PDA

View Full Version : Act to repeal 22nd amendment (limiting presidential terms)



Apotheosis
03-18-2006, 01:40 AM
This is probably old news, but someone I was talking to brought it to my attention. I am not sure what the status of it is, nor am I sure that anyone in their right mind would pass it.

Posted as is on the Library of Congress's website:

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


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`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.'.

Apotheosis
03-18-2006, 01:43 AM
This is similar to something called an "Enabling Act", the most famous of which went through preceeding Hitler's ascent to power in Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act

The Enabling Act (Ermächtigungsgesetz in German) was passed by Germany's parliament (the Reichstag) on March 23, 1933. It was the second major step after the Reichstag Fire Decree through which the Nazis obtained dictatorial powers using largely legal means. The Act enabled Chancellor Adolf Hitler and his cabinet to enact laws without the participation of the Reichstag.

The formal name of the Enabling Act was Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich ("Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich").

Ebondale
03-18-2006, 03:10 AM
I'm sure that King George with his 34% approval rating would CERTAINLY get re-elected. *rolls eyes*

:)

Suppa Hobbit Mage
03-18-2006, 04:10 AM
Probably as certain as some members of this board that he would lose the last election.

Not that I'd vote for him for a third term.

Sean of the Thread
03-18-2006, 08:27 AM
Probably as certain as some members of this board that he would lose the last election.

Not that I'd vote for him for a third term.


Most of this board (minus the couple idiots who stand on a soap box then end up not voting) were dead set he didn't have a chance.

Three terms is too long for anyone.

I'd still like to see term limits in the Senate.

Artha
03-18-2006, 09:01 AM
This happens all the time (with lots of presidents), but it's always blocked.

Gan
03-18-2006, 09:11 AM
I'd like to see term limits on all elected official positions. That would cure a lot of political cancer on capitol hill and in the state legislatures.

Skirmisher
03-18-2006, 11:19 AM
Probably as certain as some members of this board that he would lose the last election.

Not that I'd vote for him for a third term.

You wouldn't vote for the shrub for a third term?

Well thank goodness!

Bring back Bill!

radamanthys
03-18-2006, 03:03 PM
Guys like Ted Kennedy need the boot. I agree with Ganalon- Term limits for all elected positions state or county and above. Some local positions would be too difficult to re-fill that often with a quality candidate.

WhiteTrash
03-18-2006, 03:46 PM
I'm sure that King George with his 34% approval rating would CERTAINLY get re-elected. *rolls eyes*

:)


We won't have to vote for him to make it. Voting machines can easily be tampered with and leave no kind of audit trail.
The head of Diebold is a strong supporter of Bush

Hulkein
03-18-2006, 04:04 PM
ITZ A CONSPIRACY!!111

Snapp
03-18-2006, 04:45 PM
Bring back Bill!
:yeahthat: I'd definitely vote for him.

Drew
03-18-2006, 04:56 PM
We won't have to vote for him to make it. Voting machines can easily be tampered with and leave no kind of audit trail.
The head of Diebold is a strong supporter of Bush


Backlash?

Drew
03-18-2006, 04:58 PM
btw, who the heck is Apotheosis and how did he get so many posts without me ever seeing his name? Or is this one of those people who changed their name during that time when we had a glut of name changes?

Sean of the Thread
03-18-2006, 05:18 PM
Yeah bring back Bill for a few good laughs and a few more rapes. Oh I guess you would get all the corruption back with him as well.


Apothesis is Yswithe.

Snapp
03-18-2006, 05:20 PM
btw, who the heck is Apotheosis and how did he get so many posts without me ever seeing his name? Or is this one of those people who changed their name during that time when we had a glut of name changes?
He is the poster formerly known as Yswithe.

ElanthianSiren
03-19-2006, 05:40 PM
Yeah bring back Bill for a few good laughs and a few more rapes. Oh I guess you would get all the corruption back with him as well.



None of the current or past (2 term) presidents could be elected to longer terms; the law would only apply to presidents who have not yet been elected. To allow shrub a third term, they'd have to first repeal ex poste facto.

-M

Hulkein
03-19-2006, 05:42 PM
Does it make you feel tough to call the guy 'shrub'?

Ebondale
03-19-2006, 05:43 PM
Does it make you feel tough to swing from his nuts like you're Tarzan, Hulkein?

ElanthianSiren
03-19-2006, 05:59 PM
Does it make you feel tough to call the guy 'shrub'?


No actually, it makes me feel amused. I'm sorry if I offended you; I'll refer to him next time by his most recent poll monikers of liar and idiot.

-M

Hulkein
03-19-2006, 06:00 PM
Doesn't offend me, I just find it amusing that a person of at least average intelligence gets amused by calling someone 'shrub' because their name is Bush.


Does it make you feel tough to swing from his nuts like you're Tarzan, Hulkein?

That doesn't make sense, I wasn't defending him...

Ebondale
03-19-2006, 06:01 PM
My ass.

Hulkein
03-19-2006, 06:02 PM
.... I already explained why I was interested and asked her a question. Has nothing to do with party affiliation, it just reminds me of an unoriginal playground geek. "HAHAHA HEY SHRUB WHATS UP!"

ElanthianSiren
03-19-2006, 06:26 PM
Doesn't offend me, I just find it amusing that a person of at least average intelligence gets amused by calling someone 'shrub' because their name is Bush.



That doesn't make sense, I wasn't defending him...


I'm sure there are individuals on this board who have been amused, in the past, by much simpler things. Maybe you can spend sunday searching the post archives for your entertainment :)

-M

WhiteTrash
03-19-2006, 07:12 PM
Backlash?


Nah man, just White Trash. I'm new here

Ilvane
03-19-2006, 07:17 PM
I think Ted Kennedy is great, though I'm not totally against term limits either.

People who talk about him being a jerk are usually people who have no clue about what kind quality things he has helped to get passed, and how much work he has done. Hello, the guy could have retired from all of it and lived off his money, but he chose to serve.

-A

ElanthianSiren
03-19-2006, 07:50 PM
.... I already explained why I was interested and asked her a question. Has nothing to do with party affiliation, it just reminds me of an unoriginal playground geek. "HAHAHA HEY SHRUB WHATS UP!"

Perhaps you should create a thread to ask numerous posters here why several, including republicans, call him Shrub, if the matter is such a burning political question for you. You could also accept that it is a normal nickname for the man on this forum, however and stop trolling.

If not trolling, it seems you're then requesting a more mature decorum on the forum. -Good luck with the later and thanks for the laugh at your hypocrisy.

-M

Hulkein
03-19-2006, 07:54 PM
<< Perhaps you should create a thread to ask numerous posters here why several, including republicans, call him Shrub, if the matter is such a burning political question for you. >>

Not a burning question, just enough for me to ask you here.

Sorry if you can't grasp that.

ElanthianSiren
03-19-2006, 08:06 PM
I think Ted Kennedy is great, though I'm not totally against term limits either.

People who talk about him being a jerk are usually people who have no clue about what kind quality things he has helped to get passed, and how much work he has done. Hello, the guy could have retired from all of it and lived off his money, but he chose to serve.

-A


Not to argue with you about the goodness of serving, but I feel the need to point out that politicans have, as has been highlighted to us recently, made fortunes from their political careers, beyond their official money (or at least evaded some of their primary needs). I feel that term limits for politicans could at least eliminate some of the push for pointless projects and thus curtail spending (Alaska's Road to Nowhere anyone?).

I'd like to see:
Supreme Court Justices limited to 25 years
State Legislature 20 years
Congress 10 years
President 8 years

I chose these numbers because I felt that a quarter century was plenty of time for a justice to leave a mark and because the lifetime appointment idea makes me nervous. Often, working on state legislature is the building block to get into congress, and I felt two decades of public service to the state would give constiuents the opportunity to really know the person in question; further, it would mean, even if someone VERY popular was in office, there would likely be an opening. I think the presidential term limit is dead on and haven't advocated repealing it.

-M

ElanthianSiren
03-19-2006, 08:07 PM
<< Perhaps you should create a thread to ask numerous posters here why several, including republicans, call him Shrub, if the matter is such a burning political question for you. >>

Not a burning question, just enough for me to ask you here.

Sorry if you can't grasp that.


Next time, keep in mind then that U2U works better if your question is not intended for the entire forum :)

-M

Sean of the Thread
03-19-2006, 09:55 PM
I think Ted Kennedy is great, though I'm not totally against term limits either.

People who talk about him being a jerk are usually people who have no clue about what kind quality things he has helped to get passed, and how much work he has done. Hello, the guy could have retired from all of it and lived off his money, but he chose to serve.

-A

Rofl.. you just called Ted Kennedy great AHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Ted Kennedy is THE BEST example of needing to set a term limit in the Senate. The guy is complete garbage.

Back
03-19-2006, 10:03 PM
Ted Kennedy is THE BEST example of needing to set a term limit in the Senate. The guy is complete garbage.

Source?

Artha
03-19-2006, 10:13 PM
Source?
Hmm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy#Chappaquiddick)...

Back
03-20-2006, 12:50 AM
Thank you, Artha. And thats exactly my point. When do sources become relevant? Because they are YOUR sources?

I see a lot of shit about posting sources. I see a lot of hypocrisy in saying one source is a “liberal rag” then turing around and saying “thats a tin-foil hat wearing source.”

According to some people, the actual TRUTH, is a pipedream. In the words of Rage Against the Machine. Wake Up!

Sean of the Thread
03-20-2006, 02:11 AM
Thank you, Artha. And thats exactly my point. When do sources become relevant? Because they are YOUR sources?

I see a lot of shit about posting sources. I see a lot of hypocrisy in saying one source is a “liberal rag” then turing around and saying “thats a tin-foil hat wearing source.”

According to some people, the actual TRUTH, is a pipedream. In the words of Rage Against the Machine. Wake Up!


No dumbfuck.. stating my opinion about Teddy does not REQUIRE A FUCKING SOURCE. You dick lickers state <insert lefty conspiracy of the week> as fact and after refusing to provide sources or end up providing a liberal rag (or 7) that's when you get a STFU.

Teddy is an absolute moral degenerate as were most the Kennedys INCLUDING JFK. You don't need a Tsa'ah like superior intellect to figure it out.

Back
03-20-2006, 02:45 AM
You dick lickers state <insert lefty conspiracy of the week> as fact and after refusing to provide sources or end up providing a liberal rag (or 7) that's when you get a STFU.

So, according to you, any source outside the mainstream media is a wacked out liberal source. Then again, the mainstream media is a wacked out liberal source.

So, what is the ultimate source? You? The White House?

I've been wrong about you. You aren't really a hateful griefing moron, you are just a sublime humorist.

Caiylania
03-20-2006, 05:37 AM
I think Presidential terms are fine as is. And I think all politicians should have terms - no 'lifetime' appointments for sure.

Ted Kennedy has done a few good things, but he is a man of low morals and I really wish politicians were not allowed to have any federal crime records. He killed a woman basically. I mean shit.

Sean of the Thread
03-20-2006, 10:03 AM
>>So, what is the ultimate source? You? The White House?<<

NO dumbass. The ultimate source is Joan Quigley. Get with the program.

>>I've been wrong about you. You aren't really a hateful griefing moron, you are just a sublime humorist.<<

Once again you're incorrect. I'm just a jaded sublime humorist who griefs without hate.

Gan
03-20-2006, 10:21 AM
I agree with ES on her term limit ideas (years) except I'd limit state to 10 instead of 20.

And TK is not in this for the money, its power... and thats something not easily given up. Especially when your family legacy is so entrenched in it. He should have retired a long time ago.

DeV
03-20-2006, 10:45 AM
I chose these numbers because I felt that a quarter century was plenty of time for a justice to leave a mark and because the lifetime appointment idea makes me nervous. Often, working on state legislature is the building block to get into congress, and I felt two decades of public service to the state would give constiuents the opportunity to really know the person in question; further, it would mean, even if someone VERY popular was in office, there would likely be an opening. I think the presidential term limit is dead on and haven't advocated repealing it.

-MAgreed. As it stands, appointments to the highest court in the land have become much more political than in previous years and highly unbalanced in some aspects such as when one president appoints as many as two justices while another appoints none.

Perhaps post-Rehnquist, the winds may shift. I don't think it'd be a bad idea for the court to develop its own retirement guidelines.

Skirmisher
03-20-2006, 11:51 AM
Doesn't offend me, I just find it amusing that a person of at least average intelligence gets amused by calling someone 'shrub' because their name is Bush.
I call him the shrub when it suits me because i choose to take a moment to show my disdain for him and his complete lack of ability to handle the job.

Does it amuse me? I don't think that plays into it so much. He is our president who has been at the helm as he has piloted this country on a horrendous course. I find that much more sad than amusing.



That doesn't make sense, I wasn't defending him...
And of course you were in your customary turn the argument aside manner as there is no way on gods green earth anyone is going to try to really stand up and say how good a job he has done so lets try to point the discussion about why someone is calling him a shrub rather than the debacle his presidency has shown itself to be.

Makkah
03-20-2006, 11:52 AM
hahhhhhahahah Shrub

Latrinsorm
03-20-2006, 12:54 PM
Agreed. As it stands, appointments to the highest court in the land have become much more political than in previous years and highly unbalanced in some aspects such as when one president appoints as many as two justices while another appoints none.The advantage to this, like tenure for professors, is that once appointed Justices are as immune to political manipulation as they want to be. Think how crummy it would be if the party in power could toss any Justice that didn't rule the way they wanted. I agree that lifetime terms for appointed politicians in general is a no-no (just look at Canada's Senate), but Justices aren't exactly politicians.

Landrion
03-20-2006, 01:33 PM
I dont think I would vote for Bush a third time.

CrystalTears
03-20-2006, 01:46 PM
I don't think I would vote anyone, past or present, for a third term.

DeV
03-20-2006, 02:25 PM
The advantage to this, like tenure for professors, is that once appointed Justices are as immune to political manipulation as they want to be. Granted, everyone knows the court's selection process is highly politicized leading up to an appointment. However, they are not immune to the vulnerabilities of situational manipulation when dealing with specific cases.


Think how crummy it would be if the party in power could toss any Justice that didn't rule the way they wanted. Agreed! That'd certainly be crummy. Thankfully noone has proposed such a ludicrous gesture.
Justices aren't exactly politicians.Certainly not this day in age.

Latrinsorm
03-20-2006, 04:07 PM
I don't think I would vote anyone, past or present, for a third term.I'd have voted for Wilson if he was healthy, Taft if he had been so inclined and had won his second election, and it'd be hard to go against FDR.

Wezas
03-20-2006, 04:29 PM
I'd vote Clinton for a third, though the hummer issues would likely have the republicans impeaching him again.

Artha
03-20-2006, 07:48 PM
I only wish I could vote Reagan in for a third term.

Landrion
03-20-2006, 10:06 PM
I only wish I could vote Reagan in for a third term.

Funny you should mention that. I also remember Reagan's terms fondly. However the other day I was watching a retrospective on his time and was honestly surprised how bad things were for him at several points. I suppose it's easier to remember the good parts. There were periods in Reagans tenure where it looked like the economy was going to flat out collapse and he very much came off as this a fool too focused on his "Reaganomics" to do anything about it.

And then the Donald Regan time period made it sound like the man was barely in control of the county or his faculties. As I said, these were things Id really entirely forgotten now. I dont even need to bring up the Iran Contra affair.

There was a scandal about Nancy supposedly running the country on the advice of astrologists and fortune tellers. An offhand joke he made about bombing Russia that went over the air and caused a scandal... it wasnt all wine and roses for the gipper.

Mabus
03-21-2006, 03:58 PM
Term limits were discussed and outright rejected at the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

"Nothing appears more plausible at first sight, nor more ill-founded upon close inspection." -Alexander Hamilton

"Frequent elections are necessary to preserve the good behavior of rulers. They also tend to give permanency to the Government, by preserving that good behavior, because it ensures their re-election." -Roger Sherman

There is much to be said about Sherman's statement. If an elected official knows he cannot be reelected he does not have to act according to his constituents best interests (not to say the majority of politicians currently do).

It seems an "easy fix", term limits, but in the end it will change little and may become more problematic then our current system.

To fix the current problems (in my opinion) take all organizational monies (unions, PACs, lobbyist, corporate) out of the system and allow only registered voters to donate to campaigns, and that with full public disclosure.

In the interest of free speech I would then remove any donation limits.

Sean of the Thread
03-21-2006, 07:42 PM
To fix the current problems (in my opinion) take all organizational monies (unions, PACs, lobbyist, corporate) out of the system and allow only registered voters to donate to campaigns, and that with full public disclosure.

In the interest of free speech I would then remove any donation limits.

Your post isn't very clear but most of us were saying that the Senate needs term limits.

There should always be donation limits.

Mabus
03-21-2006, 11:02 PM
Your post isn't very clear but most of us were saying that the Senate needs term limits.

If you look at the first part of my post you will see that I discussed how the founding fathers debated term limits and discarded them.


There should always be donation limits.

Why?

If there is complete public disclosure there should be little need for limiting what an individual registered voter could donate.

Corruption by "quid pro quo" would be easy to spot and deal with. And with the elected officials knowing they could not only be jailed (for corruption or bribery) they also know that they must face the electorate at the next election.

Terms limits do not negate quid pro quo. Terms limits could eliminate politicians from having to face the voters and then the politicians feeling more free to act improperly.

Latrinsorm
03-21-2006, 11:45 PM
Terms limits could eliminate politicians from having to face the voters and then the politicians feeling more free to act improperly.Conversely, term limits also enable politicians to buck their particular party without having to worry about getting that support back to get re-elected (as they can't be re-elected anyway). It makes more sense to make laws against improper behavior than to rely on elections once every 2-6 years where the other guy/gal could be even worse.

TheEschaton
03-24-2006, 05:39 AM
I only wish I could vote Reagan in for a third term.

Funny, weren't you born after his first election? Possibly even his second? I know I was born after his first, and I know you're younger than me...so...


********Warning: Bitter Partisan Rancor, Backed Up by Research Most Probably Interpreted in a Bitter, Partisan Manner*********

Reagan is a taint on the legacy of our country.

We shouldn't vote him into a third term, we should vote to kill him again.

********end rancor***********

-TheE-

Warriorbird
03-24-2006, 08:51 AM
Think of Reagan whenever you pay tuition.

Parkbandit
03-24-2006, 09:44 AM
This is similar to something called an "Enabling Act", the most famous of which went through preceeding Hitler's ascent to power in Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act

The Enabling Act (Ermächtigungsgesetz in German) was passed by Germany's parliament (the Reichstag) on March 23, 1933. It was the second major step after the Reichstag Fire Decree through which the Nazis obtained dictatorial powers using largely legal means. The Act enabled Chancellor Adolf Hitler and his cabinet to enact laws without the participation of the Reichstag.

The formal name of the Enabling Act was Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich ("Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich").


GEORGE BUSH IS THE NEXT HITLER!

Sorry to break my own New Years Resolution.. but thanks for the laugh today.

You are most certainly retarded.

Warriorbird
03-24-2006, 09:45 AM
Eh. It's just stupidity that either party does when it gets too big for its britches.

Parkbandit
03-24-2006, 09:48 AM
Presidents should be limited to 2 terms imo.

Congress should be limited to 3 terms imo.

xtc
03-24-2006, 11:31 AM
I think term limits are a good idea. I wish we had them in Canada.