NationStates Jolt Archive

Republicans have officially started the the campaign to amend the Constitution by repealing the 22nd Amendment - the one that confines the President to two terms. If the Republicans hold their current strength, or increase it, in the 2006 Congressional elections, expect this measure to pass allowing Bush to remain President...

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/319395.shtml

This seems like as good a time as any to :eek:

There are SEVERAL people here, if memory serves me well *iffy* that just won a bet. I think the honorable folk involved in that bet ought to cough up now.

*GRRRR*

"Old man yells at cloud" - Simpsons headline

Republicans have officially started the the campaign to amend the Constitution by repealing the 22nd Amendment - the one that confines the President to two terms. If the Republicans hold their current strength, or increase it, in the 2006 Congressional elections, expect this measure to pass allowing Bush to remain President...

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/319395.shtml


I dont EVER see that passing.

The Republicans of course do not see the irony that they introduced the 22nd Amendment after Franklin Roosevelt died.

Just goes to show that politicians will make and break rules to suit their whims and greed.

Even if it does pass I'm doubting Bush will be elected for a third time.

Clinton, anyone?

Everyone remembers the 90's with a warm feeling in their hearts and (for the Republicans among us) in their pants, as well.

Not going to happen.

It's one thing for Congress to get the ball rolling but to get the States to go for it. Especially with the shrubs popularity in the toilet.

Besides, if they do, Bill can run again. ;)

Republicans have officially started the the campaign to amend the Constitution by repealing the 22nd Amendment - the one that confines the President to two terms. If the Republicans hold their current strength, or increase it, in the 2006 Congressional elections, expect this measure to pass allowing Bush to remain President...

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/319395.shtml

It isn't going to pass. To get a constitutional amendment through, you need the support of 2/3 majority in both houses, which the Republicans don't have, and majority support of 3/4 of the states, which they don't have.

The sponsor of that bill is a Democrat. As are three of the co-sponsors. Methinks they're hoping for a Bill Clinton v. George Dubya race in 2008.

The sponsor of that bill is a Democrat. As are three of the co-sponsors. Methinks they're hoping for a Bill Clinton v. George Dubya race in 2008.

I wonder who would win that one?

One problem with this. The people who introduced the bill.
Hoyer, Berman, Sabo, and Pallone all have one thing in common:
They are Democrats.
Sensenbrenner is the only one of the five who is Republican.

While I certainly dislike the bill, I don't think it's a Republican plot or anything of the sort.

EDIT:
I got beat to it.

Wait a minute wait a minute waite a minute!!!!!!!

The only way you can amend the Constitution is if ALL 50 STATES CONSENT TO IT. It's NOT gonna happen.

Wait a minute wait a minute waite a minute!!!!!!!

The only way you can amend the Constitution is if ALL 50 STATES CONSENT TO IT. It's NOT gonna happen.

As I mentioned earlier, the constitutional requirement is only 3/4 of states, not all of them. That means 37 states currently.

But that being said, irrespective of which party is sponsoring the bill, its a stupid bill that will not pass. We don't need Bush or Clinton back in office.

This is a neutral idea. Not bad, not good. If you have a good, decent human being as president, then this is good. If you have a guy who cannot pronounce nuclear or understand why John Bolton is not a good guy to send to the UN, then it's bad.

I personally think term limits are a bad idea, but there is a large part of me that fears who the American electorate might keep electing forever should they be abolished. Meh, like I said, neutral idea.

It is seriously unlikely to pass all fifty states. It might not even get out of congress. After all, congress is busy trying to amend the constitution to get around our right to free expression, so this is a back burner kind of thing.

Isn't there a thread on this already?

People, its not going to happen so why are we even discussing this?

As I mentioned earlier, the constitutional requirement is only 3/4 of states, not all of them. That means 37 states currently.

38 States actually.

But that being said, irrespective of which party is sponsoring the bill, its a stupid bill that will not pass.

Agreed.

Republicans have officially started the the campaign to amend the Constitution by repealing the 22nd Amendment - the one that confines the President to two terms. If the Republicans hold their current strength, or increase it, in the 2006 Congressional elections, expect this measure to pass allowing Bush to remain President...

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/319395.shtml

Didn't the Democrats try this when Clinton was in office?

As a republican, it'd be very nice to see. But, it isn't very likely. Not with all the liberals and Democrats.

Clinton, anyone?

Everyone remembers the 90's with a warm feeling in their hearts and (for the Republicans among us) in their pants, as well.

Not to mention in 1994, the House reverted back the Republicans and they havn't lost it since. Yea. Re-elect Clinton. The Republicans will keep control of the House and Senate :D

Didn't the Democrats try this when Clinton was in office?
He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.

PROVE IT.

He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.

PROVE IT.

I didn't say that they did try it. I asked if they did try it. There is a difference.

Didn't the Democrats try this when Clinton was in office?
If they did, they're trying again...

If they did, they're trying again...

and if they did try it, it didn't pass then either. I doubt this'll pass as well which to me is good.

As a republican, it'd be very nice to see. But, it isn't very likely. Not with all the liberals and Democrats.

AHHH HA HA HA HA HAAAA... It was the Republicans who put the 22nd Amendment up for vote in the first place!

Can you say "Shooting Themselves in the Foot?"

:D

AHHH HA HA HA HA HAAAA... It was the Republicans who put the 22nd Amendment up for vote in the first place!

Can you say "Shooting Themselves in the Foot?"

:D

And looking at this bill I see FOUR Democrats and ONE Republican. Now that is what I find funny about this.

Wow, you guys really need to read all the posts before posting your own opinions. There have been like 8 reposts in 2 pages.

:headbang: Isn't there a thread on this already?

People, its not going to happen so why are we even discussing this?

I am a memeber of bungie and you sound just like some of the people in halo movie thread

"It'll never happen so why are we talking about it?"

Not true. Are you going to poll everyone in congress and in the 50 states about it? You aren't so you don't know do you? :mp5: :sniper:

This is a neutral idea. Not bad, not good. If you have a good, decent human being as president, then this is good. If you have a guy who cannot pronounce nuclear or understand why John Bolton is not a good guy to send to the UN, then it's bad.

I personally think term limits are a bad idea, but there is a large part of me that fears who the American electorate might keep electing forever should they be abolished. Meh, like I said, neutral idea.

It is seriously unlikely to pass all fifty states. It might not even get out of congress. After all, congress is busy trying to amend the constitution to get around our right to free expression, so this is a back burner kind of thing.
Here here, but while I fear who the american electorate may vote for again and again, I fear who the electoral college may vote in even more. :rolleyes:

If it did pass, Bush would not be re-elected again.

But it won't

It won't even get past Congress.

:headbang:

I am a memeber of bungie and you sound just like some of the people in halo movie thread

"It'll never happen so why are we talking about it?"

Not true. Are you going to poll everyone in congress and in the 50 states about it? You aren't so you don't know do you? :mp5: :sniper:

This won't pass because the people themselves won't tolerate it. The politicians want to keep their jobs so this won't get approved. Doesn't take a Political Science Major to figure that one out.

It won't happen.
It won't happen.
It won't happen.
It won't happen.


STOP REPEATING THE SAME CRAP.

People, it's STUCK in committee - and many bills DIE there.

I think that's what will happen to this one - it'll die in committee and that's the end of it.

Not Bush for life.

Bush for EVER. Didn't you hear about him being a vampire :D

This thread is getting really old really fast, but this seems like the right place to ask, so I'm gonna say something new. I personnally don't have an opinion on term limits (I can see about equal good and bad points), but what I want to know is-

Why are there not term limits on Congressmen?

The short (and true) answer is that Congressmen don't want to lose their jobs; some have been in office for a dozen or more terms, if I remeber right the re-election rate is something like 98%. But the whole reason Representatives were only given a two year term was to keep them from building up a comfortable power base, which is exactly what they've done. Senators were given six years in the hope that two people from each state would be wise, and no office originally had a term limit because 1) the founding fathers hoped people would be honest and 2) few people lived past 45. Anyway, I guess my real question is, what about term limits on other offices?

Not to mention in 1994, the House reverted back the Republicans and they havn't lost it since. Yea. Re-elect Clinton. The Republicans will keep control of the House and Senate :D

Imagine how awesome the country would be. The government would be in perpetual deadlock and we could just, you know LIVE OUR LIVES!

It seems the country is at its best when the government isn't doing anything. I agree with this.

He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.

PROVE IT.
Alright.

Clinton calls for third term (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2946802.stm)

Clinton dreams of third term (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1061263.stm)

A third term for Bill Clinton? (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32865)

Notice that Bush isn't calling for a third (and possibly more) term. Clinton WAS!

NEXT! :p

Don't any of you leftists do your homework? Ok, for the 5th time I'll debunk this.

The beginning of HJ 24 IH reads:
"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"

Steny Hoyer: DEMOCRAT
Howard Berman: DEMOCRAT
James Sensenbrenner: RINO
Martin Sabo: DEMOCRAT
Frank Pallone: DEMOCRAT