REPEAL OF THE 22ND AMENDMENT?

[windbreeze]

I must apologize, I have never brought up a subject for discussion(and hope I am doing this correctly)

Today, I became aware that on February 15, 2005 HJ Res 24 IH came into being. The purpose=Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.

This Proposal was submitted by...Democrats Hoyer of Maryland...Berman of Calif....Sabo of Mn. and Pallone of N.J...and by Republican Sensenbrenner of Wis...

Anyone want to venture an explanation as to why the majority of the backers of this resolution are Democrats? Has this subject been discussed before, or am I the only one who's never heard about it before this? I expected the R's to sponsor such a proposal...but never the Dems....

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


windbreeze

[longship]

1. Because it's a non-partisan issue.

The sponsor of the bill is a Democrat!

CuckooBananas could never benefit from this, even if it is adopted which realistically could not happen for many months.

Actually, the prospects of getting *any* Constitutional Amendment through Congress (2/3 approval of both houses) and the state houses (2/3 of states) is nil at this time.

No worries.

[katsy]

10. 3/4 of the states.

[longship]

11. Of course, you are correct. Thanks.

.

[katsy]

17. I agree there is no danger...

in getting the 22nd amendment repealed very soon.

[Kerrytravelers]

2. You did fine posting.

Welcome to DU!

I have heard of this and yes, it makes me nervous. Under any other admin, I'd roll my eyes and say, sure... like this could happen. But with this group, this band of merry murders, who knows what they will pull to destroy America.

kt

[lenidog]

3. Did you ever think they wanted Clinton back?

[poverlay]

4. I'm as mystified as you.

I'm unsure of whether blow this off or be massively alarmed...

[benddem]

5. The ultimate matchup

would be the big dog against Bu$hit.

[ncteechur]

6. Clinton would wipe the floor with Bush

Won't happen--ammendment will not happen but it would be fun to see Clinton go after Bush in a debate.

[AAARRRGGGHHH]

8. That's what I've been saying!

It would almost be worth it just to have the 'debates'. Honestly, I would have those tapes running on a continuous loop in my house.

I could cancel my cable.

[FloridaPat]

7. The repubs talked about doing that when Reagan was in office.

With two Bush brothers we could be stuck with these jerks for decades even without repealing the amendment. If they ever get out of the White House, there will be a lot of war crime charges, I'm sure. Can the president pardon people for violating international law?

[wallwriter]

12. Dubya will be long gone, but I bet

they want to make Jebby President for life. They're going to run him as Veep with McCain...

[FloridaPat]

13. Bet McCain has a real short presidency.

[evlbstrd]

9. The 22nd amendment was adopted

as a reaction to FDR's unprecedented four election victories. And with verifiable paper ballots, I might add. Apparently, it's an amendment of convenience.

And Welcome to DU"
:hi:

[Orangepeel]

14. well, the 22nd Amendment *isn't* very democratic

ignoring individuals (which I realize is hard, with bush in office), it makes sense that more Democrats than Republicans would want to repeal the amendment. Aren't repubs generally more likely to support term limits?

I don't think I would support a repeal, because I don't want a "president for life" scenario. But, I recognize that it is more (small d) democratic to let people vote for who they want to vote for, regardless of how long they have been in office.

[TankLV]

15. I personally like the idea of term limits - for ALL offices.

Gets rid of the deadwood.

But of course there are drawbacks - like the forced retirement of GOOD people.

But I like the idea of "changing the bedlinnen weekly" as opposed to lying in filth no matter how pretty the sheets are!

[napi21]

16. I love the analogy! I don't want a Pres for life either!

As much as I liked BC, he did some things that did real harm to our country...like NAFTA! I personally would like a split WH and congress. Not too much gets done, but nothing really bad happens either! I't helps keep them all honest! As much as possible!!!

As for a term limited congress, it has good points and bad. The good is that no one would ever be able to gain too much power, the bad is that few, if any, would know for sure what the hell they were doing! I think I would like to try term limits for a while just to see what really happened. If you had Sens only able to run for 2 6 year terms, you'd cut down on all the time they spend raising $$, and maybe, because they wouldn't have to run for reelection, they'd actually do what they felt was best for the Country!

[Hippo_Tron]

20. Split WH and congress doesn't work anymore

We're living in an era of partisanship, a president and a congress of opposite parties can't work together when their main goals are to beat each other in the next election.

[JRob]

22. $$$ there in lays the rub...

Until corporate $$$ are forced out of politics there no chance that the people are truly represented.

Achieving political office is far too profitable and the pursuit of the career payday compels these guys to do exactly what they do, screw us.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. I agree with term limits for Presidents, not for other offices

I don't have a problem with Congressmen and Senators serving many terms if it is the will of their constituents. What I do think we need to do is have serious campaign finance reform so that incumbents don't have such a huge financial advantage.

Presidents need to be term limited because the office is so powerful, I wrote a lengthy post about this in one of the other many threads on this topic.

[windbreeze]

18. 22nd Amendment Repeal..

thank you to those who were kind enough to welcome me and to those who responded. I would like to add some further thoughts..

The junta in the WH, currently has control of the Legislative/Executive branches, and they are working at gaining more or less total control of the Judicial branch of our gov't.
They have lied, hidden documents, and been more secret than any admin ever. I realize I don't have to remind any of you what they've accomplished so far, we are all aware of it, just making a point...that NOTHING seems to faze them, and NOTHING seems to put a dent in their armor, they just keep on keeping on, and getting away with everything.

Now even considering that this would need 3/4 of Congress' approval for passage, and 3/4 of the states to ratify it(I hope I have that correct)..it bothered me, to see the majority of the proponents for the repeal, to be Democrat...why? Because our own took the initiative to propose this change and all states have either Dem/Rep governors...So say IF as some mentioned, that this was put forth as an effort to get Bill Clinton back into the WH...(how many times has anyone heard anyone else say, they wish BC was president again?) How hard would it be to get it passed through the Dems in Congress and ratified on that same premise at the states level? Remembering here, that the R's could/would say, that it wasn't them, but the Democrats who proposed it, for their own benefit, but hey, since the Dems want it, why not? Surely the R's wouldn't vote against anything that they feel could possibly benefit them? How much of a problem would a majority vote be then, either in Congress or at the state level? Could we be blindsided, and fall into a trap? (like the Dem votes for the WIR?, or the Patriot Act?)

Should we be concerned? Some of you say no. I say, never underestimate your opponent. I can't forget Bush saying, that he thought it would be fun to be a dictator, as long as he was the dictator...and I get this creepy feeling that he really doesn't intend to give up the WH.
I become more worried about this country and it's future every day..finding that this change to our Constitution had even been proposed, rattled me..and that 4 of the 5 proponents were Democrats...well..perhaps 'nuff said...
Thank you for listening..
windbreeze

[JRob]

21. I'm with you... I more or less do not find comfort in anything merely...

because "the process typically is..." this or that. I would not be surprised by any scenario at this point. Frankly there has been some pretty strange behavior/votes by Dem's lately as well. Makes you wonder just what the hell is going on.

Coupling this constitutional change with electronic voting could mean an indefinite BushCo and the end of democracy in America.

Again I find no comfort in how things have been done previously...

[baron j]

23. We should be allowed to vote every year on whether he or she gets

to stay President or not, in case we get buyers remorse (that is, in the case of a legally elected, not selected, Presidency). And make Congresspeople vote each other off, like on Survivor.