Carlos

22 Amendment repealed?

9 posts in this topic

I found this randomly on the internet today:

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

the website this is from is "a service of the Library of Congress", which makes me think it might be real.

It says that this year congress repealed the 22nd Amendment :D

For those who don't know, the 22nd Amendment is:

"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."

Does anyone else have any information on this? I can't find any other than this website provided by the Library of Congress. If this is true, I find it quite alarming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm reading the text on the website wrong, and they are not stating that the 22nd amendment has been repealed, only that is the content of the article they are proposing.... it is hard to tell. Either way, I'm pretty sure that it is a fact that a bill has been proposed to repeal the 22nd amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe I'm reading the text on the website wrong, and they are not stating that the 22nd amendment has been repealed, only that is the content of the article they are proposing.... it is hard to tell.  Either way, I'm pretty sure that it is a fact that a bill has been proposed to repeal the 22nd amendment.

See http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.j.res.00024:

The bill is being tossed around in subcommittees, but may not ever even come to a vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*reads announcement on web-page*

That is extremely creepy/disturbing....

they are pushing it because it will restore power to the people, allow the people to elect who they want instead of being limited by a rigid constitution, will further empower and liberate our democracy...yada yada yada....

I guess everyone has forgotten that the importance of America is not that we are a democracy, but that we are a democratic-REPUBLIC. Everyone just throws around the word "democracy" like on its own it is some magic solution to the woes of the world.

Bush does this especially...this cartoon from Cox&Forkum sums it up well

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/04.10...Democracy-X.gif

"If free and open Iraqi elections lead to the seating of a fundamentalist Islamic government, "I will be disappointed. But democracy is democracy," Bush said. "If that's what the people choose, that's what the people choose"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Term limits are a band-aid, an attempt to limit a government that refuses to recognize limits. Entrenched incumbency amplifies the problems caused by such a government, but term limits do not prevent "short termers" from engaging in the same rights violations as career politicians; the "short termers" just don't get to improve their rights violation skills through experience.

I'd prefer to see term limits imposed across the board, i.e. in Congress as well as on the presidency, as long as nothing else changes. Absent that, I think it would be better to repeal the 22nd Amendment, as a check on Congressional power. The people (in the best sense of that term, not as "the masses") could elect a president that has the cojones to stand up to Congress for as long as necessary.

However, there is zero chance that a repeal will get past committee. Congress will never give up the advantage that has tipped the balance of federal powers so strongly in its favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not against the 22nd Amendment, but let's not forget that the Founding Fatherrs did not write it in, nor did anyone after them for the next 100 years. The primary reason why no President went for more than two terms, despite there being no law on the matter, was the precedent set by George Washington, that he only served for two terms, and that his example was subject for enough reverence to not be infringed upon. It's only with the audacity of FDR that his enemy Republicans decided to get a law on this issue.

So while I am not exactly comfortable with the bad presidents we have now serving for more than they do right now, in principle I wouldn't exactly form the 2 terms idea as a constitutional or republican issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, there is zero chance that a repeal will get past committee. Congress will never give up the advantage that has tipped the balance of federal powers so strongly in its favor.

The assumption of these politicians is that all power equals the power of force, and there is a limited supply of that. Why is there a limited supply? Blankout.

Periodically, as a kind of onerous duty, they perform acts of ritual appeasement, and their press releases say, in effect and not very convincingly: "See? We tried to hand over the power of force to the rabble, oops, I mean 'the people' but -- suddenly -- we were powerless. Ah, such is life."

Such people seem to hold an implicit view of man by which the power to initiate force against innocent fellow citizens is a metaphysical primary and a value, and the power of ideas has no existence, e.g. the freight train heading toward the tunnel in Atlas Shrugged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, Congress cannot repeal an amendment by itself. It requires 3/4 of the states to approve.

Second, the issue is getting Clinton reelected again. Democrats are in love with him and want him back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites