Repeal of the 22nd amendment proposed

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... (Introduced in House)

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`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.'.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:hj5:

I'm fine with it being limited.

It would be fun seeing Bill Clinton run again.

Clinton vs Obama vs Reagans eternal soul '12!

why is this necessary?

Originally posted by inimalist
why is this necessary?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I didn't understand why the 22nd was necessary in the first place.

I believe the it was in the fear that a President could become like a King; considering the U.S. fought to break away from a Monarchy type of rule, you can see why.

make way for THE EMPEROR then::

I think Jed Bartlett in West Wing put it best- you only need one limit on someone becoming what the 22nd Amendment seeks to prevent, and that is the electorate. It is ridiculous to have a law for it, which is out and out saying that you don't trust people not to elect the same man for life even if he is useless.

ok

but is this something that, with 2 wars, major economic downfall, etc, the government of America need concern itself with?

like, do people think Obama is so amazing already the most pressing concern to the nation is that he be allowed 3+ terms?

I'm assuming that it is something that will take both time and money of the government to debate and ratify...

If you only ever prioritised crisis-level politics, then the other things would NEVER get done- and you do need to worry about the other things.

Getting rid of a bad law is a good use of political time in any circumstances.

I'm with Inimalist. Congress already has enough to get done and adding more distractions will make the backup worse.

This all sounds suspicious to me..

sounds like a subtle move towards dictatorship to me :/ Peoples should always have a limit on their legally allowed amount of terms.

They just want Obama for life.

Sounds like a conspiracy.

I'm interested in what Rep. Serrano's angle is here.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
sounds like a subtle move towards dictatorship to me :/ Peoples should always have a limit on their legally allowed amount of terms.

As if, in a modern democracy, there has ever been any risk of anything approaching a dictatorship. Or as if there ever could be, seeing how quickly an electorate gets pissed off with a leader.

No- a law like that actually diminishes democracy by removing legitimate choice from the people. Let them vote for who they want; having been in office before is nothing even approaching a suitable reason to debar someone.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
If you only ever prioritised crisis-level politics, then the other things would NEVER get done- and you do need to worry about the other things.

Getting rid of a bad law is a good use of political time in any circumstances.

fair enough, and I agree it is a bad law.

I just don't like the timing

lol, but who am I to criticize Americans for having a inefficient government. The Queen shut ours down for a month a little while ago.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
As if, in a modern democracy, there has ever been any risk of anything approaching a dictatorship. Or as if there ever could be, seeing how quickly an electorate gets pissed off with a leader.

No- a law like that actually diminishes democracy by removing legitimate choice from the people. Let them vote for who they want; having been in office before is nothing even approaching a suitable reason to debar someone.

How long did it take before we gave up on WMDs in Iraq?

Why did we even get to find out that there were no WMDs?

It's well within the US government's power to convey whatever they want. There's plenty of "influence" over the media as well.

We could have easily put WMDs in Iraq in such a way that it would seem as though they had them in the first place. (Even faking the mineral and radiation profiles specific to a geographic location and processing centers. Yes...they have the resources to fabricate something like that.)

I say that because we even know that there were no WMDs, we should count ourselves lucky.

If a regime really wanted to trick millions of people in a democratic republic that leadership should continue through many terms, it could be done. Even in this modern world. I mean..if someone REALLY wanted to pull the wool over our eyes and make the ulitmate in conspiracy theories, they could pull it off to stay in leadership.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
As if, in a modern democracy, there has ever been any risk of anything approaching a dictatorship. Or as if there ever could be, seeing how quickly an electorate gets pissed off with a leader.

No- a law like that actually diminishes democracy by removing legitimate choice from the people. Let them vote for who they want; having been in office before is nothing even approaching a suitable reason to debar someone.

Indeed, Britain would be a good example- our PMs have way more power over the government of the UK than the US president has over the US and they have unlimited terms, yet we have never had a problem with a dictatorial Prime Minister. (I'm talking about the post-Walpole PMs)

Still, it just shows how good Obama is as a politician.