Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

smitty_one_each's Journal: Yeah, right 14

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

HJ 5 IH

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'The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.'

I submit that the overall stability of these United States is directly proportional to the number of personalities involved in driving it.
Single point of failure systems are teh suck.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Yeah, right

Comments Filter:
  • Why is this being put forth? Prolly because it would be "a clear victory for the people". And "a clear victory for the revolution". [guardian.co.uk]

  • ... which is a huge if, but I'll play along...

    What would be the problem? It removes restrictions on how many terms one president can serve, it says nothing about their elections. If it passed, and Obama were to be re-elected in 2012, and he wanted to serve a third term, he would still have to run in 2016.

    That is a whole lot of iffy-ness there. Really, if congress wanted to swear in a president-for-life, there is no reason why they would need to repeal the 22nd amendment first. Worrying about the pot
    • by NonSequor (230139)

      It concerns me any time I see a political party trying to build a nest. I think that any time a political party says "Well this is a nice place to set up shop. Let's unpack our things," it means trouble. I felt the same way when some people were eying Jeb as a replacement Bush.

      There are some very good elements to the two-term limit. They have one term where they have to keep an eye on their approval rating and possibly one term where they're less confined. There's good and bad to both of those and I think w

      • Jeb is a dead letter.
        Irrespective of whether or not he's a talented leader, at the national level, dynastic politicians have all the appeal of "professional" politicians, i.e., jackasses who can win a popularity contest and tickle the ear, but couldn't last a week in a real company.
  • I am confused... is this something new? Sounds a little like someone going up in arms about the removal of the need to be a US Citizen to be President to allow Arnold S. to become president...

    Nice thing about a democracy is the ability to see the bill being passes. The required access to the public on any bill. We get to see, we get to voice our points, and we help steer the government.

    This form of change has always been proposed on every side of the politic. It never goes far.

    And being a democracy

    • There had been, until FDR, an unwritten rule placed by Washington that two terms as POTUS is enough.
      You just can't show that there is another person of at least equal caliber in a population this size.
      So give it up!
      This slouching towards a crisis state where only a single personality can save us is the antithesis of the Constitution.
  • If that retard W were still in office.

    • Abso-effing-lutely not.
      While I'm more generous with the man on foreign policy topics, he was a RINO's RINO domestically.
      He did a lousy job of translating his re-election into something that could alter the course of the ship of state to starboard, i.e., away from the collectivist shoals upon which his successor is now stacking up said vessel.
      • Ok, that's fair. What if it were Regan, before he lost his mind?

        • Reagan was good as far as he went. However, GHWB, rather than building on Reagan's success and starting to attack the FDR/LBG entitlement corruption of the Tenth Amendment, instead flopped more towards the center.
          We really need to review everything since Woodrow Wilson in terms of domestic policy and set about reversing this collectivist trend, of which both W and BHO are merely symptomatic.
          Or, we become so weakened that nothing save a tyranny by a strong personality can keep the crap propped up, the ant

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro..." -- Hunter S. Thompson

Working...