111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 5

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.



110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 8

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty -second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.



109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 9

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty -second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.



108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 11

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty -second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.



107th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 4

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty -second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.



106th CONGRESS - 1st Session - H. J. RES. 17
105th CONGRESS - 1st Session - H. J. RES. 19
104th CONGRESS - 1st Session - H. J. RES. 71
103d CONGRESS - 1st Session - H. J. RES. 107
102d CONGRESS - 1st Session - H. J. RES. 61
101st CONGRESS - 1st Session - H. J. RES. 84

/Should I do the bills to reinstate the draft next?

/b/ took over Newsmax for lulz.

Cheops: where the hell is this crap coming from? This is every bit as unhinged as the garbage about how Dubya was going to cancel the election, declare martial law, and suspend the constitution.

Simple: they are trying to force 8 years of Bush criticisms into 8 months of Obama's administration.

No Such Agency: aselene:
ucfknights: I've heard this from 3 different right-wingers I know this week. The meme is getting around.

If it isn't true, why are our men and women in uniform now swearing directly to Obama instead of to the Constitution?

THE MSM MISSED STORY OF THE CENTURY.

IN THIS PHOTO, A MEMBER OF THE PEOPLE'S 101ST GLORIOUS SOCIALIST HEROES OF THE REVOLUTION THOUGHT CRIME BRIGADE PERSONALLY SWEARS ALLIGEIENCE TO PRESIDENT OBAMA WHILE A "NEGRO CITIZENS' BRIGADE" COMMISAR SUPERVISES:

You should trim about 1/8 of an inch off the top of that, just enough to take the blue out of the bunting. Then you can add in the fact that Obama has horns thereby proving his Satanic connections.

Huh, so I guess the Constitution is a living document. Funny how it's not sometimes, but it is when conservatives like a particular amendment.

Does anyone remember their junior high civics classes?

Whoever is in office at the time such an amendment goes into effect could not benefit from it. It could be the next guy, but not this guy.

apistat: Jim_Callahan: My money is on a bigger push to weaken constitutional naturalization requirements (you have to be born here at the moment) so that Arnold can run, him being the only Republican moderate enough to have any chance at the presidency. And even that is probably going to be less a push than a lackadaisical nudging, as it's been for two decades.

I think the financial state of California has pretty much shot any chances of putting that much effort behind getting him to run. Obviously it isn't all his fault, but he was in charge when it happened and he's going to take a huge part of the blame for it.

Eh, California's run in the red since forever, they're sort of the nemesis universe Texas (slight liberal trend with anti-libertarian leanings, never in the black, giant swings in economy instead of steady growth). If he hangs on until the economy there naturally recovers, he can take credit for it like FDR or Obama (well, like Obama's probably gonna do) and spin it to a positive.

Of course, yeah, if someone else gets elected over him in the meantime he's screwed and will probably just retire.

NeverDrunk23: Cheops: where the hell is this crap coming from? This is every bit as unhinged as the garbage about how Dubya was going to cancel the election, declare martial law, and suspend the constitution.

Simple: they are trying to force 8 years of Bush criticisms into 8 months of Obama's administration.

They are "Rush"ing things a little. The "He'll never step down" paranoia usually does not start until about half way through the second term.

BTW, The Snopes article does not go back far enough. I remember efforts to repeal Amendment 22 when Ronald Reagan was president.

Bonus: With popular conservative support!

davidphogan: FTA: He inherited his father's Marxism.

I had no idea that we had found the Marxist gene already. Have they found the Socialist gene as well?

Yes, that father that he met like what, twice in his life and has said in public several times that he basically thought was a piss-poor excuse for a father? Clearly THAT would be his overriding political influence.

Wow those folks aren't even TRYING anymore are they?

cybrgeezer: Does anyone remember their junior high civics classes?

Whoever is in office at the time such an amendment goes into effect could not benefit from it. It could be the next guy, but not this guy.

Depends on how they pass the amendment.

If the 28th amendment simply states ``The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed,' then no, whoever is in office at the time can be re-elected for a third (or more) term.

That, however, would never happen. No such amendment has any chance of being ratified, but even if it were, any such amendment would include a grandfather clause preventing any presidents who had already served a term from benefiting from it.

It might work a lot better if the Republitards would limit the number of stupid attacks to maybe one a day.

Why not.. just like a good employee, once you find the guy you are looking for you don't fire him.

It's not like anyone would be able to compete with him in an election.

I really wouldn't have a problem with him being President for life.

namatad: you want the GOP to have a completely immoral platform

Straw man. You know damn well what I'm talking about. Our drug laws, Abortion, Gay Marriage, etc.

YodaBlues: If republicans actually legislated on the idea of fiscal conservatism, they would be a force to be reckoned with.

And if I exercised and ate healthy food, I'd lose weight.

And Democrats represent the common man.

The worst thing about your post is that you are correct.

22nd Amendment? Noooooooo!

Please keep alcohol legal! Stop Obama!

With delicious beer.

Happy 4th

/The secret Muslim is more likely to be the guy sipping O'Doul's with the Saudi royals than the guy having a brewski at the ballpark, but don't let something triviaql like reality get in the way of a good, spluttering rage.

was I really this ridiculous two years ago?

captain_heroic44 2009-07-03 06:49:43 PM
jpo2269: Whamdangler 2009-07-03 01:45:11 PM
You cannot be serious. Do you know the ridicule I received from NewsMax types when I said that I thought Bush might take steps to not step down at the end of his second term? I gotta believe the "right wing" of today is just drinking fine scotch, typing up the most ridiculous trolls, and laughing all day long.

So, you admit you were one of those who were convinced Dubya wouldn't step down, but somehow see humor when some on the other side are doing the exact same thing you did?

Would this be like the pot calling the kettle black??

There's a difference in the reasonableness of the inferences. Bush went to war on false facts, and for years dismissed with authoritarian contempt all those who dared point it out. His conduct created the appearance that he went to war on false pretenses for political aggrandizement. When Obama engages in like conduct, your inference that Obama doesn't intend to step down may likewise be thought reasonable.

First, you misunderstood what I was saying and drawing a conclusion that I might be one of those who are going to spend the next seven years screaming about how Obama is going to suspend the constitution to be "ruler for life," I am not.

What you are arguing however amounts to degrees without distinction. The common denominator in both cases is the dislike of who is the current president, nothing more, or nothing less.

It was not rational when the left did it, it is not rational now.

cybrgeezer: Does anyone remember their junior high civics classes?

Whoever is in office at the time such an amendment goes into effect could not benefit from it. It could be the next guy, but not this guy.

Your junior high civics teacher did not properly understand ex post facto.

If the 22nd Amendment was repealed during Obama's presidency, he would still be bound by its restriction since he assumed office while it was in effect...unless the repealing amend. specifically said otherwise. If it DID say otherwise, I don't see 3/4 of the states (many more than the Blue states) ratifying the repeal. Oh, and getting 7 Repubs to vote for it in the first place is laughable.

jpo2269: captain_heroic44 2009-07-03 06:49:43 PM
jpo2269: Whamdangler 2009-07-03 01:45:11 PM
You cannot be serious. Do you know the ridicule I received from NewsMax types when I said that I thought Bush might take steps to not step down at the end of his second term? I gotta believe the "right wing" of today is just drinking fine scotch, typing up the most ridiculous trolls, and laughing all day long.

So, you admit you were one of those who were convinced Dubya wouldn't step down, but somehow see humor when some on the other side are doing the exact same thing you did?

Would this be like the pot calling the kettle black??

There's a difference in the reasonableness of the inferences. Bush went to war on false facts, and for years dismissed with authoritarian contempt all those who dared point it out. His conduct created the appearance that he went to war on false pretenses for political aggrandizement. When Obama engages in like conduct, your inference that Obama doesn't intend to step down may likewise be thought reasonable.

First, you misunderstood what I was saying and drawing a conclusion that I might be one of those who are going to spend the next seven years screaming about how Obama is going to suspend the constitution to be "ruler for life," I am not.

What you are arguing however amounts to degrees without distinction. The common denominator in both cases is the dislike of who is the current president, nothing more, or nothing less.

It was not rational when the left did it, it is not rational now.

No. What I am arguing amounts to the reasonableness of inferences of intention. Over the course of its administration, Bush and his cohorts engaged in repeated conduct demonstrating a rejection of Constitutional values. A short list, off the top of my head, includes:

1) Going to war in Iraq on false intelligence.

2) Exploiting the war in Iraq for political profit.

3) Instituting an unprecedented and massive electronic wiretap program in felony violation of existing criminal statutes.

4) Lying to the American people about the same electronic wiretap program.

5) Vindictively outing CIA agents to punish them for opposing their policies.

What this overall course of conduct showed was a rejection of lawful institutions for conducting our Constitutional system. Worse, it involved matters of war and peace, and national security. The type of people willing to undermine the fabric of our nation by engaging in this course of conduct from the highest office in the land are also the type of people willing to institute a coup d'etat.

President Obama has demonstrated no similar rejection of our institutional framework. Sure, he's broken some campaign promises. But his overall course of conduct since entering office has demonstrated a respect for the modes under which our country operates. Unless and until Obama engages in a like course of conduct to Bush's, no like inference that he intends to hold office beyond his lawful mandate is reasonable.

Everybody knows that Obama isn't going to try change things so that he can have a 3rd term.

At that point he intends to become the supreme leader of the entire world.

Kumbya
One United World, brother



via ezra

unyon: The stupid is strong with this one.

His stupochlorian count is the highest I've seen!

I can say that this is actually true. He has a portrait of Napoleon in his office and Michelle is going to legally change her name to Josephine. He plans to have himself installed as emperor for life, and have an Ayatollah preside over the coronation.

Then, he will require that all bibles be piled in each town square and burned. House to house searches will be conducted and anyone found with a bible after the burning will be stoned to death by muslim women in burkhas.

All guns will likewise be confiscated. Churches will be redesigned by muslim architects and converted into mosques and all americans will be required to convert to Islam.

This, of course is only the beginning but I will save the rest for later

NeverDrunk23: But Obama's presidency was an effing gold mine for him as he has raged about the dumbest shiat possible. Not that he cares; he's just in it for the money.

Somebody give this man a gold star on his farking chart

Captain,

While I am sure you are convinced of your beliefs of the things you listed, the one fact that remains is President Bush made no attempts to suspend the constitution to stay in power, which basically negates any "fear mongering" among some on the left that President Bush wanted to be leader for life.

Philosophically, I disagree with President Obama on what he has set as his agenda, but unlike the left, I refuse to beat the dumb of Obama being an evil person.

As I said this charge was not rational then and it is not rational now...

dumb = drum

and for the love of God, I have no idea how that happened...

Here's my theory:

The right wingnuts like Rush, as previously stated in this thread, have already run out of crazy to spew like so much prom night vomit into the ready-and-willing-ears of their dittoheads... So what do they do? They run the tapes back from the last 3-4 years of GWB and simply spin the left wingnut crazy into right wingnut crazy. The problem is they're trying to do it too fast, they're going to run out of material by the end of fall, but to be honest, I'm kinda looking forward to sure-to-be-entertaining insanity that spills forth when that runs out.

But I would also like to support the idea that the Bush-Dictator fear (although it was certainly also paranoia) was FAR more justified after 5-6 years (including all the things previously listed that I won't bother to reiterate) than the Obama-Dictator paranoia that is flying around after 5ish months.

What exactly is he doing that's making all these guys think he's attempting a dictatorial coup of the government? I'm not a fan of all his moves, but I certainly don't see much to be construed as tyrannical or terrifying in them.

I wonder if the right is realizing now that Dubya's vast expansion of executive power over the past 8 years has handed Obama a lot more power to use against them if he wants to.

They sold out their principles to support a corrupt, criminal administration farking over the balance of power in government, and now it's biting them in the ass.

apistat: the right is acting like he's packing conservatives on trains and sending them off to concentration camps.

First he has to free the dopers to make room. This could be a great thing.

There's nothing about this that's stupid. It's a long-term campaign story arc!

Rush & Co start beating the drum of Obama saying "president for life" when it's ABSURDLY early in Obama's presidency. So now your average Republican has heard from at least six or seven friends that Obama:

1) Is a Socialist.

2) Doesn't have a proper birth certificate.

3) Bowed to the Saudi king.

4) Tried to install himself as ruler-for-life.

... all before 6 months is out.

Then, by the time we get to 2010, let alone 2012, it's "common knowledge."

This is a very smart and very cynical (and very standard) tactic. The idea is an echo chamber. There's no need to fact-check when SIX PEOPLE YOU KNOW AND TRUST already said it to you.

/ But Rush should burn in farking hell.

Did the article say anything about the freedom prisons being built by ACORN?

captain_heroic44: President Obama has demonstrated no similar rejection of our institutional framework.

Give him time. He's only been in office like -- what -- six months? Never forget that snookums was a liberal troll. It takes time to prepare these things.

Let's just start calling him "President for Life Barack Obama"

I couldn't stand the (to borrow a word) libtards who wouldn't stop saying "you think Bush is going to step down after the 2008 election? LOL, you're so naive".

Now I get to listen to a bunch of republitards do the exact same shiat. Only this time, it starts just a few months into the first term.

WhoIsWillo: I'm glad they're already giving up on 2012.

Haha, same thing came to mind.

me_the_farker: GaryPDX: Wow, this place really is the Freeperville of the Left. Funny thing is, most of you are zombie food and don't even know it.

I liked you better when you weren't on this zombie kick your on.

At least somebody liked him once.

Occulto: NobleHam: Even if this were true, I wouldn't care. I've always thought the 22nd amendment was stupid anyway. If the people want to elect someone three times, let them. It worked out pretty well with FDR, and we might not have had to deal with Bush if Clinton had gotten another chance.

Term limits seem counter productive for elected representatives. You get a rep who just doesn't care what they do (or even if they do anything at all). They don't give a shiat whether they piss off the electorate because they no longer need voters to return them to office.

Isn't the US president basically irrelevant in the final 12 months or so of their second term?

I don't care for the idea of limits on the total number of terms, but I like the idea of limits on consecutive terms. A Grover Cleveland is probably not as dangerous as a President For Life with a funny hat.

/You get one term as President, then sit out the next. If people remember you fondly, you can get elected again. That way, every election is contested.

Blues_X: If you think this is true, you are an idiot.

True, and I'd like to add:

If you think the Obamabots wouldn't be in favor of it, you're an idiot.

Snarfangel: Occulto: NobleHam: Even if this were true, I wouldn't care. I've always thought the 22nd amendment was stupid anyway. If the people want to elect someone three times, let them. It worked out pretty well with FDR, and we might not have had to deal with Bush if Clinton had gotten another chance.

Term limits seem counter productive for elected representatives. You get a rep who just doesn't care what they do (or even if they do anything at all). They don't give a shiat whether they piss off the electorate because they no longer need voters to return them to office.

Isn't the US president basically irrelevant in the final 12 months or so of their second term?

I don't care for the idea of limits on the total number of terms, but I like the idea of limits on consecutive terms. A Grover Cleveland is probably not as dangerous as a President For Life with a funny hat.

/You get one term as President, then sit out the next. If people remember you fondly, you can get elected again. That way, every election is contested.

Like the bumper sticker says, we already have term limits- they're called elections. Vote.

FuturePastNow: Snarfangel: Occulto: NobleHam: Even if this were true, I wouldn't care. I've always thought the 22nd amendment was stupid anyway. If the people want to elect someone three times, let them. It worked out pretty well with FDR, and we might not have had to deal with Bush if Clinton had gotten another chance.

Term limits seem counter productive for elected representatives. You get a rep who just doesn't care what they do (or even if they do anything at all). They don't give a shiat whether they piss off the electorate because they no longer need voters to return them to office.

Isn't the US president basically irrelevant in the final 12 months or so of their second term?

I don't care for the idea of limits on the total number of terms, but I like the idea of limits on consecutive terms. A Grover Cleveland is probably not as dangerous as a President For Life with a funny hat.

/You get one term as President, then sit out the next. If people remember you fondly, you can get elected again. That way, every election is contested.

Like the bumper sticker says, we already have term limits- they're called elections. Vote.

Actually, we already have term limits, it's called the 22nd Amendment.

/at least for Presidents.
//I'd just prefer a different version.

The necessity of the 22nd amendment is debatable.

Unlike being a third-world dictator-for-life where you openly loot the country, rape women and boys at your pleasure, and let everyone but your personal guards and courtiers go to hell, being President of the United States is, by all accounts, intellectually and emotionally draining. Many who have held that office aged prematurely and seemed relieved to exit.

The first 33 presidents served with no term limit other than self-imposed. Only two sought a third term and lost. FDR is the only president to win election more than twice. Clinton and maybe Eisenhower are the only presidents since the term limit took effect who may have been electable AND effective through a full third term. Obviously the ripple effect of a third Eisenhower third term would make subsequent events, including the fate of JFK, unknowable.

Nem Wan 2009-07-03 09:04:40 PM
The necessity of the 22nd amendment is debatable.

Unlike being a third-world dictator-for-life where you openly loot the country, rape women and boys at your pleasure, and let everyone but your personal guards and courtiers go to hell, being President of the United States is, by all accounts, intellectually and emotionally draining. Many who have held that office aged prematurely and seemed relieved to exit.

The first 33 presidents served with no term limit other than self-imposed. Only two sought a third term and lost. FDR is the only president to win election more than twice. Clinton and maybe Eisenhower are the only presidents since the term limit took effect who may have been electable AND effective through a full third term. Obviously the ripple effect of a third Eisenhower third term would make subsequent events, including the fate of JFK, unknowable.

Wow, you just made an arguement to legitimise this article. I did not think that was possible.

This is pretty brilliant by Rush. He knows it's been proposed in pretty much every Congress since the 22nd amendment was put in place, so when it's inevitably proposed by this Congress, he gets to hold it up as showing he was right. He's a fat, bald asshole, but he's smart.

If they are going to change how the President serves, I would rather they institute one six-year term instead of two four-year terms. The second term of most Presidents have been disasters.

67 Beetle: If they are going to change how the President serves, I would rather they institute one six-year term instead of two four-year terms. The second term of most Presidents have been disasters.

Make it Seven, just to piss off the Senators.

aselene: ucfknights: I've heard this from 3 different right-wingers I know this week. The meme is getting around.

If it isn't true, why are our men and women in uniform now swearing directly to Obama instead of to the Constitution?

Is NO ONE going to ask for a "citation needed", or have I just been royally trolled?

Hah!

I'd like to see Obama try and go all Hugo.

We need a good civil war every 150 years or so.

You get the Congress, government bureaucrats, trial lawyers and the Judges on your side; we'll have the military and the bitter rural people who cling to their guns.

Wonder who would win?

Everybody knows this whole Obama presidency thing is about setting up Joe Biden for '16, anyway.

67 Beetle 2009-07-03 09:22:40 PM
If they are going to change how the President serves, I would rather they institute one six-year term instead of two four-year terms. The second term of most Presidents have been disasters.

1 term, 6 years.. no problem with this idea..

FishingWithFredo: Hah!

I'd like to see Obama try and go all Hugo.

We need a good civil war every 150 years or so.

You get the Congress, government bureaucrats, trial lawyers and the Judges on your side; we'll have the military and the bitter rural people who cling to their guns.

Wonder who would win?

I have to agree.... I wonder what 90+ million gun owners will think at an Obama power grab? So there is some boat load of crazy in that article. I, as a proud owner of 7 firearms, will not worry too much.

The stunning hypocricy of Limbaugh calling anyone else's supporters "cult-like followers" simply staggers the mind.

What a farking grade-A asshole.