Do you really think Serrano put out this bill so we could have endless Obama? Did you have the same 'endless Bush' outrage when Serrano introduced an identical bill in 2003 (HR 11) or again later that same year with HR 25, which garnered bipartisan sponsorship from six other Representatives? Or when Earl Michener (R-Michigan) introduced an identical bill in 1987 when Regan was president? Over the years a number of congressmen (including two or three times by Barney Frank, and at least once by Harry Reid during Bush's presidency) have introduced the same bills, and none of them have made it out of committee.
You haven't seen this in the MSM because it's not news. It won't be news until it gets out of committee. At this point it's just another draft resolution, one of hundreds, that get introduced each year in the House. Yawn.
However, Eisenhower, Clinton and Reagan were all outspoken regarding term limits on the president. We have had term limits for the president for all of 58 years. For 175 years, between 1776 and 1951, we didn't have term limits. In those 175 years we had no kings, no thrones of power handed down through heredity, no elected dictators who grasped power and refused to relinquish it. Over those 175 years, the people have been, by and large, pretty good at the whole government of the People, by the People and for the People thing.
Do we need presidential term limits, while at the same time not having term limits for Congress? We need term limits for all, or for none, I think.
Under the current Constitution the vice-president can assume the office of president upon the death of the president for up to two years, and still be elected twice again. If he assumes the office and serves for more than two years, even two years and one day, then he can only be elected to the office once. But that means that you can assume the office for up to two years, and then be elected twice for 8 years, allowing you to be president for up 10 ten years.
I think the same should be true for the House of Representatives, 10 years max. For Senators, either one term, or possibly two terms. The Constitution was written specifically so that Senators would serve for 6 years, and that every two years one third of the Senate would seat new people (the Three Senate Classes). That's not happening. Well, every two years one third is vacated, but all too often the vacant seats are fill by the people who vacated them. Term limits would help refill the vacated seats with new people on a regular basis.
But since we don't have term limits on Congress, why have term limits on the president? And if we repeal the 22nd Amendment, we had better be very careful for whom we repeal it, because it will almost certainly be repealed for someone specific, and it will be done with the same reasonings behind it that the 22nd was ratified in the first place, which probably shouldn't have happened. But since it did, if we repeal it, it should be done so that it specifically excludes the current president from seeking a third term, and it should be passed by Congress prior to the election of the next president. In other words, it should be passed only during the current president's lame duck second term and before the election of the next president. In addition, anyone elected to the presidency or serving in that office, between the time of Congressional passage and the ratification by the States (it would likely take years to be ratified), should also be specifically excluded from being able to seek a third term, so that no current or newly elected president (or vice president) could benefit from the repeal of the Amendment. That, or it should not be able to go into effect until some time in the future, like 13 years from it's ratification, something like that.
