This just seems like a very bad idea.
New York congressman introduces bill to abolish presidential term limits | The Daily Caller
New York congressman introduces bill to abolish presidential term limits | The Daily Caller
Abolishing Presidential Term Limits
- Thread starter davekc
- Start date
This has been that plan all along. The First Dictator of the Soviet Socialist States of North America, OR, King Putz the 1st.
They don't need to pass the bill once they finish off the Constitution it won't matter anymore.
They don't need to pass the bill once they finish off the Constitution it won't matter anymore.
It would certainly be a change to the Constitution.
Once they finish with their "gun control" BS there will be no Constitution.
They certainly seem ok with dismantling it. Of course, for our own good.
As far as guns, they need to spend a little more time on the other side of this issue. These two instances just this last week. One in GA and one in OK.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/my-...ome-intruder-five-times-after-being-cornered/
http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605
Last edited:
That may be true but the fact remains that they are going to try to take over the country. A 'president for life' would really do them well. They don't give a flip about the Constitution.
As with the guns, they KNOW that they cannot pass an amendment, which is the ONLY legal way to do what they want, so they will force it through, enforce by what ever means they see fit and the hell with the Constitution.
These are dark days for our nation.
Don't know the ins and outs of the process but the person pushing this said he wanted Obama to do another term in a interview this morning. Maybe some more trickery coming our way.
Maybe some trickery? The correct term of what is going on in "coup d'etat"
Naaaa. You know the process well enough. The 22nd Amendment is pretty clear. The 22nd Amendment was passed by Congress in 1947 and ratified by the proper number of States to become an Amendment in 1951. Before F.D. Roosevelt, largely due to the precedent that George Washington set, few presidents chose to run for a third term. But there was nothing in the Constitution preventing a president from being elected over and over until he died, which is exactly what happened with Franklin D. A handful tried for third term, like Grant, Cleveland, Teddy R, and Wilson, but all were defeated. After FDR winning a 4th election in 1944, the people, you know, the people who voted him in 4 times, said enough is enough, and forced Congress to act, and then the States ratified it well within the allotted 7 years mandated in the Amendment to ratify it. All the Amendment does is formalize that tradition started with Washington.
Personally, I think that if the President has term limits, then the members of Congress should, too. That, or no one should. But I lean towards term limits for Senators at 12 years, and 6 years for Representatives, and the president at 8 years. The flip side of that is, term limits literally tell people who they can and cannot vote for, so it's a tricky situation. If enough people want to elect the president over and over again, they should probably be allowed to, because otherwise you're telling them who they cannot vote for.
But, the Framers of the Constitution set it up so that the Senate was turned over every 6 years, with elections for the Senate taking place in thirds every two years. Every other year one third of the Senate was turned over with new elected legislators. The idea behind that was to have some continuity, but also completely rather Congress with new people every 6 years, the thought that after a Senator served his term he'd go back to the farm or the hat shop or whatever, and every 2 years you'd have 2-year and 4-year veterans showing the newbies the ropes, and then it starts all over again.
But that's not what's happening. We have Senators serving careers in the Senate, and that's not what was intended. So, 2 terms for Senators, max, and 3 terms for Representatives, max. Setting term limits in Congress prevents the Pelosis and Reids and Thurmonds (48 years, sheesh) from taking such unadulterated power, so much power that they become a power unto themselves, and largely forget about anyone back home, much less the country. It becomes all about attaining and keeping that power, and grabbing more if you can, rather than about governing the country and dealing with its problems.
Repealing the 22nd Amendment is certainly not unthinkable. Anything that can be ratified can be repealed. But the chances of that happening in time for Obama to serve a third term is remote, and it wouldn't make any difference if the proposed repeal didn't apply to anyone who has previously or currently held the office, which is the only way it would ever get ratified. No thrid Obama, no third Clinton, no third Carter or Bush, no matter what. That's the only way it would fly with the required 38 States to ratify a Constitutional Amendment (which, BTW, is what I think should have happened with Obamacare, that because it's so fundamentally life-changing for all Americans and te way we live on a daily basis, that it be in the Constitution as an Amendment and be ratified by the three-fourths of the States, which, of course, wouldn't ever happen, but that's another story).
There is an interesting possibility with a president serving a third term under the current 22nd Amendment, when compared to the 12th Amendment. What's interesting about this situation is that the 22nd Amendment only makes two-term presidents ineligible to "be elected to the office of President." But is Obama, for example, allowed to serve as president? Ah, hah! Pick a nit.
The 12th Amendment (Electoral College) states that, "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." What if Obama were the Democratic nominee for vice president, Biden was the nominee for president, and the Democrats won? If Biden couldn't finish his term (or simply steps down and resigns) could Obama be president again? Or would he be unable to serve as vice president in the first place? For now, this is an unresolved question, and it'll take that very situation to get it resolved.
The Twenty-Second Amendment was written to keep two-termers out. The Twelfth Amendment says two-termers can’t run for vice president either, or so it seems, at least that was the intention. Obama is a two-termer. It’s not that complicated, and people know it. But that's not technically what it says.
Three years from now, the Democrats have no clear frontrunner and little chance of winning the next presidential election. Then, on the virtual eve of the election, disaster strikes: a treacherous terrorist attack kills tens of thousands of Americans (no comment on whether it was genuine terrorists or it was orchestrated by the All the President's Men). The country rallies behind President Obama as he leads a strong offensive against the terrorists and their sponsors. His approval rating shoots into the nineties. While the country is badly rattled by the attack, people feel safer with Obama in charge.
Support for repeal of the 22nd Amendment rises to almost 50 percent in the polls. But Republicans - and several prominent Democrats - argue against amending the Constitution in the heat of the moment, so the congressional and state supermajorities needed for an amendment are well out of reach.
Hey! President Obama can run for vice president, the Democrats say. Many people would find Obama’s mere presence reassuring. Others envision a figurehead president who would leave VP Obama in charge or perhaps even resign and let Obama become president again. That last little maneuver would be constitutional, they say, because the Twenty-Second Amendment only says that no one “shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,” and Obama would not be “elected” president. The amendment says nothing about a two-term president “succeeding” to the presidency, or “serving” as president. Buoyed by Obama’s stratospheric popularity and the atmosphere of crisis, the plan rapidly gains support, and Obama’s anointed surrogate, Joe Biden, sweeps the Democratic presidential primaries.
The Republicans object forcefully. As one senator puts it on a Sunday morning talk show, “We’re all grateful to President Obama for his leadership during these difficult times, but everybody knows we have a two-term limit. We shouldn’t let the Constitution be a casualty of this war.” Obama is officially nominated for vice president at the Democratic convention, and the litigation floodgates open.
The courts don't overturn the nomination, or they don't move fast enough, and Biden is elected, and 15 minutes after his inauguration he resigns from the office stating personal reasons. Viola! Four More Years!
It's be almost as fun watching that happen as it would have been watching the passing and the ratification of the 22nd amendment in the first place. It'll be mass hysteria. Cats and dogs living together. I'm tellin' ya.
The possible scenarios listed above would be downright depressing. Add to that other possible scenarios of a Michelle Obama/Hillary or a Hillary/Michelle 2016 with reelections of either in 2020. All the while having Bill and Barry behind the scene for another eight to twelve years. God help us all. "And then... depression set in."
"And then... depression set in."
pandora2112
Seasoned Expediter
If I remember correctly Serrano the one who wants to introduce this bill has tried every two years since 1997 to get it to vote on the floor...so far he can't get enough support to even get it to the floor.
)0( Nasmaste )0(
)0( Nasmaste )0(
It would be hilarious enough if that happened. This character has tried this numerous times in the past. Wasn't sure if they/he was going to pull a fast one somewhere that I wasn't aware of.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
You had to quote all that?
Add to that list the Kennedys, Byrds and Dingells, then think of the millions of dollars in pensions, etc. these selfless public servants have saved the American taxpayer because they held their seats for 40 to 60 years reducing the total number of pension eligible congress by their lengthy tenure.
I'd like to see the term limits mentioned above implemented. I'd also like to see a change in pension requirements to go with the term limits. 14 years of service for a Senator to be vested and 10 years for Congress and no carry over between the House and Senate.
As to John Dingellberry, we won't be paying him a pension for long, he is in BAD shape, not long for this world.
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
Aww darn. He has my condolences right along side Ted "Shoulda Died at Chappaquidick" Kennedy.
Here's to not lingering... err... suffering too long.
I did not even recognize him when I seen him this summer. He has REALLY gone down the drain. He wife is doing his work. All those who are stuck with him as their congressman, in reality no longer has one. I bet they elect his son when he crooks.