Congress wants to repeal the 22nd Amendment

[Guest tnjimbob]

This House resolution attempts to repeal the 22nd Amendment, eliminating the 2-term limit on Presidents. I'll bet you haven't heard about this in the MSM. Algore called the Constitution a living document, subject to interpretation. Congress is interpreting "change" to mean change the Constitution to meet their agenda.

How convenient to introduce this legislation days before the coronation of the exalted one!

If passed by Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the States, this clears the way for obama to rule the (soon to be former) United States of America until he dies.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hj111-5

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 5

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 may serve as President.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 6, 2009

Mr. SERRANO 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 twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

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‘The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.’.

[Guest Fenris]

seems like they tried this back in '05

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH:

[towerclimber37]

true, but now they have a majority to do it.

if it passes I estimate that it will be the last democratically elected government until the 2nd American Revolution.

[ukerduker]

Wow, will this madness ever cease? No wonder BHO wants to draw up a new Declaration of Independence. Towerclimer, you may be right. The time grows nearer until we see the new revolution.

[Reservoir Dog]

This thing doesn't even have any co-sponsors, it won't go anywhere. It won't even make it out of committee.

[eapking]

The Republicans tried this back during Reagan's 2nd term. I doubt it will happen, no matter which side tries.

[Guest GUTTERbOY]

true, but now they have a majority to do it.

if it passes I estimate that it will be the last democratically elected government until the 2nd American Revolution.

It takes a lot more than majorities in Congress to amend the Constitution. This is far different than just passing a run-of-the-mill new law.

Edited January 18, 2009 by GUTTERbOY

[Guest Arko]

It takes a lot more than majorities in Congress to amend the Constitution. This is far different than just passing a run-of-the-mill new law.

Still..the unmitigated gall of these people! How dare they spend taxpayer time and money scribing this drivel? Add the obvious disrespect for the constitution.....arrgh!

[Guest bkelm18]

It takes a lot more than majorities in Congress to amend the Constitution. This is far different than just passing a run-of-the-mill new law.

True. It has to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states. Or something like that.

[Mike.357]

the only way something like this would happen is if the new messiah makes the US the greatest place in world to live. Oh wait we already have that.

Heck a president is lucky if they can be elected to a second term. No way can one get elected for life. No way will 3/4 of the country agree on much of anything.

All this rosy glow about the Big O will fade soon enough. I give him 6 months before he seriously shoots himself in the foot or the ass.

[Guest jackdog]

still would need to be ratified by a majority of the states. Don't see that happening. But revolution damn sure works for me.

[dralarms]

I give him 6 months before he seriously shoots himself in the foot or the ass.

Or someone does it for him. You know these polititions can't keep their mouths shut. Soemone is gonna slip up and let something out that he did which will ruin our already high opinion of him.

[Guest GUTTERbOY]

Still..the unmitigated gall of these people! How dare they spend taxpayer time and money scribing this drivel? Add the obvious disrespect for the constitution.....arrgh!

As previously noted, this is nothing new... seems to get proposed every few years.

True. It has to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states. Or something like that.

And before that, the resolutions have to pass both houses with 2/3 of the vote, rather than a simple majority.

[DaveTN]

I have never supported term limits; they need to be gone.

What do you get with term limits? A President that can do whatever he likes for 50% of the time he will be in office because he doesn’t have to worry about being reelected.

If the people want to elect a president; they should be able to. A “lame duck†politician is worthless. (Even more worthless than a regular politician)

How much worse can it be than what just happened? We just had a race to see if we were going to elect a black or a woman.

[Guest bkelm18]

You get Obama for greater than 8 years, thats what you get without term limits. Thats just one example. I'm sure there are many others.

[Mike]

Naifeh.

'nuff said.

[DaveTN]

You get Obama for greater than 8 years, thats what you get without term limits. Thats just one example. I'm sure there are many others.

He isn’t even in office yet and you have him reelected for more than two terms. That argument doesn’t even make sense.

[Guest grimel]

Still..the unmitigated gall of these people! How dare they spend taxpayer time and money scribing this drivel?

Better they spend their time doing this than spending more money/further screwing up the economy.

[Guest GUTTERbOY]

I have never supported term limits; they need to be gone.

What do you get with term limits? A President that can do whatever he likes for 50% of the time he will be in office because he doesn’t have to worry about being reelected.

If the people want to elect a president; they should be able to. A “lame duck†politician is worthless. (Even more worthless than a regular politician)

How much worse can it be than what just happened? We just had a race to see if we were going to elect a black or a woman.

The "lame duck" point is a good argument against term limits. But there's also a good argument for term limits: career politicians. I don't think it's a good idea for anyone to be able to hold an elected position indefinitely; to me, it tends to breed folks who are their for themselves, rather than for their constituents.

Put another way, term limits put a limit on people retaining power for power's sake.

[Rightwinger]

the only way something like this would happen is if the new messiah makes the US the greatest place in world to live. Oh wait we already have that.

Heck a president is lucky if they can be elected to a second term. No way can one get elected for life. No way will 3/4 of the country agree on much of anything.

All this rosy glow about the Big O will fade soon enough. I give him 6 months before he seriously shoots himself in the foot or the ass.

The O must have alienated a bunch of his supporters by buying that Glock from Plax!

[DaveTN]

The "lame duck" point is a good argument against term limits. But there's also a good argument for term limits: career politicians. I don't think it's a good idea for anyone to be able to hold an elected position indefinitely; to me, it tends to breed folks who are their for themselves, rather than for their constituents.

All we have now are career politicians; term limits do nothing to stop that. By the time you become President you no longer have to be concerned with a career.

Put another way, term limits put a limit on people retaining power for power's sake.

They can’t “retain power for powers sakeâ€. They can only retain office if they are elected by the people. To take the will of the people away is wrong.

[oldogy]

Won't go anywhere.

ray, the oldogy

[BryanP]

There were people who wanted to do the same thing so Reagan could run again. No different.

Congress is interpreting "change" to mean change the Constitution to meet their agenda.

It was "changed" the first time to introduce the 2-term limit. Why is reversing the change any different?

[wjh2657]

Repealed?! I want to see term limits on Congressmen and Senators! These people are supposed to represent us not rule us. I do not believe that the drafters of the USC ever intended for Congressman or Senator to be a lifelong career with little to no contact with the people in the state/district you are supposed to represent.

[Oh Shoot]

Repealed?! I want to see term limits on Congressmen and Senators! These people are supposed to represent us not rule us. I do not believe that the drafters of the USC ever intended for Congressman or Senator to be a lifelong career with little to no contact with the people in the state/district you are supposed to represent.

Biggest failing of original founding fathers was not to write term limits in.

They didn't, because as you intimate, the idea of the "career politician" never entered their minds.

- OS