Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

by **Granny-May** » Mon 20 Jun 2005, 18:01:11

Does anyone know what's up with this item? It seems like old news, but neither my husband nor I caught wind of it until today and we both receive lots of newsgroup info and read more than enough on our own. How could this slip by? Maybe too much rain and snow made us duh-like?

Quote:
"Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. (Introduced in House)

HJ 24 IH

109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 24

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution."

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 17, 2005

Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SABO, and Mr. PALLONE) 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 22nd amendment to the Constitution.

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`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.'.

The 22nd Amendment

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.

Ratification was completed on February 27, 1951."

More here: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/w ... ment.shtml

I find this very disturbing for too many reasons and have sent an email to my Congressman to get the dirt.

I look forward to hearing that I'm just retarded rather than some other possibilities.

Thanks- Charlotte

by **crude_intentions** » Mon 20 Jun 2005, 18:09:32

If they think they can give Bush a third term thier out of thier Minds. Americans would Reject a Dynasty outright. Not to mention Bushs poll numbers are in the Toliet. Bush could'nt get elected Dog Catcher as it stands right now. and if he's free to run again, then so's Bill Clinton.

by **Granny-May** » Mon 20 Jun 2005, 18:56:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('crude_intentions', 'I')f they think they can give Bush a third term thier out of thier Minds. Americans would Reject a Dynasty outright.

by **crude_intentions** » Mon 20 Jun 2005, 19:21:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Granny-May', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('crude_intentions', 'I')f they think they can give Bush a third term thier out of thier Minds. Americans would Reject a Dynasty outright.

by **DriveElectric** » Mon 20 Jun 2005, 19:30:00

Idiot members of Congress file all sorts of bills and amendments to the constitution. 99% of them never get heard again after they are filed. Something like 300 have been filed in US history. Most are filed for publicity reasons so the member of Congress can issue a press release for some silly reason.

by **k_semler** » Mon 20 Jun 2005, 19:45:56

This is 100% real as verified by GovTrack.us:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj109-24

THIS MUST NOT PASS!!!

by **ArimoDave** » Mon 20 Jun 2005, 19:52:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('crude_intentions', '
')
The minute they do that, expect to see me and the rest of the 2nd Continental Army Storm Washington in about 3 days afterwards

[smilie=brave.gif]

by **whirljack** » Mon 20 Jun 2005, 20:00:22

Constitutional amendments usually take years to get passed. I doubt this was proposed with the intention of getting W elected a third time. Repeal it, I say. I agree with Kos that term limits are undemocratic.

by **Granny-May** » Mon 20 Jun 2005, 21:04:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('whirljack', ' ')Repeal it, I say. I agree with Kos that term limits are undemocratic.

by **Cool Hand Linc** » Mon 20 Jun 2005, 21:14:18

Just think if this had been the law when Clinton was in office. He could has served another term.

by **Specop_007** » Mon 20 Jun 2005, 21:42:12

You guys know whats funny?
200 some odd years ago the people of this country went to war over a 1% tax.
Now? Shit, You couldnt get the average Joe to get off his fat ass to even write his Senator or Congressman over a 10% tax, let alone pick up a gun and make a difference.

by **whirljack** » Mon 20 Jun 2005, 21:43:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Granny-May', 'W')hat could you be thinking??

by **Granny-May** » Mon 20 Jun 2005, 21:57:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cool Hand Linc', 'J')ust think if this had been the law when Clinton was in office. He could has served another term.

by **smallpoxgirl** » Mon 20 Jun 2005, 22:01:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('crude_intentions', 'N')ot to mention Bushs poll numbers are in the Toliet. Bush could'nt get elected Dog Catcher as it stands right now.

by **DriveElectric** » Mon 20 Jun 2005, 22:08:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', '
')IMHO, 9-11 was only the opening shot. What's gonna happen when Bush et al set off a back-pack nuke in Cleveland and blame it on Al Queda?

by **Granny-May** » Mon 20 Jun 2005, 22:27:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', 'Y')ou guys know whats funny?
200 some odd years ago the people of this country went to war over a 1% tax.
Now? Shit, You couldnt get the average Joe to get off his fat ass to even write his Senator or Congressman over a 10% tax, let alone pick up a gun and make a difference.

by **Granny-May** » Mon 20 Jun 2005, 22:47:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('crude_intentions', 'N')ot to mention Bushs poll numbers are in the Toliet. Bush could'nt get elected Dog Catcher as it stands right now.

by **erl** » Tue 21 Jun 2005, 00:06:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Granny-May', 'T')erm limits were put in place by deep thinking leaders in the past who could foresee the problems we would face in the future.

by **Dezakin** » Tue 21 Jun 2005, 00:45:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') may be wrong, but since the repeal of the 18th amendment (that'd be the prohibition one), this is the only amendment to the Constitution that actually limits our rights.

by **Grimnir** » Tue 21 Jun 2005, 06:42:03

This bill was introduced in February and has been mildewing in subcomittee ever since then. It's not going anywhere. I seem to recall a similar bill a few years back that met the same fate. Ah yes, here it is:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.J.RES.11.IH:

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

ha

Re: ha

Who is online