As Inauguration Day approaches and Barack Obama prepares to assume his first term as president, some in Congress are hoping to make it possible for the Democrat to not only seek a second term in office, but a third and fourth as well.
The U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary is considering a bill that would repeal the Constitution's 22nd Amendment prohibiting a president from being elected to more than two terms in office.
Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., earlier this month introduced the bill, H. J. Res. 5, which, according to the bill's language, proposes "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 past, some presidents have been critical of the 22nd Amendment, including Eisenhower, Clinton and Reagan.
In 1807 Thomas Jefferson, however, warned that presidents not bound by term limits could use their popularity and power to become kings.
"If some termination to the services of the chief magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution or supplied in practice," Jefferson wrote to the Legislature of Vermont, "his office, nominally for years, will in fact become for life; and history shows how easily that degenerates into an inheritance."
A well-known user on this site was pretty sure Bush would be President for a third term. So meh.
Don't count on the 22nd being repealed any time soon.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
Just shows how far liberals will go to ensure power...
I have said it before, and I'll say it again. Obama is a liar, he is a snake in the grass. The media has boosted him so high up, o the point where people are blindly following him like a cult of zombies...
I for one haven't fallen for the "Obamacraze", and am frankly not sure I even trust him.
The man is not even President yet, and people have been treating him as a national hero for months. Praising him with songs, talking about an official Obama holiday. What gets me more than anything is people calling him a "hero". That drives me up the wall. Good men and women in the Armed Forces or apart of government agencies die every day in the field, and rescue workers whom are saving peoples lives, THEY are heroes. A man that simply gets elected, (largely due to the major News Media support, but that's for another discussion) does not deserve to be called a hero.
I could carry on this discussion, and branch to other topics, but I'll stop there.
4th paragraph is sensible stuff...the rest of it is just your bias ranting more than anything.
As to the thread topic, much in the similar way that other undesirable ideas get thrown out from time to time, this one will be batted back by every sensible thinker who is in town. Part of the normal function of a health legislative system is you brush back the silly ideas that people with agendas bring up. Im sure many on the board would say it doesnt happen enough, but it certainly isnt a perfect world, at least not today anyway.
The 22nd Ammendment should be repealed as it takes away our freedom of choice and inhibits democracy. It's notable that it was not an orriginal part of the constitution but was rather added after FDR died. Considering the achievements and popularity of FDR it's easy to draw the conclusion that the 22nd Ammendment was not created to protect the people from tyrannical presidents but was rather disguised as such by corrupt politicians who wanted their chance to occupy the top office of the government of the United States.
If the people of the United States want to re-elect a person to a given office they should have the right to do so. Imagine how different the world would look if Clinton had been re-elected as opposed to the last eight years under President Bush. Countries like China and Russia are able to hold steadfast to a plan for decades while it seems that the United States can only accomplish things in 8 years or less. This set of circumstances could very likely lead to the downfall of the United States as a world power.
GabonX wrote:The 22nd Ammendment should be repealed as it takes away our freedom of choice and inhibits democracy. It's notable that it was not an orriginal part of the constitution but was rather added after FDR died. Considering the achievements and popularity of FDR it's easy to draw the conclusion that the 22nd Ammendment was not created to protect the people from tyrannical presidents but was rather disguised as such by corrupt politicians who wanted their chance to occupy the top office of the government of the United States.
If the people of the United States want to re-elect a person to a given office they should have the right to do so. Imagine how different the world would look if Clinton had been re-elected as opposed to the last eight years under President Bush. Countries like China and Russia are able to hold steadfast to a plan for decades while it seems that the United States can only accomplish things in 8 years or less. This set of circumstances could very likely lead to the downfall of the United States as a world power.
I agree completely. A president still needs to be elected without the 22nd, so I don't see why tyrannical presidents are a worry.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
To be honest i dont think removing term limits really jives all that well with a more traditional notion of checks and balances. Simply to allow an individual (even if they are very qualified and not simply the type of person who is able to draw a cult of personality around them) to continue on in the position for too long begins to erode what the other two branches are able to do in terms of balancing out the government. I dont really desire for the executive branch to be a whole lot more powerful than need be.
GabonX wrote:The 22nd Ammendment should be repealed as it takes away our freedom of choice and inhibits democracy. It's notable that it was not an orriginal part of the constitution but was rather added after FDR died. Considering the achievements and popularity of FDR it's easy to draw the conclusion that the 22nd Ammendment was not created to protect the people from tyrannical presidents but was rather disguised as such by corrupt politicians who wanted their chance to occupy the top office of the government of the United States.
If the people of the United States want to re-elect a person to a given office they should have the right to do so. Imagine how different the world would look if Clinton had been re-elected as opposed to the last eight years under President Bush. Countries like China and Russia are able to hold steadfast to a plan for decades while it seems that the United States can only accomplish things in 8 years or less. This set of circumstances could very likely lead to the downfall of the United States as a world power.
the reason why we have a two term limt is simple. because of FDR (MY MIND THE WORST PRESIDENT) well he got 4 terms right well turn that time he threntened to pack the supreme court and he also made alot of appomints. cause of this reason it is why we have a two term limt so the presdent cant pack the supreme court and have two branches against one.
targetman377 wrote:the reason why we have a two term limt is simple. because of FDR (MY MIND THE WORST PRESIDENT) well he got 4 terms right well turn that time he threntened to pack the supreme court and he also made alot of appomints. cause of this reason it is why we have a two term limt so the presdent cant pack the supreme court and have two branches against one.
That doesn't keep them from trying, though, does it?
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
InkL0sed wrote:One can reasonably argue against term-limits, anyway.
As New York has demonstrated just recently.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
Coven wrote:Just shows how far liberals will go to ensure power...
I have said it before, and I'll say it again. Obama is a liar, he is a snake in the grass. The media has boosted him so high up, o the point where people are blindly following him like a cult of zombies...
I for one haven't fallen for the "Obamacraze", and am frankly not sure I even trust him.
The man is not even President yet, and people have been treating him as a national hero for months. Praising him with songs, talking about an official Obama holiday. What gets me more than anything is people calling him a "hero". That drives me up the wall. Good men and women in the Armed Forces or apart of government agencies die every day in the field, and rescue workers whom are saving peoples lives, THEY are heroes. A man that simply gets elected, (largely due to the major News Media support, but that's for another discussion) does not deserve to be called a hero.
I could carry on this discussion, and branch to other topics, but I'll stop there.
Anyway, would you have trusted any of the other candidates?
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
Most "free" democracies have no such thing, yet have a regular turnover of leaders. The Uk had Thatcher for over a decade, Blair for a little less. Both were thrown out effectively by their own parties, because of how unpopular they'd made them. The same would have happened to Bush. In order to stay in power, your party has to stay in power too.
On the other hand, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to have reigns on a premiere's power. That's part of what the rest of the constitution is supposedly for, right?
So while I don't disagree with a term limit, I don't think it's that important.
DarthBlood wrote:is anyone else besides me surprised that there weren't any public assassination attempts during his speech?
thank God there weren't. I am a conservative and don't like most of what Obama stands for. But I am a big believer in America, and one thing we have always had is a smooth transition of power.
nothing wrong with a little bit of man on dog love.
