Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around a proposed constitutional amendment to repeal the 22nd Amendment, which limits U.S. presidents to two terms. Participants express skepticism about the proposal's seriousness and motivations, discussing its political implications and historical context.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Meta-discussion
Main Points Raised
- Some participants express doubt that the proposed amendment will pass, viewing it as a political stunt.
- There is a suggestion that the proposal is an attempt by Democrats to gain attention, with some participants noting the involvement of a Republican representative.
- Concerns are raised about the motivations behind the amendment, with references to past discussions about repealing the 22nd Amendment during Clinton's presidency.
- Some participants reflect on the political climate, suggesting that both parties engage in blame-shifting and that opinions about political figures are often polarized.
- There is confusion about the date of the proposal, with participants noting it was introduced in 2005 and discussing its relevance in the current political context.
- A participant mentions that attempts to modify or repeal the 22nd Amendment have occurred historically without success, questioning the rationale behind resubmitting the proposal.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants generally express skepticism about the proposal's seriousness and motivations, but there is no consensus on the implications or potential outcomes of the amendment. Multiple competing views on the political context and motivations remain present.
Contextual Notes
Some participants highlight the historical attempts to repeal the 22nd Amendment and the requirement for ratification by three-quarters of the states, indicating a complex legislative process that remains unresolved.
This well not get though if it does everone in congress whould have to be suddenly absent.