Could Obama be first 3-term president since FDR?

Could Obama be first 3-term president since FDR?

rt.com

A United States congressman has introduced a bill that would repeal the 22nd Amendment, which currently limits the president to serving only two terms as commander-in-chief.
Should the bill become a law, it could allow President Barack Obama to run for reelection yet again in 2016.

(visit the link for the full news article)

The bill, H.J. Res. 15, offers “an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.”

Seems like the country in need of a dictator, could certainly have one comes 2016. The average american voters are quite clearly blinded by propaganda and smoke-screen campaigns, privately funded by the corporate Zionist bankers.

As quoted from killing them softly "America is not a country. It's just a business. Now pay me".

Will this get pushed through? I say yes, simply basing my view on how the gun control propaganda is going, I say yes Obama indefinitely has the resources and support to go for a third term.

Do not ignore these type of articles, these will become more common this year and the coming years.

Obama's indefinite goal of this POTUS is quite clearly to re define american politics and push for a totalitarian government ready to make any changes to the constitution at any given command.

I believe this quote has much relevance to today's view on "freedom"

“Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing.”
Albert einstein.

rt.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

In answer to the question in the title, I'll say 'NO'.

Of course, I didn't think he would be elected to a second term either.

reply to post by butcherguy


I thought that too, no way could he accomplish a second term, but he did. A third? Likely.

reply to post by The0nlytruth


For the fifth time...NO.

It will NEVER happen.

Just..................no.

Really? Get the majority of voters in 2/3 of the states to pass this repeal of the 22nd amendment? No.

Originally posted by The0nlytruth


The bill, H.J. Res. 15, offers “an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.”

I think your next president could be immortal, maybe try and get Sharkey to run for president again
Florida Vampire to Run For President

Originally posted by The0nlytruth


The bill, H.J. Res. 15, offers “an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.”

I think your next president could be immortal, maybe try and get Sharkey to run for president again
Florida Vampire to Run For President

reply to post by Juggernog


Says who? You? Did you also say that with the 2nd term? Do yourselves a favour and gain grasp some knowledge of what your reality really is, if you think this is impossible then think again.

reply to post by The0nlytruth


There's a HUGE difference in electing a president to a second term and changing the constitution.....

Originally posted by The0nlytruth
reply to post by Juggernog

 

Says who? You? Did you also say that with the 2nd term? Do yourselves a favour and gain grasp some knowledge of what your reality really is, if you think this is impossible then think again.

Do yourself a favor and look up the requirements of repealing an amendment in our constitution, especially since youre apparently not even American.

reply to post by Juggernog


Give me a reason why you immediately said no it wouldn't happen, did you say that about gun control? about bush's second term?, Obama's second? Propganda ridden rape of the middle east? when it comes to american politics every time I see people stating it wouldn't happen, IT DOES.

Ugh.... Are you guys the same ones thinking Bush was getting a 3rd term??


Is this the new sentiment all the cool kids are adopting.. If you don't like the president, fear monger that he's gonna try and get a third term.

This guys has submitted this same bill once every 2 years for like the last 20 years. It does not matter who is in office he submits. Some other guy does as well just not as often. They seem to think the founding fathers knew what they were doing by not limiting the amount of time a person could run for President. I do not feel strongly one way or the other. So the answer to the OPs question is no. Same bill that never goes anywhere.

reply to post by bknapple32


Straight answer, no, I was not one of those people. can you provide any sources or information regarding these people who where saying this?

Originally posted by smyleegrl
reply to post by The0nlytruth

 

There's a HUGE difference in electing a president to a second term and changing the constitution.....

I am not totally au fait with your system of government so i would appreciate any corrections that need to be made here. However..........

Does changing this part of the Constitution require a vote by the US people or by the US law makers? (Politicians).

If the people have the power, i wouldn't give this story much chance. If the politicians have the power, then i wouldn't really rule it out. I could even see die hard Republicans voting for it because, lets face it, it also gives them the chance of getting a multi term President in the future......

Here is the options for changing the constitution:

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

www.usconstitution.net


Here are the ones that have tried in the past:

Other members of Congress who have offered similar proposals in the last twenty years include the following:

Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts (Democrat): 1995, 1997, and 1999 (all during the presidency of Bill Clinton).
Rep. David Dreier of California (Republican): 1997 (during the presidency of Bill Clinton).
Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York (Democrat): 1995 (during the presidency of Bill Clinton).
Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky (Republican): 1995 (during the presidency of Bill Clinton).
Rep. Guy Vander Jagt of Michigan (Republican): 1991 (during the presidency of George H.W. Bush).
Rep. Martin Sabo of Minnesota (Democratic-‐Farmer-‐Labor): 1991 (during the presidency of George H.W. Bush).

According to our survey, not a single one of these proposals was ever so much as brought to a vote before Congress (they were all referred to committee and languished there), much less passed and sent to the states for ratification.

snopes.com

Lets hope not!!!

Originally posted by Flavian
Does changing this part of the Constitution require a vote by the US people or by the US law makers? (Politicians).

The Amendment process that the United States Constitution has in place is one of the strictest and has the hardest chance of passing new amendments.

Article V provides the framework:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

What this is saying is the following as there are two paths:

First, 2/3rds of both the House and the Senate need to approve the proposed Constitutional amendment. In this path, it then goes to the States. Here 3/4ths of the States would have to ratify the proposed amendment.

The second path is where 2/3rd of the States call for a Constitutional Convention for proposing Amendments. In this path, Congress isn't involved and this would be the most "direct" way for the People to call for an amendment. As in this case, 3/4th of the States would still need to approve of the Amendment for it to become part of the Constitution.

If the people have the power, i wouldn't give this story much chance. If the politicians have the power, then i wouldn't really rule it out. I could even see die hard Republicans voting for it because, lets face it, it also gives them the chance of getting a multi term President in the future......

The People do have the power indirectly. The second method above has never been utilized and provides the "easiest" path to proposing Amendments. They still however, have a large obstacle to overcome to ratify any amendment. So yes, we can safely rule it out for the time being in my opinion.