H. J. RES. 24 - Is the 22nd Amendment safe?!

I stumbled upon this link this morning:

thomas.loc.gov...:H.J.RES.24.IH:

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`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.'.

So this drops back in Feb., but this is the first i've heard of it. if anyone has any more information, i'd love to hear it.

Just a reminder, this 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.

[edit on 13-6-2005 by negativenihil]

[edit on 13-6-2005 by negativenihil]

[edit on 13-6-2005 by negativenihil]

[edit on 13-6-2005 by negativenihil]

If I remember corectly, the initiative behind this was started last year when a number of people were campaigning to allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to be able to run for the presidency.
With the way that the 22nd admendment is written, Arnold Schwarzenegger could not.

[edit on 13-6-2005 by kenshiro2012]

This has nothing to do with Schwarzenegger, it would repeal the term limits on the Presidency, allowing Presidents to run for third etc. terms. IMHO, it will go nowhere. Both parties try to bring this up when they have a second term president.

For Schwarzenegger to be President a new Amendment would have to be created to change this part of Artlice II:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

My bad
For some reason, when I read it and looked it up, I for some reason saw a connection.

I posted this back in February politics.abovetopsecret.com...'.
It raised a bit of interest and a few comments.
As for it amounting to anything only time will tell.

Amazing that this has even been proposed and not been picked up by at least SOME media outlets. Let's keep an eye on this.

Bill Clinton has spoken out about it too lately, if only to change it so that Presidents can run again for another two terms after stepping down for at least a term.

Again, I doubt any proposal to change the 22nd Amendment will ever go anywhere.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I doubt any proposal to change the 22nd Amendment will ever go anywhere.

I really do hope you're right.

I simply cannot see how anyone on *any* "side" of the political spectrum could think this is a good idea. Term limits keep things fresh and in a lot of cases can prevent a stagnant and self-serving government (in fact - i'd be happy to see hard term limits put in place for the house and the senate. too much stale blood imo - but that's a whole other thread).

Originally posted by negativenihil
I really do hope you're right.

I simply cannot see how anyone on *any* "side" of the political spectrum could think this is a good idea. Term limits keep things fresh and in a lot of cases can prevent a stagnant and self-serving government (in fact - i'd be happy to see hard term limits put in place for the house and the senate. too much stale blood imo - but that's a whole other thread).

Sure, as a Republican all I have to do stop fantasizing about a 3rd Bush term is to think that without the 22nd Amendment we might be in Clinton's 4th term now...

There is no reason to have any law to enforce term linits, we already have that, it is called "elections". We have them every few years for every office so that we the people can limit someone's terms if we want to. Why would anyone want a restriction on this right to have someone in office for as long or as short as we want??

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Sure, as a Republican all I have to do stop fantasizing about a 3rd Bush term is to think that without the 22nd Amendment we might be in Clinton's 4th term now...

Hey whatever works for you

I simply cannot understand how anyone who considers themselves a red-blooded American could think might be a good idea (regardless of political affiliation), or even why this issue seems to keep coming up...

'A bizarre pipe dream or nightmare, depending on which side of the political fence you call home. " - Dave54
Link list as of this point, active discussion on this is at 3 forums
www.abovetopsecret.com...
politics.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by negativenihil
[Term limits keep things fresh and in a lot of cases can prevent a stagnant and self-serving government (in fact - i'd be happy to see hard term limits put in place for the house and the senate. too much stale blood imo - but that's a whole other thread).

i guess u didnt like having FDR on 4 terms, its understandable, its better to have new presidents from both parties participating instead of just Democrats only as it show during the 40s to 60s. long time out of power for the Republicans. even wen they had a prez in executive power for 4 years.

Djohnston,

Does the Constitution get re-ratified on a regular basis?

This is not a sarcastic comment or a joke.

The reason I ask is that Article 2 as you quoted states that only those who are "a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President".

Since no one is still alive from that period how do they get around that?

Cheers

BHR

Originally posted by negativenihil
I simply cannot see how anyone on *any* "side" of the political spectrum could think this is a good idea. Term limits keep things fresh and in a lot of cases can prevent a stagnant and self-serving government (in fact - i'd be happy to see hard term limits put in place for the house and the senate. too much stale blood imo - but that's a whole other thread).

Actually, it keeps things far from fresh. All they do is change the President, the majority of the people have been there longer than some members of ATS have been a love. Look at old Dick Chaney or other leading Bush men and in-reality. Until there is a limit on everyone, you might as well have the same President in-office for-ever.

This may seem a little off the topic, but hear me out before you pass judgement. I personally have not ever voted for a president. I don't plan on it. I honestly don't feel my vote makes a bit of difference in a presidential election, not for the "drop in the bucket" reasoning, and not due to any possibilities of election fraud either. Our Founding Fathers saw fit to make the president elected by members of congress, the electoral college. From answers.com:

The Constitution, in Article 2, Section 1, provides: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” However, no senator, representative, or officer of the U.S. government may be an elector. The electors are directed by the Constitution to vote in their respective states, and Congress is authorized to count their votes.

To win, a presidential candidate must have a majority in the electoral college.

I know that's probably common knowledge, but just to get it out in the open... Anyways, generally speaking the electoral vote follows the popular vote most of the time. But, it doesn't have to, and there have been times where the popular president was not elected (and not just recently either.) The popular vote is little more than a Gallup poll to find out which president appeals to the people more, and our founders did this with a good reason--the general public at that time did not have the means to learn enough about national politics to make a well informed decision.

The reason I mention this here is because, without any kind of a term limit, there is no guarantee that the people will get a different president when they want it. If the majority of the electoral college feel, for whatever reason they have, that the current president should be reelected, then that's who will be running the country for the next four years. I say this mainly in response to craig732, who claimed that there's no need for term limits because we have elections. If we were a truly democratic nation, where the public actually elected the president, I'd be in complete agreement--let us shoot ourselves in the foot if it's our choice.

We can always oust those members of congress who voted against our popular vote, but there should be no reason for that--they may otherwise be an excellent senator/representative.

I do, however, favor the idea of limiting consecutive terms but leaving the option open for future re-election. But that could open up new terms of stagnation as well--two presidents essentially running the country, going back and forth, repealling what the other did. It would be interesting though...

Anyways, hope I contributed something with my lengthy ramble...