Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Uh oh Proposed Constitutional Amendment

  1. Feb 21, 2006 #1
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH: [Broken]
    I seriously doubt it's going to get through though.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 21, 2006 #2
    Has this already been gone over or does no one remember what the 22nd amendment is?
     
  4. Feb 21, 2006 #3
    Short-sighted political stunt.
     
  5. Feb 21, 2006 #4

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The democrats are just doing their usual screwing around trying to grab attention to themselves instead of doing their jobs.
     
  6. Feb 21, 2006 #5

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What about Sensenbrenner? He's Republican. But, yeah, what the .... are they doing? The rest are all Democrats, so it appears to be a stunt of some sort (don't know any reason they'd seriously do this, but, they have, haven't they), and it's not even April 1. :surprised
     
  7. Feb 21, 2006 #6

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yah a single republican :rolleyes:

    I wonder if anyones going to freak out and think this is Bush taking over the US :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
     
  8. Feb 21, 2006 #7
    Alot of people talking about this seem to be hoping for a rerun of Clinton. There was talk of such an amendment while he was in office too.
     
  9. Feb 21, 2006 #8

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That's not much more reassuring to me. :uhh:
     
  10. Feb 21, 2006 #9

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yeah, but it means you can't entirely blame it in the Democrats.
     
  11. Feb 21, 2006 #10

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well its normally a-ok to do the opposite around here :rolleyes:
     
  12. Feb 21, 2006 #11
    That kind of junk is always being thrown about...Democrats catch crap for being against Bush (Because, as well all know, this is America...we don't have the right to hold our own opinions here.:rolleyes: ) and Republicans catch crap for lieing...when both sides lie through their teeth.:rofl:
     
  13. Feb 22, 2006 #12

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    hehe you haven't been around here much have you
     
  14. Feb 22, 2006 #13
    No, I have not. However, I was not talking about this site when I made that post. I like this site but I would never even think of using it in a political discussion, that's a rather weak way to make your point.:wink: "There are these Republicans on a site I frequent that slam Democrats every time they post, I can't stand them and their damn party!!":rolleyes:

    I've heard enough to know that Republicans like to slam Democrats, first and foremost, for disliking Bush. That's always been something that confuses me, really...because, like I tried to point out in my other post, this is America. To assume everyone will agree with you is asinine. However, instead of being amongst those who like to slam the opposing party simply because they're the opposing part, I'd much rather spend my time agreeing with whoever makes the most sense regardless of what they are. That allows me to see that both sides lie and that both sides are crooked.

    Now, whether this site is populated with more Democrats than Republicans or vice versa, I don't base my posts off of this site's overall opinion on political matters.:wink:
     
  15. Feb 22, 2006 #14

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You all did notice the date, right?
    February 17, 2005
     
  16. Feb 22, 2006 #15
    Ivan Seeking: Clearly not.:rofl:
     
  17. Feb 22, 2006 #16

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You mean it's not still 2005? :eek: :rofl: Nope, I missed that. It's twice in two days I've seen something and thought it was recent when it really was a year ago! It just isn't sticking with me that it's really 2006. :frown:
     
  18. Feb 22, 2006 #17
    I know. I haven't found anything yet that would indicate what happened with it. I'm not familiar enough to know whether it could still be sitting around collecting dust or if it would have to already have been approved or struck down.
     
  19. Feb 22, 2006 #18
    I don't agree with everything he does but, at the same time, I'm not willing to jump on him and his entire party for everything that goes wrong. For example, everyone seemed to be rather pissed off over Cheney and his little accident:rofl: but I saw his actions as those of a man who saw he would be attacked for making a mistake and tried to avoid it. Now, I could, clearly, be wrong but that's just what my initial reaction was. *Shrugs*
     
  20. Feb 22, 2006 #19

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    To tell you the truth, I still have to think about it to be sure at times - 2006??? nah...is it...noooo...yes! Crud, that's right!! :surprised
     
  21. Feb 22, 2006 #20

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Also frequent attempts have been made over the years to modify or repeal the 22nd Amendment (e.g., in favor of Reagan), but none have yet been successful. And remember that no matter who proposes an a amendment, it does not become part of the Constitution unless/until it is ratified by three-quarters of the states.

    So why did this group resubmit a proposal for repeal a year ago? Hoyer is a fairly high-ranking representative who favors election reform. Berman co-sponsored the "Honest Leadership and Open Government" package. A main issue for Sesenbrener is fair taxes. Sabo is one of the few who voted against invasion of Iraq, and Pallone I don't know, except like some of the others he has a legal background. None are rookies, and most serve on committees of significance.

    In 2008 Bill Clinton will be 62, and aside from the age factor I doubt he would be the best candidate for the Dems. However, any Dem running in 2008 would be insured victory against Bush if he were allowed to run again, but personally I don't want any chance he could win. Maybe these representatives really believe the two-term limit can be hurtful to America. It has been on ongoing debate.

    The current proposal is probably stuck in committee.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2006
  22. Feb 22, 2006 #21

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Anyone who would change the Constitution in order to get one man elected should be run out of Washington, IMO. My default position: Before even considering any ammendment like this it would have to be written such that it becomes effective in twenty years or more, but no sooner.
     
  23. Feb 22, 2006 #22

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Even if popular, this proposal wouldn't likely be repealed by 2008. But I agree about motive. Like removing the filibuster with the "nuclear option" it would be short-sighted, because some day it could backfire. It's best to keep various checks and balances in place.
     
  24. Feb 22, 2006 #23
    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 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.
     
  25. Feb 23, 2006 #24
    Much Ado About Nothing

    I'd just point out here that over 10,000 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed since it was ratified in 1788. Of those only 27 have made it into the Constitution. It's not unusual for more than 100 amendments to be proposed in a single session of Congress. But, most of those never even make it to a committee hearing. In short, your chances of passing an amendment to the Constitution are only slightly better than your chances of winning the lottery.

    So don't spend too much time fretting about a 3rd Bush presidency (although it would be kind of cool because we could nickname him George the Third, oh what delicious irony...)
     
  26. Feb 23, 2006 #25

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Considering the popular knee-jerk reaction against such an amendment (a reaction I share) and the virtual certainty that it wouldn't even make it out of committee, I can't see any upside for even proposing it. Aren't these guys just hurting their own approval ratings? Anyone care to speculate on why they would propose such a thing?
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook