected to the DNC how the party selection committees worked, and if he was aware how the candidates got chosen which we would then vote for. Even he didn't seem to sure...

Now, the chance of a "virtual nobody" running for office, who might have views more representative of what the public wants? I'd have to add to the list

- Reprisentative candidates that really are a choice on who best represents the public and is what they want

- An easier chance for someone who isn't a career politician to get into the system, without being "locked out" by those who have established themselves and have a vested interest in keeping anyone else out of their turf of national rulership...

- You do mention media manipulation (what some of it comes down to) This of course also gets down to manipulating the information by which the public exercises it's right to chose. If people are deliberately mis-informed, they're stated choice might not reflect what they really want (and would say) "had we known..."

I do find the timing of all this (6 month's into Bush's second term), more then coincidental, and rather suggestive though...
 

iamtaylormade

One Step from The Edge
#19
I will preface this post with this thought.

Everyone has their opinions, each their own and each different in some way, especially when speaking about politics and religion.

I find it a bit sad that we, as people, just looking for a site where we can all be as one with each other would bring politics into the light of discussion. Why do we care at this site? Furthermore, we should be apolitical here just so we can keep our eyes on the matters that really count. Do any of you have an infallible government system? Have any of you run for office? When is the last time that you voted? If you have done these things then my hat is off to you, you are representing you country and yourself and should be proud, otherwise, I don’t feel you should opine.

For those of you that are outside of the U.S. soil and are continuing to bash our government, president or anything else, I think you need to get the whole story before making assumptions. You must live here, work here and move about here to understand the real stories, not just those cited on the boob tube. I have worked inside and outside of the U.S. Gov’t (Inside and outside our borders) and have many friends that I meet with regularly from outside the borders, sadly they only see what is advertised by our lovely media, the same media that told us that O.J. and Michael Jackson are/were innocent and convinced others that it was so.

I feel that the amendment could be changed and it wouldn’t be so bad IF people got out and voted and removed the bums when they were in office, regardless of the political affiliation. The U.S. has impeachment for a reason and it works when it is properly used. Term limits should be put into place for the Senate and Congress because representatives do and always will become too powerful and or corrupt, it’s just human nature, so don’t think you and or I wouldn’t make a few arrangements to have your friend(s) get a special contract or the like. How many times have you contributed to somebody’s “power” or “reputation” on this site because they agree with your opinions or you are some type of friend to them.

The term of four years is too short for any President, it takes that long for the changes just to take place (most of the time), six to eight years would be plenty of time for a one time shot for the Pres and eight to ten would be plenty for the representatives to make their mark as well.

If power over a long period of time is bad, and I agree that it can be, when do we begin to change the moderators of this site to live up to the same philosophy? :disappointed:

“Why can’t we all just get along?”
 

Maveric169

The Voices Talk to Me
#20
To be honest I am kinda torn on this issue. On one hand the ability to server more than 2 terms could be a good thing with the right president, but could also be a VERY bad thing with a bad one. However, even if a president could serve more than 2 terms, I still feel that every 2 years that person would have to be re-elected.

Here is my reasoning on this. In the first year of office, a president is really just getting "into the grove" of things and learning how to operate the presidential processes. In the 2nd year, he has (or should) a good idea of what needs to happen and how to go about making that happen. But, with our political enviroment it can take more than just 1 or even 4 years to get 1 single thing accomplished. This is where the ability to server say a 3rd term (if elected) could be very benifical. But no matter what I feel that anything over 6 years in office would lead to rampant coruption.

To me it is really a coin toss. I would really hate to see GWB in office for another term, he is not too bad, but not all that great either. (I wish we he had better opponents in the election, but saddly he was the lesser of the evils). It is really a mixed bag.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Perris Calderon wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Ep, glad to see you come back and tidy up...did want to ask a one day favor, I want to enhance my resume , was hoping you could make me administrator for a day, if so, take me right off since I won't be here to do anything, and don't know the slightest about the board, but it would be nice putting "served administrator osnn", if can do, THANKS

Been running around Quora lately, luv it there https://tinyurl.com/ycpxl
Electronic Punk wrote on Perris Calderon's profile.
All good still mate?
Hello, is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me ...
Xie
What a long strange trip it's been. =)

Forum statistics

Threads
61,962
Messages
673,240
Members
89,015
Latest member
loxioalix