Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Bill Introduced to House of Representitives to Repeal the 22nd Amendment

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Eagle, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    282

    Post imported post

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111: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... (Introduced in House)

    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    `The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.'.
    They have to be crazy to even consider proposing this.

  2. #2
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    From Wikipedia, "Serrano's district is one of the smallest in the country geographically consisting of a few miles of the heavily urbanized and populated South Bronx in New York City."

    I guess maybe he thinks BO should be President for Life?

    TFred


  3. #3
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    If they can vote to repeal one important amendment such as this, what is going to stop them from repealing more that assure our inalienable rights?

    E-mail and call your reps ASAP!

    Sorry this is an NRA site, but what the hell it's got the contact info.

    http://capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/

    How can I add it to my signature?
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    demnogis wrote:
    If they can vote to repeal one important amendment such as this, what is going to stop them from repealing more that assure our inalienable rights?
    See Article V of the US Constitution.

    They have a ways to go before they can "repeal" our unalienable rights. Not saying they can't do other things that undermine them.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut....articlev.html
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Well, they can introduce it. I doubt they will get 2/3 of both houses to vote for it and am pretty confident that they won't get 3/4 of the states to ratify it even if they did. Now that landscape may be entirely different by 2010 if the GOP leadership continues down its current path but for now, I'm not too worried about this one. However, symbolically its introduction says a lot and if it does come up for a vote in either chamber, that voting record will also tell us a lot.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  6. #6
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    Tomorrow, Serrano's going to introduce legislation creating the position of "Consul", buying Obama a horse, and appointing it to that post...
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  7. #7
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post

    This guy probably made a bunch of BS promises during his last run for office and tacked them all on this proposal, knowing well that it was the proverbial snowball in hell. This way he can blame the Republicans for denying the people of their right to live without working. This is scary, but unlikely. Then again...

  8. #8
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Maybe I should get those bifocals. I thought the title was "to repeal 2nd Amendment" and about had a %^$* hemmorhage.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Eagle, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    282

    Post imported post

    Alexcabbie wrote:
    Maybe I should get those bifocals. I thought the title was "to repeal 2nd Amendment" and about had a %^$* hemmorhage.
    Sorry, perhaps I Should have titled it differently....

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chesterfield, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    98

    Post imported post

    .40 Cal wrote:
    This guy probably made a bunch of BS promises during his last run for office and tacked them all on this proposal, knowing well that it was the proverbial snowball in hell. This way he can blame the Republicans for denying the people of their right to live without working. This is scary, but unlikely. Then again...
    Lets not take any chances and contact our reps on every legislative issue such as this.

    I will. I have.

    We have to do it every time to show them we mean business and our numbers are there.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Texas, United States
    Posts
    130

    Post imported post

    This is absurd. There was a damned good reason we put a limit on terms. If anything, I'd like to see term limits on Congress

  12. #12
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    I had heard of this proposal a few weeks ago. Makes me ill. Dang socialists.
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,000

    Post imported post

    From what I understand (via my grandfather years ago) term limits on the Presidency was because Franklin D. Roosevelt was too popular with the People for Congress' liking. I suppose being up for a 4th term would do that.

    What I'd really like to see is term limits on Congress. A maximum of 6 terms for Representatives (since they have 2 year terms) and a maximum of 2 terms for Senators (since they serve for 6 year terms).

    Or simply make Congressional term limits such that after certain number of terms in office, you cannot serve in that office again until the same amount of time has passed. Thus a Senator with 2 terms under the aforementioned limits would have to wait 12 years before running for election again.

    Regardless of how it is done, Congress needs a bit of reining in done to their power.

  14. #14
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    2 years for congressmen and senators, 8 year total term limits.

    Both Politicians and Diapers should be changed often and for the same reason.
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    demnogis wrote:
    2 [terms] for congressmen and senators, 8 year total term limits.

    Both Politicians and Diapers should be changed often and for the same reason.
    8 years for the House, 12 years for the Senate...
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%...ical_positions

    On November 18, 2005, he was one of three votes in favor of immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. The other two votes were from Cynthia McKinney of Georgia and Robert Wexler of Florida.[3]

    In each of 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009, 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.[4]

  17. #17
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%...ical_positions

    On November 18, 2005, he was one of three votes in favor of immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. The other two votes were from Cynthia McKinney of Georgia and Robert Wexler of Florida.[3]

    In each of 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009, 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.[4]
    Thus proving my point that he adds all his re-election BS promises to a bill that will not pass just so he can say he tried, but "we'll get 'em next time!"

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    You aren't even looking at the big picture here.

    If those 9 illiterates can't read, what makes anyone think they can count also?
    You write an amendment to repeal #20, and those morons will argue it also repeals
    #2 since it is part of number 20.
    No untill we have an amendment to protect america from the SCOTUS,
    you don't dare ever add a new one to the constitution.

    Even the most benign worded one would end up killing us.
    Look at the flag burning amendment that would have made cars unconstitutional.

    The closest thing to an amendment we need is a new one to return powers to the states,
    maybe worded like #10 but in english this time.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •