Repealing the 22nd amendment.

[T4 Primera]

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:

Article --

`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.'.

The 22nd Amendment

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section. 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

Ratification was completed on February 27, 1951.

Why is this suddenly necessary? or is this one of those political footballs that resurfaces every so often when politicians have nothing better to do?

I guess there's no point in having elcteronic voting machines if you can't use them to stay in power indefinitely, eh.

[thrasher]

Absolutely ridiculous. I can't imagine the uproar that would happen if this bill passed.

[Mustangman25]

Exactly. That will never pass...people will not allow America to turn into a dictatorship or sorts.

[YogsVR4]

Its a bad amendment. It should be repealed. Any type of term limits are a bad thing. In addition, I don't like that an immigrant can run for the office that a citizen born here can.

Voters have the ability to replace politicians at each election. Laws should be passed because some people don't like how others vote - or dont vote.

[fredjacksonsan]

I don't much agree with (most) term limits either, but I think this is a power play by the republicans to stay in office.

(However if it's to insure that Senator clinton can't become President, I'm all for it!)

[YogsVR4]

I don't think we'll have a situation arise where we would have another FDR. I give the voters more credit then that

[fredjacksonsan]

Heh, so don't be mad if and when I bring this thread back from the dead in '08.

[lazysmurff]

I think term limits are an amazing idea, myself, and i'll support them. here's why:

Americans have the remarkable tendency to become complacent with what we have. the "good 'nuff" approach defines our poltical atmosphere. If we werent forced to choose someone new every 8 years, we never would, ever if someone better ran against them, simply because we would be afraid of change.

not only that but the less time one spends in office, the less time they have to be corrupted by power and money. even those senators that try self imposed term limits never follow through on their promises.

I cant think of a better way to stay-off corruption of the highest seat in our government than impose term limits. in fact, im going to go ahead and call for term limits in both the house and the senate.

[2strokebloke]

Term limits for all! - it was made good enough sense in 1951, it still makes sense today.
Who really needs more than eight years anyway? If worse comes to worse it's a way to keep the government from stagnating, keeps things fresh.
But, perhaps best of all - it'll keep G.W.B. out of office (however, it would be really interesting if after this latest term, George Sr. ran for president again).

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

But, perhaps best of all - it'll keep G.W.B. out of office...

...or Clinton.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Its a bad amendment. It should be repealed. Any type of term limits are a bad thing. In addition, I don't like that an immigrant can run for the office that a citizen born here can.

Voters have the ability to replace politicians at each election. Laws should be passed because some people don't like how others vote - or dont vote.

You have so much trust in the voters - yet are so ready to repeal an amendment ratified by the same voters.

http://www.termlimits.org/Current_In...rent_info.html


All about small government, aren't ye, Mr. Conservative?

Hypocrisy, at its best.

You will smirk. You will say something clever. You will still be nothing but fodder for the huge government you seem to be enjoying. You seem to not care how big it gets, or how certain groups of people can dig itself into the American system, as long as you are taxed as little as possible.

Selective politics?

[SnoopisTDI]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

But, perhaps best of all - it'll keep G.W.B. out of office (however, it would be really interesting if after this latest term, George Sr. ran for president again).

There are a lot of people who claim W didn't win the 2000 election, so you never know, he may run again.

I'm in favor of term limits though. I wish they would put term limits on the folks in the house and senate too, though. Maybe like 3 or 4 terms. I don't want the same people in it all the time, but I don't want a revolving door either.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

You have so much trust in the voters - yet are so ready to repeal an amendment ratified by the same voters.

http://www.termlimits.org/Current_In...rent_info.html


All about small government, aren't ye, Mr. Conservative?

Hypocrisy, at its best.

You will smirk. You will say something clever. You will still be nothing but fodder for the huge government you seem to be enjoying. You seem to not care how big it gets, or how certain groups of people can dig itself into the American system, as long as you are taxed as little as possible.

Selective politics?

What the hell are you talking about? I don't like term limits because it takes the CHOICE away from the voters. All about choice aren't we Mr. Liberal

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

What the hell are you talking about? I don't like term limits because it takes the CHOICE away from the voters. All about choice aren't we Mr. Liberal

And yet, that removal of choice was VOTED upon, and required a MAJORITY of American states to ratify it.

Choice?

You really think the current voting process is about choice anymore? No, it's all about who bullshits better, and who's gets believed by more people.

As corrupt as every politician seems to be, you would want to give them a chance to dig deeper, get more power, and therefore get greedier? If not them, the "friends" that helped whoever get to power certainly will.

This is why we have a system of parties.

Do you really think one person does most of the conducting of today's government?

If you feel good about what a representative of a party does, then elect their next representative.

I am really starting to doubt your supposed intelligence around here. You mispell common words, and seem to have a very polarized, and not to mention narrow, view of things.

Bottomline:
As much as there is a chance of finding somebody "right", that needs to stay in office to effect his view, there is a more likely chance of finding a pawn of a bigger agenda, with enough backing to spew as much bullshit as needs be to keep him/her in power.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

And yet, that removal of choice was VOTED upon, and required a MAJORITY of American states to ratify it.

I never said it was illegal - I said it was a bad law.

Choice?
You really think the current voting process is about choice anymore? No, it's all about who bullshits better, and who's gets believed by more people.

That may be the case and I'll be the first one to say that there are a lot of politicians I wish didn't stay in office (Ted Kennedy comes to mind). But the fact is the people of Mass. should be allowed to pick whomever they want and not be restricted because someone else thinks they aren't involved enough to make a more informed decision.

As corrupt as every politician seems to be, you would want to give them a chance to dig deeper, get more power, and therefore get greedier? If not them, the "friends" that helped whoever get to power certainly will.
This is why we have a system of parties.

Who are them? You mean senetors? They're not restricted by term limits now. House of representatives? Nope not there? Judges? So its ok to let the people decide at all those other levels but for a few specific ones we say no.

Do you really think one person does most of the conducting of today's government?

This has nothing to do with term limits. Term limits is about restricting choice - not improving government.

If you feel good about what a representative of a party does, then elect their next representative.

I don't vote part, I vote for the person. Though most will toe the party line, their belief mean a whole lot more. Democrat Bart Stupak got my vote (until we had to redistrict here) because of his stance on gun ownership and the great lakes - not because of his party. Republican John Engler got my vote for similar reasons. Neither completely toed the party line.

I am really starting to doubt your supposed intelligence around here. You mispell common words, and seem to have a very polarized, and not to mention narrow, view of things.

You can doubt all you want. It has no bearing on the truth.
The truth is my position has been consistent. I believe in letting people make their choice. Good or bad, its theirs to make. Placing term limits on politicians removes the ability to make a choice.