Do You think Congress will repeal the 22 Amendment?

[jus_the_facts]

Poll question: Do You think Congress will repeal the 22 Amendment?

The 22nd Amendment

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice


H.J.RES.24
Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.
Sponsor: Rep Hoyer, Steny H. (introduced 2/17/2005) Cosponsors (4)
Latest Major Action: 4/4/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.j.res.00024:

[Ravenseye]

1. It Depends

If we do our jobs and help get some seats or even win the congress back in 2006 then no.

If we and our leadership sits on our collective asses again and the Republicans win 60 seats in the Senate, and keep or increase their majority in the house we're in a heapshit of trouble.

Then it'll just be 2/3rds of the states to ratify before a third term.

Hopefully that'll prevent it if that happens.

[ISUGRADIA]

15. actually it's 3/4 of the states Article 5

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.

[xxqqqzme]

22. '...or by conventions in three fourths thereof...'

That's a mighty big OR. I can imagine any number of ways that OR could be interpreted. I can also imagine how the delegates to such a convention might B chosen.

If the resolutions have been introduced, they R going to try. '06 is going 2 B very difficult because voter fraud is going national. The rong wing thought they had the formula in Florida in '00; they practiced the revisions in '02 in Georgia & Minnisota; were so sure of themselves that the revised formula went full force in Ohio, New Mexico, Nevada & Florida in '04. (Hounded CA's duly elected Sec of State from office on rumor and inuendo in '05. We now have a rethug appointed SOS.) There R very few states that have voter verified paper ballot requirements. One reason arNOld is pushing hard 4 the special election in CA is that VVPBs Bcome effective 1/1/06.


The rong wing has declared war on 'we the people'.

[sasquatch]

2. If they do we'll run the big dog against them

[ArkDem]

7. You mean Barbara's son?

[sasquatch]

9. No, the former resident of Arkansas that now lives in Harlem, New York

[ArkDem]

27. Same guy. Except he doesn't live in Harlem. He lives in

Chappaqua which has a totally different demographic than Harlem.

[ComerPerro]

11. Fraud. Fraud. Fraud

That's all it will take

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Fraud only works in close elections (for the time being)

Clinton would have substantial leads over shrub in about a dozen states that are usually considered "swing states" meaning that Diebold would have to change millions and millions of votes to give shrub a third term. If they did, Clinton's internals would showed him significantly up outside of the margin of error and he'd actually sue whatever states were involved in the fraud.

The real question is big dog's health. I don't see this as a likely scenario anyway. Shrub isn't nearly popular enough that people will change the constitution for him and I'm pretty sure the GOP would like somebody a bit more articulate for the job.

Of course, this is all the more reason that we need to get the Republicans out of the white house. Fraud may only work when it's too close to call right now, but it doesn't mean that it will stay that way.

[pbartch]

20. The "big dog" .....being BILL CLINTON!!!

I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.

[Goldmund]

3. No

It doesn't matter WHO the president is, as long as the CABAL is in power. This would simply cause unnecessary political waves.

[Felix Mala]

4. I can only hope so...

If Reagan had served those last four years instead of Bush I, his image might not be so shiny these days. I think the same could be said for Bush II. His crummy prescription plan won't even be in effect until his last year in office.

No one should have the right to limit my choices for president.

[MoonRiver]

5. No, because Jeb wants his turn. eom

[On Par]

6. Let's Remember Two-Thirds of the States Must Ratify....

..for the amendment to be repealed. And they have 7 years to do it.

The 22nd amendment limiting presidential tenure, took 4 years to ratify. Maine was the first in 1947, Minnesota the 36th in 1951 in a 48 state union.

[Norquist Nemesis]

8. Which is why I voted "no" n/t

[Ashley1102]

10. How many votes?

How many votes would it take for the amendment to be repealed?

[Shrubhater]

13. Are you aware that you don't have an avatar image?

:shrug: (You might have answered before, but I think the thread was locked before I could read your answer.)

[Norquist Nemesis]

14. If you're looking for a number

it is 51% of the voters from at least 66% of the 50 states in the affirmative on the question to repeal.

[I Have A Dream]

25. Welcome to DU, Ashley1102!

:)

[ISUGRADIA]

16. even harder than that 3/4 of states Article 5

Any amendement will not pass before 2008 if it ever passes Congress.

[Shrubhater]

12. If that happens, there would be two issues:

If we had a good president (such as Clinton), it would benifit the country. If we had an evil president (such as shrub), it would destroy the country. If it happens, I would suggest that the U.S citizens and the goverment would vote before Election Day if the incumbent would be eligible for a third term.

[Sgt. Baker]

17. two more

H.JRes17 and H.J.Res38 are the exact same thing.

I sure hope this does not go through. The reason it was put there is to limit the influence of one person for more than 8 years and help keep a balance of power. Even if we had the greatest president the US has ever seen trying to do this I would not support it.

[Protagoras]

18. They had their shot under Reagan and perhaps Clinton

but Bush has lost any chance of it. I think trying to institutionalize an Imperial Presidency will blow up in their face...and they know it.

[NoPasaran]

19. No

The rethugs couldn't bear the return of the Clenis.

[Jamison]

21. I say no

but I wouldn't put it past them to try it so they could keep King George in power for life.

[patricia92243]

24. As long as Bill Clinton is alive they won't chance it. When he is gone, I

would not be surprised.

[On Par]

26. If There Was No 22nd Amendment....

Eisenhower would have won 3 terms, Reagan would have won 3 terms, and a President named William Jefferson Clinton would not only have won 3 terms, but could conceivably currently be in his 4th term!


16 years of peace and prosperity. Think about it. Repeal the 22nd amendment!

[Hippo_Tron]

31. Reagan might have lost for a third term because of Iran Contra

Granted, our nominee would've had to be somebody better than Michael Dukakis, but it would've certainly been a close one.

[On Par]

33. Ronnie Carried 49 States in 1984.

Close isn't a term I would have used.

[Hippo_Tron]

35. Ronnie was very popular in 1984, not so much in 1988

Also, Mondale ran an awful campaign. And like I said, Iran Contra was a serious matter that the Democrats could've done a much better job using aginst Bush and could've used against Reagan if he had run for a third term. I think Bill Clinton vs Reagan in 1988 would've been a good matchup that could've gone either way.

[KitSileya]

28. I think they're more likely to pass an amendment

allowing American citizens born on foreign soil to become president.

[tuvor]

29. Kick!

[AntiCoup2K4]

30. I think Steny Whore needs to remember who he's supposed to work for.

He's more a Likud sellout than Lieberman is. Treasonous piece of shit.

[Independent_Liberal]

32. I seriously doubt it.

I have a feeling it won't happen.

[dansolo]

34. Not with Bush's ratings in the crapper

The rats will rapidly abandon this sinking ship, and they will not promote an issue that will invariably seem like a setup to re-elect Bush. Bush is quickly becoming a lame duck, and the GOP members will want to distance themselves from him.

[xkenx]

36. NO WAY

will that pass, because we'll be able to run Bill Clinton again.
Can you just see THOSE debates?

[Up2Late]

37. Other! WTF? Rep. Steny Hoyer is a DEMOCRAT WTF?

:wtf: What is he thinking?