Dubya in...08?

Dubya in...08?

Someone trying to repeal the 22nd Amendment?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj109-24

H. J. Res. 24: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to...
Introduced: Feb 17, 2005
Sponsor: Rep. Steny Hoyer [D-MD]
Status: Introduced (By Rep. Steny Hoyer [D-MD])
Last Action: Feb 18, 2005: Introductory remarks on measure. (CR E302-303)

109TH CONGRESS
H. J. RES. 24
1ST SESSION


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 re-
ferred 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.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives
2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-
3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol-
4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con-
5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all
6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
8 States within seven years after the date of its submission
9 for ratification:
2
1 ``ARTICLE --
2 ``The twenty-second article of amendment to the Con-
3 stitution of the United States is repealed.''.
Text of the 22nd Amendment:

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.

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.
 

Freemason

Banned
never happen.
3 terms of somebody like Clinton? no conservative would buy it
3 terms of somebody like Bush? no liberal would buy it.
 
Freemason said:
never happen.
3 terms of somebody like Clinton? no conservative would buy it
3 terms of somebody like Bush? no liberal would buy it.
:lol: You're not wrong. One of the few things we'll both agree on. :drink:
 

Stevinator

Diabloii.Net Member
Actually, I wouldn't mind. Sometimes great leaders come along and the country could be well served by allowing them to continue. as much as i know I'm going to get flamed from both sides of this, I wouldn't have minded another reagan term(bush senior--ugh) and I would have even considered another term of Clinton--because at the time I actually thought clinton did okay. I voted for bush last time, but I wasn't all super excited about him--I just thought he was better than Kerry. back when clinton left I certainly thought higher of him than either bush or gore. tough call though, because a few things clinton was doing really irked me (but then that always seems to be the case).

one quick question though, shouldn't this apply to hillary, I mean she was acting as president for 8 years, even if it wasn't offical...:)
 
Well you americans are lucky, you only have to put up with 1 guy fro at the most 8 years. We've had tony blair for 9 years now, 3 election victories, and the damn guy doesnt seem to want to leave anytime soon. Although i think the only reason he won this election was lack of credible oposition, a 2 term max would be better than having 1 person go on for decades.
Anyway, in america, i see no reason why it needs to be changed, and if it aint broke, dont fix it. although having someone like bush for 12 years...scary. :eek:
 

Stevinator

Diabloii.Net Member
Freemason said:
That and beer is an important part of a balanced diet!
Agreed, it'll never pass. I still wouldn't mind though. oh, and beer is liquid bread...you need 6-11 servings per day! (or is that the old pyramid?)
 

Keldaris

Diabloii.Net Member
Steel_Avatar said:
I would LOVE a law like that in Canada. After a good 12 years of Jean, anything would have been better.

Having spoken with JC in person.....I COMPLETELY AGREE with you!!!
 

Freet

Diabloii.Net Member
Stevinator said:
.... oh, and beer is liquid bread...you need 6-11 servings per day! (or is that the old pyramid?)
Yup...commonly known as the "hops group"
 

Freemason

Banned
DrunkPotHead said:
What's irks me is why a Democract introduced that bill while Bush is in office.
Perhaps fear of Hillary as the Democrat nominee and the backlash?

For the record, I wouldn't support Pres. Bush for a 3rd term. 8 years of the same ideas? No thanks, I want a fresh perspective. GOV. HUCKABEE FOR PRESIDENT!
 

Omikron8

Diabloii.Net Member
Steel_Avatar said:
I would LOVE a law like that in Canada. After a good 12 years of Jean, anything would have been better.
Right....

I live in Canada as well

Lets look at the great alternatives

Conservatives : Mr. Fundamentalist Harper (i hate when religious folks use religion to decide their political agenda choices)

NDP : Lets throw away our vote YES

Bloc : Lol? The only thing this party is concerned with is seperating the country. Anything else is much more secondary

Even though Martin and the Liberals are crooks and liars they are still a lesser evil in my mind than the rest.
 

Steel_Avatar

Diabloii.Net Member
Omikron8 said:
Right....

I live in Canada as well

Lets look at the great alternatives

Conservatives : Mr. Fundamentalist Harper (i hate when religious folks use religion to decide their political agenda choices)

NDP : Lets throw away our vote YES

Bloc : Lol? The only thing this party is concerned with is seperating the country. Anything else is much more secondary

Even though Martin and the Liberals are crooks and liars they are still a lesser evil in my mind than the rest.
I never said any of that. I was referring to JC himself, not the Grits. I actually think they're on okay party. Sure they're plagued by scandal, but I like their politics, for the most part.
 

kernelpops

Diabloii.Net Member
DrunkPotHead said:
What's irks me is why a Democract introduced that bill while Bush is in office.
That is the FIRST thing that caught my eye also, it is bad politics. Most people will ignore it was a Dem that introduced it, just it was introduced at this time, and blame the repubs.
 

Steel_Avatar

Diabloii.Net Member
Same thing as a Democrat raising the spectre of the draft, right? Didn't they do that in the months leading up to the election?
 

CyberHawk

Diabloii.Net Member
Freemason said:
For the record, I wouldn't support Pres. Bush for a 3rd term. 8 years of the same ideas? No thanks, I want a fresh perspective.

Agreed. Maybe Tennessee will get a shot this next time around...hmm
 

Steve_Kow

Banned
Steel_Avatar said:
Same thing as a Democrat raising the spectre of the draft, right? Didn't they do that in the months leading up to the election?
The sad thing is, it isn't a very clever trick--yet it works.
 

piff

Diabloii.Net Member
While I liked the idea of having a third term of Clinton, it's not worth the sacrifice of having a shot at three terms of Bush. It'd be great to keep a great leader for longer than two, but as I said, it's not worht the risk of getting a hypnotic speaker who is a horrible ruler in office for very long.
 

Steel_Avatar

Diabloii.Net Member
piff said:
While I liked the idea of having a third term of Clinton, it's not worth the sacrifice of having a shot at three terms of Bush. It'd be great to keep a great leader for longer than two, but as I said, it's not worht the risk of getting a hypnotic speaker who is a horrible ruler in office for very long.
Please don't tell me you just described Bush as a 'hypnotic speaker' :p
 
Top