Hoyer, Sabo and Pallone are Dems. Anybody (who may be more politically astute than I) have a guess as to why they would want this?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HJ00024:@@@P
______________________________________________________________
H.J.RES.24
Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.
Sponsor: Rep Hoyer, Steny H.
(introduced 2/17/2005) Cosponsors (4)
Latest Major Action: 4/4/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSORS(4), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)
Rep Berman, Howard L. - 2/17/2005 Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. - 2/17/2005
Rep Sabo, Martin Olav - 2/17/2005 Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. - 2/17/2005
______________________________________________________________
<<snip>>
SPEECH OF
HON. STENY H. HOYER
OF MARYLAND
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2005
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing today a joint resolution to repeal outright the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. The 22nd Amendment requires that no person who has served two terms or has served two years of another President's term be permitted to serve another term of office.
The time has come to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, and not because of partisan politics. While I am not a
supporter of the current President, I feel there are good public policy reasons for a repeal of this amendment. Under the Constitution as altered by the 22nd Amendment, this must be President George W. Bush's last term even if the American people should want him to continue in office. This is an undemocratic result.
Under the resolution I offer today, President Bush would not be eligible to run for a third term. However, the American people would have restored to themselves and future generations an essential democratic privilege to elect who they choose in the future.
A limitation on the terms that a President could serve was not fully discussed by the Founding Fathers. However, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper 72, recognized that one important benefit of not having term limits on the President would be:
We do not have to rely on rigid constitutional standards to hold our Presidents accountable. Sufficient power resides in the Congress and the Judiciary to protect our country from tyranny. As the noted attorney and counsel to Presidents, Clark Clifford, said: I believe we denigrate ourselves as an enlightened people, and our political process as a whole, in imposing on ourselves still further disability to retain tested and trusted leadership. The Congress and the Judiciary are now and will remain free to utilize their own countervailing constitutional power to forestall any executive overreaching.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
