Some of my thoughts. Your milage may vary. Thanks for reading.
Trying to Repeal the 22nd Amendment
Published on June 25, 2005 By DesignGuy In Current Events
The 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, proposed on March 21, 1947 and ratified on February 27, 1951 states: "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." This was put into place by Congress after President Roosevelt was elected to his fourth term (he died the following year) because people wanted a formal limit to the number of terms a president could serve.

In the 1st Session of the 109th CONGRESS Representative Steny H. Hoyer, a democrat from Maryland has introduced a joint resolution, H. J. RES. 24, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.

The resolution is currently in committee.

The tradition of term limits on the presidency was established by George Washington but the actual convention on term limits was put in place by Thomas Jefferson who stated "if some termination to the services of the chief Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally four years, will in fact become for life".

Although several presidents including Clinton, Eisenhower and Reagan have all spoken out against the idea of term limits (and these are 3 recent presidents that were personally affected by the 22nd Amendment) the amendment still stands. In fact, there is generally one or more attempts during each session of congress to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment, this is just the latest attack. You'll note that the resolution is sponsored by four Democrats and a single Republican.

If you don't agree with the idea of repealing term limits on the office of President of the United States of America you might consider writing your Representatives and/or Sentators and expressing your displeasure with H.J. Res. 24.


Some links for more information:

H.J.Resolution 24 text

Representative Hoyer's Resolution

U.S. House of Representatives

History of the Twenty-second Amendment (Wikipedia)



Comments
on Jun 25, 2005
But if it is repealed, you know what you might get: Clinton vs. Bush 2008. Don't tell me that wouldn't be cool, from a purely non-political perspective. It would be fun to watch. Not that I'm endorsing anything, I'm just saying that would be an interesting campaign. I'd go for the guy that lied about a blow job over the guy that lied about a war any day.
on Jun 25, 2005
It seems ironic that most people who use the argument, "I should be able to vote for whoever I choose" use it as an argument against term limits for Senators Or Housemembers. The same argument could be used in connection with the 22nd Amendment.

If a "president for life" is a bad thing (which I would agree that it is), a Senator or Housemember for life is just as bad.

Can you imagine a US where a president (any president)has sat in the White House for as long as Sen. Hatch or Sen. Kennedy has sat in the Senate?
on Jun 25, 2005
latour999... That really sounds like a nightmare scenario to me... kind of like David Duke vs. Edwin Edwards in Louisiana's Governor's race several years ago... give me a "None of the above" button please.

PT2k... I would love term limits on congress. If they are going to modify the 22nd in any way I'd love to see that added. I'd also like to see some type of limit on the Supreme Court Justices too...
on Jun 25, 2005
PT2k... I would love term limits on congress. If they are going to modify the 22nd in any way I'd love to see that added. I'd also like to see some type of limit on the Supreme Court Justices too...


I wouldn't mind seeing a limit (or at least a term) put on the Supreme Court, but the system of choosing justices should stay the way it is. Whether I agree with their rulings or the politics of each of the justices or not, their job is to interpret the Constitution. Any system that puts public or political pressure for them to rule one way or the other on a case is defeating their role in the Checks and Balances. (although I admit, no public recourse can be frustrating at times).
on Jun 26, 2005
I agree - the way Justices are chosen doesn't bother me, but I'd like to see a limit, maybe 10 or 15 years maximum. My thought being that fresh opinions and new thinking on a regular basis might not be a bad thing.

I'd like to see maximums of 4 years for the Senate and 6 years for the House also along with changes in their retirement and benefits. The idea here being to remind the elected officials that they serve the people. It's all just hopeful thinking though - I don't see it ever happening since they would be voting themselves out of sweet jobs.
on Jun 26, 2005
I'd go for the guy that lied about a blow job over the guy that lied about a war any day


You got dat right!!!!

Can you picture the campaign ads. It would be great.

Bring it on!!!!!

In all seriousness, I hate the idea. It's downright scary. I really am convinced that the elections in both '00 and '04 were fixed. And, I am equally convinced that they will try it again. The campaign slogan could be "BUSH FOR LIFE" and all I'd want is to see him dead. Well, at least his presidency. Nah, gotta kill that proposed amendment.