Comments on: 111th Congress HJ Res. 5 Introduced To Repeal The 22nd Amendment.

By: JoeG

JoeG — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 06:13:16 +0000

The guys been on the board for 2 years and isn’t some dem troll. Why the third degree?

Lighten up. And if you’re going to come down on me for saying that so be it. Look in the mirror when you wonder why the conservatives are so disorganized.

By: itrytobenice

itrytobenice — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 02:52:25 +0000

and gloriously, wonderfully, blessedly, phenomenally, perfectly pleasing.

By: 6eorge Jetson

6eorge Jetson — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:53:53 +0000

Jeopardy Question: Three associated w/ the US Presidential two-term limit. One an intential influencer, one an unintential influencer, and one a non-influencer.

By: Finrod

Finrod — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:46:22 +0000

Imagine this passing, being ratified, .. and then Sarah Palin defeats Obama in 2012 and goes on to three presidential terms.

By: baseketball

baseketball — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:50:36 +0000

“If the people want to vote for a psychopathic dictator, gosh darn it, that’s their right!”

Well, yeah. It is. If the public first gets rid of all that constitutional stuff preventing the President from being a dictator by the approved constitutional process, then yes, they can do that.

By: Neil Stevens

Neil Stevens — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:44:56 +0000

It’s fun to needle them with though, and we should at every opportunity.

By: Neil Stevens

Neil Stevens — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:39:10 +0000

In my experience libertarianism runs directly counter to raw democracy. Because I mean, if the people want to vote for a psychopathic dictator, gosh darn it, that’s their right!

Heck, the whole Constitution is drawn up under the “people can’t be trusted” argument!

By: baseketball

baseketball — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:11:10 +0000

Term limits are a pet-peeve of mine, I’ve got some libertarian tendencies and telling us who we can and can’t nominate just because of how many times we’ve nominated them before seems incredibly stupid. If the public wants someone for three terms, why the hell shouldn’t they have them for three terms? Presidents are usually either hated (Bush 43, Carter, Nixon, Truman, Johnson), or loved (Clinton, Reagan, Eisenhower) at the end of their political careers, and I don’t see why if the public wants them back for four more years they shouldn’t be able to have them. Most arguments for term limits tend to involve the “people are idiots” argument, which, while true (see our current government), is not really to my mind an adequate reason for making it illegal for certain people to run for office.

By: margo

margo — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:20:33 +0000

This fool must have been pretending that Al Gore was president back then.

8 years is plenty. 4 has been too many for some of them.

By: Neil Stevens

Neil Stevens — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:10:47 +0000

By: Moe Lane

Moe Lane — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:08:27 +0000

By: shooflyguy68

shooflyguy68 — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:05:32 +0000

I apologize for the omission. The point is that this has been a long term goal for this congressman for some reason and thus the fear that this is a Chavez-like move to keep Obama in power is a bit overwrought.

By: Moe Lane

Moe Lane — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:56:50 +0000

He first started this fairly pointless quest in 2003. That'd be from the same place from which you got your link, so don't play forget-to-source games here again, understand? Indicate your understanding in your next post.

By: mbecker908

mbecker908 — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:54:44 +0000

The only things that have a decent shot at making an amendment is stuff like this. Procedural, no big deal to the status quo, only about 5% of the public would have a clue about it anyway and nobody else cares. Of the 5%, half will be BO supporters hoping for at least three terms. The other half are Rs thinking “We could have run Reagan again in ’88.” And yes, Reagan sick would be preferable to either B1 or C.

By: mbecker908

mbecker908 — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:50:21 +0000

At the beginning of the campaign B1 had a 85%++ approval rating.

By: shooflyguy68

shooflyguy68 — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:45:37 +0000

This same congressman introduced this bill in 2005, after President Bush's re-election. Maybe he saw into his crystal ball and knew Obama would be elected in 2008. Nostradamus

By: Achance

Achance — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:38:46 +0000

By: VanishingNYRep

VanishingNYRep — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:30:15 +0000

This is not going to pass. The Dems will NEVER get the 2/3 votes in either the House or the Senate. Especially the House. They will never get 38 States to ratify it. It was passed in 1950s because most of the people were angry that FDR wouldn’t leave office and although the incorrectly adored him for “ending” the Depression, they didn’t want someone else refusing to leave. This has 0 chance of ever becoming an Amendment.

By: scarlos

scarlos — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 06:42:35 +0000

I have to ask, did Mr. Serrano think this bill through? I mean it’s not like it help his cause to introduce such a bill THIS early.

FDR won his 3rd term only because Hitler was rampaging through Europe and Willike (the GOP nominee) made it a key focus of his campaign and it had serious traction with voters, as even though it wasn’t official, it was deeply respected in the Minds of American voters.

Now, before their guy even takes office they are attempting to repeal the bill passed specifically designed so that wouldn’t happen again . . . this is going to explode in their face if people start to hear of it.

By: stang

stang — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 06:31:51 +0000

They still have “elections”!

“It is a paradox that every dictator has climbed to power on the ladder of free speech. Immediately on attaining power each dictator has suppressed all free speech except his own.”

Herbert Hoover