[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Mass job losses as major factory owner moves business overseas

Israel kills IDF soldiers in Lebanon to prevent their kidnap

46% of those deaths were occurring on the day of vaccination or within two days

In 2002 the US signed the Hague Invasion Act into law

MUSK is going after WOKE DISNEY!!!

Bondi: Zuckerberg Colluded with Fauci So "They're Not Immune Anymore" from 1st Amendment Lawsuits

Ukrainian eyewitnesses claim factory was annihilated to dust by Putin's superweapon

FBI Director Wray and DHS Secretary Mayorkas have just refused to testify before the Senate...

Government adds 50K jobs monthly for two years. Half were Biden's attempt to mask a market collapse with debt.

You’ve Never Seen THIS Side Of Donald Trump

President Donald Trump Nominates Former Florida Rep. Dr. Dave Weldon as CDC Director

Joe Rogan Tells Josh Brolin His Recent Bell’s Palsy Diagnosis Could Be Linked to mRNA Vaccine

President-elect Donald Trump Nominates Brooke Rollins as Secretary of Agriculture

Trump Taps COVID-Contrarian, Staunch Public Health Critic Makary For FDA

F-35's Cooling Crisis: Design Flaws Fuel $2 Trillion Dilemma For Pentagon

Joe Rogan on Tucker Carlson and Ukraine Aid

Joe Rogan on 62 year-old soldier with one arm, one eye

Jordan Peterson On China's Social Credit Controls

Senator Kennedy Exposes Bad Jusge

Jewish Land Grab

Trump Taps Dr. Marty Makary, Fierce Opponent of COVID Vaccine Mandates, as New FDA Commissioner

Recovering J6 Prisoner James Grant, Tells-All About Bidens J6 Torture Chamber, Needs Immediate Help After Release

AOC: Keeping Men Out Of Womens Bathrooms Is Endangering Women

What Donald Trump Has Said About JFK's Assassination

Horse steals content from Sara Fischer and Sophia Cai and pretends he is the author

Horse steals content from Jonas E. Alexis and claims it as his own.

Trump expected to shake up White House briefing room

Ukrainians have stolen up to half of US aid ex-Polish deputy minister

Gaza doctor raped, tortured to death in Israeli custody, new report reveals

German Lutheran Church Bans AfD Members From Committees, Calls Party 'Anti-Human'


Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Should Presidents Be Allowed To Serve More Than 2 Terms? : Bills Introduced In Congress To Repeal 8-Year Restriction Of 22nd Amendment
Source: WorldNetDaily.com
URL Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52246
Published: Oct 8, 2006
Author: WND
Post Date: 2006-10-08 11:38:05 by Mind_Virus
Keywords: None
Views: 425
Comments: 28

Should Presidents Be Allowed To Serve More Than 2 Terms?

Bills Introduced In Congress To Repeal 8-Year Restriction Of 22nd Amendment

Posted: October 8, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 http://WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – One thing is certain about the 2008 presidential election campaign that begins in one year: It won't involve George W. Bush as a candidate.

But bipartisan legislation to repeal the 22nd Amendment restriction of two terms for U.S. presidents could change that certainty for future presidents.

Two of the most passionate congressional advocates of such a move – Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-MD, and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-WI – have teamed up to sponsor a resolution that would represent the first step toward that change in the U.S. political system.

"The time has come to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, and not because of partisan politics," explained Hoyer. "While I am not a supporter of the current President, I feel there are good public policy reasons for a repeal of this amendment. Under the Constitution as altered by the 22nd Amendment, this must be President George W. Bush's last term even if the American people should want him to continue in office. This is an undemocratic result."

Until President Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to his fourth term during World War II, there was no such restriction in American law. A tradition of presidents serving two terms only began with George Washington.

"We do not have to rely on rigid constitutional standards to hold our Presidents accountable," said Hoyer. "Sufficient power resides in the Congress and the Judiciary to protect our country from tyranny."

Hoyer argues the 22nd Amendment "has the effect of removing the president from the accountability to political forces that come to bear during regular elections every four years."

Rep. Howard Berman, D-CA, is another advocate of the move.

"I don't like arbitrary term limits,'' he said. "I think our country was better off because Franklin Delano Roosevelt was able to run for a fourth term. Imposing an arbitrary limit makes no sense.''

Should the resolution pass and be approved by the states, the repeal would not go into effect until after the Bush presidency, making him ineligible for multiple consecutive terms.

The 22nd Amendment states: "Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

"Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress."

Hoyer's bill is not the only one in the House with the same goal. Rep. Jose Serrano, D-NY, has introduced a similar resolution. Both of the Democrats have been working on repealing the 22nd Amendment since the presidency of Bill Clinton.

Former President Clinton is on record as approving of the repeal of the 22nd Amendment.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 24.

#2. To: Mind_Virus (#0)

Should Presidents Be Allowed To Serve More Than 2 Terms?

No, a thousand times no. In fact the term for president to be limited to say a 5 or 6 year term and out you go.

Cynicom  posted on  2006-10-08   11:47:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Cynicom (#2)

"No, a thousand times no. In fact the term for president to be limited to say a 5 or 6 year term and out you go."

Groovy Cynic Dude, we fnally agree 100 percent on something.

Ferret Mike  posted on  2006-10-08   11:53:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Ferret Mike (#3)

Groovy Cynic Dude, we fnally agree 100 percent on something.

If you are a student of history...The CSA rewrote the Constitution with term limits on ALL elected offices, their President was restricted to one 6 year term.

The reason for the change was because the Southern states saw the danger in lifetime professional politicians.

The Yankees won the war and now we suffer for their ignorance.

Cynicom  posted on  2006-10-08   11:58:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Cynicom (#4)

"The Yankees won the war and now we suffer for their ignorance."

Southerners as well as us little old New England Yankees are responsible for the drafting and acceptance of the U.S. Constitution.

You mix the inertia factor of how hard it is to change something already made organic to us with regrets the war between the states finished with the result you loathe.

You have to accept responsibility for the ratification taken part in, even if you feel a document drafted to replace it was used for but a brief span of a few years is better and you wish the Confederacy yet lived.

The myopia of the product accepted at the Constitutional convention belongs to everyone in the several states.

Stop whining, it's lame. /teasing

Ferret Mike  posted on  2006-10-08   12:07:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Ferret Mike (#8)

responsible for the drafting

Southerners wrote it, Uncle Ben edited it.

Cynicom  posted on  2006-10-08   12:09:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Cynicom (#9)

"Southerners wrote it, Uncle Ben edited it."

And the similar document called The Constitution of the Iroquois Nations inspired much of it. I don't argue aspects of the genesis, I merely point out that once signed, all own responsibility for it, with all due respect. ;-)

Ferret Mike  posted on  2006-10-08   12:21:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Ferret Mike (#11)

And the similar document called The Constitution of the Iroquois Nations inspired much of it.

With all due respect, that might be a stretch.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/iroquois.htm

It certainly is more poetic!

robin  posted on  2006-10-08   12:28:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: robin (#13)

The Iroquois confederation was cited as an example of dispersal of power in making arguments for the constitution. The claim that it "inspired" the Constutition is ridiculous. The founders were classically educated men- that is- steeped in Greek and Roman history. As was typical of educational standards of that time- an "educated man" coud read and write both Greek and Latin and was well versed in the classics of ancient literature. The raging topic of the great Roman orators of the Republic were about tyranny and ways to limit it. The founders were obssessed with the fall of the Roman Republic and poured over its history to see where it went wrong- how it slid from virtuous stoic republic to decedant militarized empire. They wrote the constitution with that very much in mind. The Iroguios confederation was NOT the inspiration to the constution but merely an example and argument used in favor of it.

Burkeman1  posted on  2006-10-08   12:37:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Burkeman1 (#15)

Ah, spoken like someone with the thin vein of Manifest Destiny and gratitude for the Doctrine of Discovery running through them. We all have shadows of the Indian loather in all of us, do we not? I include myself in this, despite all my good intentions. ;-)

Interesting argument I am well familiar with, but I do not concur.

Ferret Mike  posted on  2006-10-08   12:46:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Ferret Mike (#16)

Ah, spoken like someone with the thin vein of Manifest Destiny and gratitude for the Doctrine of Discovery running through them.

Huh?

Burkeman1  posted on  2006-10-08   12:48:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Burkeman1 (#17) (Edited)

I am merely saying you betray your lack of regard for the influence the natives these men knew well had as is typical of people in our culture, that's all.

Ferret Mike  posted on  2006-10-08   12:54:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Ferret Mike (#18)

And I am merely saying that a confedeation of stone age tribesmen and their dispersal of power was merely an example used atop a well layed cultural and education framework of a civilization that had been grappling with political questions about tyranny for hundreds of years in attempting to devise a system of government that would limit concentrations of power. The idea that the Iroquios confederation created this debate out of thin air is preposterous.

Burkeman1  posted on  2006-10-08   13:14:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Burkeman1 (#19) (Edited)

"stone age"

You reveal I am right concerning your cultural prejudice with those two words. These folks had also been grappling with the same political questions about tyranny and the matriarchal aspects of their devision of political and economic power shows they were just as innovative and sophisticated as we ever were in developing solutions and compromises to ameliorate and or eliminate concentrations of power.

These people were anything but "stone age." Just because they hadn't adopted gun powder from Chinese civilization and had the traditions and science of war out geography necessitated us to develop their relative isolation protected them from, that hardly means they were any less a sophisticated and evolved culture as ours.

Ferret Mike  posted on  2006-10-08   13:23:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Ferret Mike (#20)

That's all well and good, but the point is that the Iroquios confederation was not the blueprint for the constitution or the inspiration for it. Anglo settlers didn't wake up one morning and say- gee - look at that confederation - what a good idea- lets imitate that. In case you hadn't noticed- they came from a civilization that was a little more in depth about politics, the role of the state, rights of citizens, property rights, wether rights were god given or "granted" from the state- their own history in which the early history of the first democracies and republics were carefully studied- an entire paradigm of thought that revolved around the rights and responsibilities of the individual and the state.

The simple minded idiocy of a dumbed down PC left that says the white man copied the constitition from the Iroqios is history for morons.

Burkeman1  posted on  2006-10-08   13:38:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Burkeman1 (#21)

"The simple minded idiocy of a dumbed down PC left that says the white man copied the constitition from the Iroquois is history for morons."

I could lower myself to the ad homenim level, but I studied Native American culture never, ever because I had to, I did it because I had a passion for doing so, and I recognize the tragedy of what was lost, and how in many ways, they had elements to their myriads of cultures actually far better then our own. I leave you to suffer the narrow minded haughtiness of your statement alone.

My views incidentally are not solely the purview of those left of you on political outlook.

We came to the better parts of the Constitution in spite of our historic legacy, not because of it. If the Founding Fathers had not had the Iroquois and other natives there to get fresh perspectives, the final product of that convention would have been far less inspiring.

End of this discussion. Grow-up.

Ferret Mike  posted on  2006-10-08   13:52:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Ferret Mike (#22)

We came to the better parts of the Constitution in spite of our historic legacy, not because of it. If the Founding Fathers had not had the Iroquois and other natives there to get fresh perspectives, the final product of that convention would have been far less inspiring.

You are an unserious boob. End of discussions with you period.

Burkeman1  posted on  2006-10-08   14:02:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 24.

#26. To: Burkeman1 (#24)

"You are an unserious boob. End of discussions with you period."

Nice coining of a word, unserious. Actually I an quite serious, which is why I declined your invitation to a mud wrestling match here.

You claim you left LP because people were intellectually lazy and dismissive of discussion of any depth. Yet here you lash out because I differ in opinion, and my perspective is different.

Later Alligator.

Ferret Mike  posted on  2006-10-08 14:30:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 24.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]