Congress to Repeal 22nd Ammendment [Archive]

Timothy Leary

June 14th 2005, 05:37 AM

The following Resolution is floating around in DC. It disturbs me very much.

Thanks to the FTL forums for the information and http://thomas.loc.gov/ for the verification.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 24

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.

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`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.'.

Darth Executor

June 14th 2005, 07:23 AM

So, it begins.

Darth Executor

June 14th 2005, 07:24 AM

For those who don't know what the 22nd amendment is:

The 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 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.

Bill the Cat

June 14th 2005, 07:39 AM

never happen.

technomage

June 14th 2005, 08:33 AM

never happen.
Pretty much. Yoshiyahu, I know you're not terribly fond of Bush (understatement of the week there, perhaps? :lol: ), but this particular bill will die in committee. Write your Congress-critters to let them know you don't support it, but beyond that, don't sweat it.

Sheepdog

June 14th 2005, 09:56 AM

:hehe: nice avatar by the way (coming from a fellow independant)

TuckEverlasting

June 14th 2005, 10:18 AM

Who are the people that are proposing this and why are they proposing it?

Spiritus Naturae

June 14th 2005, 11:17 AM

Cool avatar, man. I don't see this happening...it will die a slow, bureaucratic death. :yes:

bar Jonah

June 14th 2005, 11:36 AM

technomage

June 14th 2005, 12:55 PM

Yeah, who's the one doing the proposing? That has been conspicuously absent. Don't tell me this is another example of something like when the Democrats started going on the news and talking about how the Republicans were going to lead us into a new military draft..... when the only ones proposing the draft in Congress were Democrats!

Regardless of who's proposing it, I agree... never happen. Nor should it. As a Republican, I would oppose such a resolution, even if it would benefit my party in the short run.
Sponsor:
Rep Hoyer, Steny H. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d109&querybd=@FIELD%28FLD003+@4%28%28@1%28Rep+Hoyer++Steny+H.%29%29+00566%29%29) [MD-5]

Cosponsors:
Rep Berman, Howard L. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d109&querybd=@FIELD%28FLD004+@4%28%28@1%28Rep+Berman++Howard+L.%29%29+00082%29%29) [CA-28]
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d109&querybd=@FIELD%28FLD004+@4%28%28@1%28Rep+Pallone++Frank++Jr.%29%29+00887%29%29) [NJ-6]
Rep Sabo, Martin Olav (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d109&querybd=@FIELD%28FLD004+@4%28%28@1%28Rep+Sabo++Martin+Olav%29%29+01007%29%29) [MN-5]
Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d109&querybd=@FIELD%28FLD004+@4%28%28@1%28Rep+Sensenbrenner++F.+James++Jr.%29%29+01041%29%29) [WI-5]

bar Jonah

June 14th 2005, 01:19 PM

You give the names, but you still dont' want to admit the party of the person sponsoring it?

Democrat.

Hoyer
Berman
Pallone
Sabo

and one single Republican shill -- Sensenbrenner.

Just like the draft garbage. They create their own crisis, get people stirred up that this could happen, and the public immediately thinks that this is about getting Bush re-elected, and all the while leaving out the fact that this is a Democrat initiative. They have no intention of going through with this, any more than they did with the draft proposal. They wanted people to be afraid that the Republicans would start a draft. So they create their own bill to do that, leave out who sponsored it, and watch the public assume the exact opposite. Then, they can later pull the bill after they get some political capital out of it. But what sticks in everyone's minds is that the Republicans are the administration running this war, and the draft was proposed.

And it's the Repubs in the White House, and now there's a bill to do away with the 22nd amendment. Those darn corrupt conservatives! :riahem:

Hogwash and hornswaggle.

Darth Executor

June 14th 2005, 01:24 PM

You give the names, but you still dont' want to admit the party of the person sponsoring it?

Why wouldn't he? He's conservative...

bar Jonah

June 14th 2005, 01:27 PM

I was quick to snap at him, you're right.

But we did ask that question, he didn't answer the question. I'm sorry I was snippy, though.

:ribrown:

CatholicSage

June 14th 2005, 02:04 PM

You can't repeal an amendment with a bill, anyway. You would need an entirely new amendment.

technomage

June 14th 2005, 03:00 PM

You give the names, but you still dont' want to admit the party of the person sponsoring it?

You just wizzed in the wrong bowl of cornflakes, moron. Were you so eager to win the argument that you don't care who you trample over on your way to victory lane? I didn't give the party affiliations because I was giving the Democrats on this forum a chance to see their own error. At that point, they could apologize honorably, or continue to stick their foot into their mouth.

So instead of watching Democrats with hoof-in-mouth, I get kicked in the teeth by a Republican with his head up his rectum. What do you do for an encore--shoot your own wounded?

Darth Executor

June 14th 2005, 03:12 PM

You just wizzed in the wrong bowl of cornflakes, moron. Were you so eager to win the argument that you don't care who you trample over on your way to victory lane? I didn't give the party affiliations because I was giving the Democrats on this forum a chance to see their own error. At that point, they could apologize honorably, or continue to stick their foot into their mouth.

So instead of watching Democrats with hoof-in-mouth, I get kicked in the teeth by a Republican with his head up his rectum. What do you do for an encore--shoot your own wounded?

Whoa, did you have your teeth replaced with fangs or something? You don't sound like the Justin that made this post of the day:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=54508

technomage

June 14th 2005, 03:31 PM

Whoa, did you have your teeth replaced with fangs or something? You don't sound like the Justin that made this post of the day:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=54508
Darth, being honest in dealing with people on TWeb goes both ways. If they do the right thing, acknowledge it and go on. If they do something wrong in ignorance or innocence, then point out the error kindly and patiently. But if someone wants to cross the line just for the "power over" it gives them, then they get a sharp rap across the muzzle.

I have two ways of treating people: kind words whenever I can is what I prefer, but if it must come to blows, I will not pull my punches.

bar Jonah

June 14th 2005, 03:52 PM

Hey, I said I'm sorry, I reacted and snapped at you. And to be honest, you changed your name since last year, so since I came back recently, I often haven't even remembered who you are. I honestly forgot that you are Justin_Wiccan and that you're a conservative like myself. Heck, a lot of folks have changed their names, and I've had a hard time figuring out who everyone is. Granted, your sig gives a clue, but I overlooked that; there are many folks named Justin in the world.

I appreciate you providing the information you posted. I don't know what else to say.

technomage

June 14th 2005, 04:57 PM

Hey, I said I'm sorry, I reacted and snapped at you. And to be honest, you changed your name since last year, so since I came back recently, I often haven't even remembered who you are.

I posted my response before I saw the apology in post 13 ... and yeah, the confusion from the name change is my fault. So I also owe you an apology ... but bear with me a moment as I also give an explanation.

Part of the reason I "jumped" was because of the underlying insinuation (back in Post 11) that I wasn't posting the party affiliations because I was trying to be dishonest. You used to be Wiccan--you know that most Wiccans would rather be accused of taking indecent liberties with the family dog than be accused of dishonesty. :eww:

But the major part of the reason is that my gums are hurting and I have absolutely no patience today. Jim, you bear absolutely no responsibility for that ... yet I let you have it with both barrels. For which I apologize, my friend.

:hug: I think at this point the best course of action for me is to take my pain meds and take a nap. I'll try to be something remotely resembling civilized when I get up. :wink:

bar Jonah

June 14th 2005, 05:08 PM

Boy, I thought you were being more persnippety than usual, yourself!

We're cool, dog. I'm down wid it, yo.

*reprizents*

Timothy Leary

June 14th 2005, 07:46 PM

Pretty much. Yoshiyahu, I know you're not terribly fond of Bush (understatement of the week there, perhaps? :lol: ), but this particular bill will die in committee.

I may not like all of Bush's politics, but I wouldn't paint him nearly as evil as certain people have done. I did vote for him after all... (Kerry, IMO, would have been much worse)

Write your Congress-critters to let them know you don't support it, but beyond that, don't sweat it.

I'll try not to. I'm a little bit in the paranoid mood right now.

Timothy Leary

June 14th 2005, 07:47 PM

Who are the people that are proposing this and why are they proposing it?

It was in the posting.

Timothy Leary

June 14th 2005, 07:56 PM

Just like the draft garbage. They create their own crisis, get people stirred up that this could happen, and the public immediately thinks that this is about getting Bush re-elected, and all the while leaving out the fact that this is a Democrat initiative. They have no intention of going through with this, any more than they did with the draft proposal. They wanted people to be afraid that the Republicans would start a draft. So they create their own bill to do that, leave out who sponsored it, and watch the public assume the exact opposite. Then, they can later pull the bill after they get some political capital out of it. But what sticks in everyone's minds is that the Republicans are the administration running this war, and the draft was proposed.

And it's the Repubs in the White House, and now there's a bill to do away with the 22nd amendment. Those darn corrupt conservatives! :riahem:

Hogwash and hornswaggle.

Yeah, that draft stuff was a bunch of crap. I opened a can of political wup-butt on one of my lefty friends when he was saying that the Right-wingers were trying to bring back the draft.

For the record, this isn't just a left-wing rant. I'm a Conservative Libertarian (I have some Republican leanings, and I can't stand the ultra-left). But I don't want Bush in office for another term. Nor do I think any other president should have the ability.

In a uncorrupt society, I wouldn't oppose repealling the bill. But the potential for abuse is too great to allow one man to run the office of president for so long.

Timothy Leary

June 14th 2005, 07:57 PM

Cool avatar, man.

Thanks. It's one of the shirts avaliable at http://thinklibertarian.com/

bar Jonah

June 14th 2005, 08:02 PM

Completely agreed, Yosh! And you're right, Kerry would have been disastrous... worse than Clinton.

As for Bush, I agree there, too. I'm very disappointed in him on a number of counts. He has compromised on way too many things, and his stance on the border issues is potentially disastrous. But, he's the lesser of many weevils.

I have been looking forward to the possibility of Condi running in '08, but now I'm hearing she is apparently pro-choice. I will NOT vote for a pro-choice candidate, period. It's not the only issue, but the murder of 40 million children is a litmus test issue. I'll vote Constitution Party first, probably. But I hope that rumor is wrong.

technomage

June 14th 2005, 09:51 PM

As for Bush, I agree there, too. I'm very disappointed in him on a number of counts. He has compromised on way too many things, and his stance on the border issues is potentially disastrous.

:shrug: It's the only way to get anything done in DC.

The problem is liberals are not being "deliberately evil"--they honestly feel that freedom of choice (as an example) is one of the "inalienable rights." We're not fighting the dastardly villain in the black cloak ... we're opposing someone who earnestly believes they're doing the right thing for all involved.

That's why I feel it's foolish in the extreme to demonize ones political enemies. I gravely disagree with Kerry's policies, but I'm not going to shout insults and derision, because all that does is distract from the real issues.

Timothy Leary

June 14th 2005, 11:28 PM

I think that both the pro-life and the pro-choice sides are wrong, but that's for another thread :P

Captain Ochre

June 15th 2005, 01:48 AM

For the record, this isn't just a left-wing rant. I'm a Conservative Libertarian (I have some Republican leanings, and I can't stand the ultra-left). But I don't want Bush in office for another term. Nor do I think any other president should have the ability.

Unless I misread something, it seemed that the President in office when the bill was either introduced or ultimately installed as part of the Constitution was exempt from receiving benefit from it. According to the apparent wording of the proposal, anyway.
That leaves only Carter, Ford, George H. W. Bush, or Clinton as potential beneficiaries.

In a uncorrupt society, I wouldn't oppose repealling the bill. But the potential for abuse is too great to allow one man to run the office of president for so long.

You're probably right about that.
There's a flip side to the problem, of course, in that staff positions MOL leave unelected folks pulling some of the important strings in the first place.
There's no easy fix to that problem, AFAICT.