Uh oh Proposed Constitutional Amendment

  • #1
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH: [Broken]
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`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.'.

I seriously doubt it's going to get through though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Has this already been gone over or does no one remember what the 22nd amendment is?
 
  • #3
rachmaninoff
Short-sighted political stunt.
 
  • #4
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
16
The democrats are just doing their usual screwing around trying to grab attention to themselves instead of doing their jobs.
 
  • #5
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,558
53
Pengwuino said:
The democrats are just doing their usual screwing around trying to grab attention to themselves instead of doing their jobs.
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
 
  • #6
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
16
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:
 
  • #7
Moonbear said:
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
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.
 
  • #8
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,558
53
TheStatutoryApe said:
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.
That's not much more reassuring to me. :uhh:
 
  • #9
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,558
53
Pengwuino said:
Yah a single republican :rolleyes:
Yeah, but it means you can't entirely blame it in the Democrats.
 
  • #10
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
16
Moonbear said:
Yeah, but it means you can't entirely blame it in the Democrats.

Well its normally a-ok to do the opposite around here :rolleyes:
 
  • #11
206
0
Pengwuino said:
Well its normally a-ok to do the opposite around here :rolleyes:

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:
 
  • #12
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
16
AngelShare said:
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:

hehe you haven't been around here much have you
 
  • #13
206
0
Pengwuino said:
hehe you haven't been around here much have you

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:
 
  • #14
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,814
855
You all did notice the date, right?
February 17, 2005
 
  • #15
206
0
Ivan Seeking: Clearly not.:rofl:
 
  • #16
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,558
53
Ivan Seeking said:
You all did notice the date, right?
February 17, 2005
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:
 
  • #17
Ivan Seeking said:
You all did notice the date, right?
February 17, 2005
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.
 
  • #18
206
0
Pengwuino said:
Well i should introduce you to the likes around here. Basically your not allowed to be a Republican or else you're called a hitler-loving fascist bent on world destruction. All things that go wrong in the world is Bush's fault. Anytime Bush says something, its called fear-mongering and fascist and various other things. Bush leaves his shoes untied? Well he's catering to special interests obviously. Drinks some soda? Well he's actually taking away civil rights, etc etc.

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*
 
  • #19
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,814
855
Moonbear said:
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:

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
 
  • #20
SOS2008
Gold Member
31
1
Ivan Seeking said:
You all did notice the date, right?
February 17, 2005
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:
  • #21
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,814
855
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.
 
  • #22
SOS2008
Gold Member
31
1
Ivan Seeking said:
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.
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.
 
  • #23
99
0
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.
 
  • #24
climbhi
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...)
 
  • #25
russ_watters
Mentor
20,963
7,585
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?
 

Related Threads on Uh oh Proposed Constitutional Amendment

  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
95
Views
9K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
98
Views
9K
Replies
231
Views
16K
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
491
  • Last Post
8
Replies
180
Views
17K
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
Top