HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Government & Elections » Election Reform (Group) » Amendment proposed to rep...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:04 AM

Amendment proposed to repeal constitutional limit on number of Presidential terms?

Has the congressional website been hacked or is this real?


H.J.Res.15 - 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.


http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-joint-resolution/15?q=113th+CONGRESS+1st+Session+H.+J.+RES.+15

21 replies, 2483 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply Amendment proposed to repeal constitutional limit on number of Presidential terms? (Original post)
Howzit Jan 2013 OP
JohnRebel Jan 2013 #1
Kennah Jan 2013 #3
Trajan Jan 2013 #19
Kennah Jan 2013 #2
RoverSuswade Jan 2013 #4
defacto7 Jan 2013 #6
cecilfirefox Jan 2013 #10
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #5
defacto7 Jan 2013 #7
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #13
graham4anything Jan 2013 #8
xxxsdesdexxx Jan 2013 #9
NBachers Jan 2013 #11
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #12
defacto7 Jan 2013 #16
Howzit Jan 2013 #17
PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #14
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #15
putitinD Jan 2013 #18
Undismayed Jan 2013 #20
Peace Patriot Jan 2013 #21

Response to Howzit (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:11 AM

1. So we can have

 

So we can have a president for life? Why would this be a good thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnRebel (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:18 AM

3. What's wrong with letting the people, not corporations, choose?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kennah (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 06:10 AM

19. Absolute non sequitur ...

A hard limit on terms has equal impact, whether voting is done by people or corporations ...

Most people agree with hard limits on the office of the Presidency ....

Unlimited? .... I don't think so .... no fuckin way

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Howzit (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:19 AM

4. I would prefer ONE 6-year term.

There would be no need to please everyone while campaigning for a second term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoverSuswade (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:22 AM

6. Or even one 8 year term.

It could also lessen the lame duck season and make the office more productive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoverSuswade (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:33 AM

10. ^ THAT! + A Million. It should be the same length of time as a Senator. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Howzit (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:25 AM

7. So this proposal

just flew out of nowhere? Strange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:41 AM

13. See comment #12. He reintroduced it because it expired at the end of the last session. n/t


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Howzit (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:28 AM

8. I am for it. The constitution did NOT allow for limits until the repubs for political reason did it

 

and it bit them in the ass shortly after too, ironic huh.

Let the people decide.

It would stop someone from being a lameduck.

Term limits are actually against the constitution to start off with

don't like a certain president? Then don't elect that one.
And though 43 can't run again, Jeb is in 2016, so what's the difference?

I would proudly vote for President Obama again.
Though I would actually want him to become a Supreme Court Justice picked by Hillary45 in 2018.

President Obama was born to be Chief Justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Howzit (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:29 AM

9. I wonder why he thought that it was important to introduce this proposed amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Howzit (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:35 AM

11. If we can get rid of the corrupt voting machines and make sure our vote-counting system is accurate

and eliminate voter cadging and election fraud and then eliminate gerrymandering, I'm all for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Howzit (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:40 AM

12. It is the old H.J.Res.17 resolution from the last congressional session it just has a new name...


and reintroduced into the new congressional session.


In 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009 (HJR 5) and 2011 (HJR 17), Serrano introduced a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd Amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as president. Each resolution, with the exception of the current one, died without ever getting past the committee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Enrique_Serrano#Tenure

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 04:00 AM

16. I guess that's why it seems to have come from nowhere.

It's just brushed aside and it never gets traction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 04:42 AM

17. Thanks NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Howzit (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:44 AM

14. Apparently Serrano has introduced this every 2 years since 1997, see...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Howzit (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:45 AM

15. He has submitted this resolution to EVERY congressional session since 1997

See comment #12 for details.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Howzit (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 04:44 AM

18. I'm all for it, let the people decide

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Howzit (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:31 PM

20. How about no?

 

It's hard to believe this is even being proposed. There is absolutely no reason to have lifelong presidents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Howzit (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:43 AM

21. The argument for no term limit on the prez is simple: FDR, New Deal!

The rich and the corporate have their clubs, their entrenched power and, of course, their money. The poor majority needs TIME to counter all that money and power and establish fairness, and if they luck out with a leader like FDR as president, they need to be able to keep him in office BY VOTING FOR HIM--until he can tame the banksters, establish fair taxation, create great worker-paid programs like Social Security, and so on.

These things take TIME. The rich and the corporate OPPOSE FAIRNESS and fight it tooth and nail, as they did FDR and the New Deal.

And this is how OUR FOUNDERS wanted things to work. They put NO term limit on the president because they considered it UNDEMOCRATIC. They wanted the people to be able to have whomever they wanted as president. They were also leery of many of the same things that have come to haunt us--the banksters, corporations, the moneyed class--and tried to check their power--and one of the BALANCES they put in the Constitution, to counter these undemocratic influences, was NO TERM LIMIT ON THE PRESIDENT, i.e, giving the PEOPLES' chief representative the right to be re-elected, time and again, if the PEOPLE wished to do so. And that is exactly what the PEOPLE did, in electing FDR to FOUR terms in office.

People who support a term limit on the president often don't know this history, nor do they realize that the REPUBLICANS rammed the 22nd amendment through, in the mid-1950s, PRECISELY BECAUSE they wanted to prevent a "New Deal" from ever happening here again, and to begin dismantling the one we had--which they have very nearly accomplished.

That said, I would add a few caveats. One, we must--we really MUST--get rid of the 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines, as a first step to recovering our democracy. Two, we must then address the other ways that elections are stolen--the filthy campaign money, the corporate media propagandists, fascists getting put into positions of power over voting rolls, etc., BY the 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines and these other anti-democratic forces.

The voting machines are now largely (75%) controlled by ONE, PRIVATE, FAR RIGHTWING-CONNECTED corporation--ES&S, which bought out Diebold--with NO AUDIT AT ALL (comparison of ballots to electronic totals) in half the states in the U.S., and a miserably inadequate 1% audit in the other half.

We MUST get rid of these machines and restore PUBLIC voting counting. It's the bottom line of democracy. Without it, we don't really have a democracy.

We can argue up one side and down another, about term limits, and it is all meaningless when our votes are no longer counted in the PUBLIC VENUE.

The very counting of our votes has been PRIVATIZED. We MUST change this!

We will NEVER see a "New Deal" in this country again--we will NEVER see fairness in this country again--until we do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread