×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Yeah, right

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | more than 4 years ago

User Journal 14

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hj111-5

HJ 5 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 5

Proposing 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.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hj111-5

HJ 5 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 5

Proposing 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.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 6, 2009

Mr. SERRANO 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 twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

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'The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.'

I submit that the overall stability of these United States is directly proportional to the number of personalities involved in driving it.
Single point of failure systems are teh suck.

14 comments

You've put yourselves under a single party (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28229723)

In fact you've been so longer than China, and Russia. Just because you all do it voluntarily, and you give it two different monikers, doesn't make it any less so. So what difference does it make? You're not being forced to reelect anybody, despite what ANYBODY says. Why should you be denied the opportunity if that's your wish? And you do understand that the real power lies in the staff that has been there for over 40 years? They set the daily agendas, who the president will meet, what he will say, etc. And if we didn't like it, it would be different. Aren't term limits some kind of gimmick to protect the weak minded from themselves? Uh oh..Socialism...

So if it went through... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#28234457)

... which is a huge if, but I'll play along...

What would be the problem? It removes restrictions on how many terms one president can serve, it says nothing about their elections. If it passed, and Obama were to be re-elected in 2012, and he wanted to serve a third term, he would still have to run in 2016.

That is a whole lot of iffy-ness there. Really, if congress wanted to swear in a president-for-life, there is no reason why they would need to repeal the 22nd amendment first. Worrying about the potential repealing of the 22nd amendment seems like needless (and meaningless) paranoia.

Re:So if it went through... (1)

NonSequor (230139) | more than 4 years ago | (#28246821)

It concerns me any time I see a political party trying to build a nest. I think that any time a political party says "Well this is a nice place to set up shop. Let's unpack our things," it means trouble. I felt the same way when some people were eying Jeb as a replacement Bush.

There are some very good elements to the two-term limit. They have one term where they have to keep an eye on their approval rating and possibly one term where they're less confined. There's good and bad to both of those and I think we need a balance of the two.

There's also the matter of what happens to a party that knows someone is going to be in charge for quite some time. It can promote a certain sort of intellectual inbreeding, as people tend to align themselves with the dominant ideology of their peers.

I think both parties need to live with the idea that they have to pick someone new from time to time. After all, that was the thinking that got Obama elected in the first place. It's very unseemly to talk about change and then start talking about removing the expiration date on the status quo.

Re:So if it went through... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 4 years ago | (#28247655)

Jeb is a dead letter.
Irrespective of whether or not he's a talented leader, at the national level, dynastic politicians have all the appeal of "professional" politicians, i.e., jackasses who can win a popularity contest and tickle the ear, but couldn't last a week in a real company.

Yeah, Right? (1)

ValarClan (1008393) | more than 4 years ago | (#28235377)

I am confused... is this something new? Sounds a little like someone going up in arms about the removal of the need to be a US Citizen to be President to allow Arnold S. to become president...

Nice thing about a democracy is the ability to see the bill being passes. The required access to the public on any bill. We get to see, we get to voice our points, and we help steer the government.

This form of change has always been proposed on every side of the politic. It never goes far.

And being a democracy we have the right to either allow it to change or to even change back.

So I am sorry if I do not see this as a major worry, a thing of note maybe....

Re:Yeah, Right? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 4 years ago | (#28239685)

There had been, until FDR, an unwritten rule placed by Washington that two terms as POTUS is enough.
You just can't show that there is another person of at least equal caliber in a population this size.
So give it up!
This slouching towards a crisis state where only a single personality can save us is the antithesis of the Constitution.

You'd be all for it (1)

Scott Lockwood (218839) | more than 4 years ago | (#28236645)

If that retard W were still in office.

Re:You'd be all for it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28238537)

Maybe not. Already had three Bush terms. There's always Jeb to make four and five. The old man can run again. Then the Bush Twins. Their public record indicates they're just as qualified. No law says you can't keep it in the family.

Re:You'd be all for it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 4 years ago | (#28239671)

Abso-effing-lutely not.
While I'm more generous with the man on foreign policy topics, he was a RINO's RINO domestically.
He did a lousy job of translating his re-election into something that could alter the course of the ship of state to starboard, i.e., away from the collectivist shoals upon which his successor is now stacking up said vessel.

Re:You'd be all for it (1)

Scott Lockwood (218839) | more than 4 years ago | (#28240363)

Ok, that's fair. What if it were Regan, before he lost his mind?

Re:You'd be all for it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 4 years ago | (#28245407)

Reagan was good as far as he went. However, GHWB, rather than building on Reagan's success and starting to attack the FDR/LBG entitlement corruption of the Tenth Amendment, instead flopped more towards the center.
We really need to review everything since Woodrow Wilson in terms of domestic policy and set about reversing this collectivist trend, of which both W and BHO are merely symptomatic.
Or, we become so weakened that nothing save a tyranny by a strong personality can keep the crap propped up, the antithesis of what the Constitutional framers intended.

Re:You'd be all for it (1)

ces (119879) | more than 4 years ago | (#28252721)

Communists! Communists I tell you! Right under the bed!

"I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids." --General Jack T. Ripper

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...