Joint Resolution To Repeal The 22nd Amendment

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.

http://www.ustl.org/Current_Info/22nd-Amendment-text.html

109th U.S. Congress (2005-2006)
H. J. Res. 24: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to...
Overview
Summary
Other Info


Official Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.
Status:
Introduced (By Rep. Steny Hoyer )
This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced House bills go first to House committees that consider whether the bill should be presented to the House as a whole. The majority of bills never make it out of committee.
Introduced:
Feb 17, 2005
Last Action:
Apr 4, 2005: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.
Sponsor:
Rep. Steny Hoyer show cosponsors (4)
Full Text:
Text or PDF
Learn more about Voting and Ballot Initiatives.
Committee Assignments

This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process where the bill is considered in committee and may undergo significant changes in markup sessions. The bill has been referred to the following committees:
House Judiciary
House Judiciary, Subcommittee on Constitution

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

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.

Any word on this?

If this bill is overturned, Bush just went from Chancellor to Fuhrer. Awaiting invasion of the Sudentland.

How about they just have a coronation right now....

a worst nitemare scenerio for the repugs. There is NO doubt that big dog would win an election easily. Hell, even a rigged one.

BushInc's crimes, just as he did for IranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning.

They trust Clinton can SELL the message that the country needs to just "move on" and get to work fixing things on the surface while the real fascist criminals get off without a careful examination of their crimes or agenda - - - AGAIN.

It takes a VERY LONG TIME and 3/4 of the States to make that happen, and even if the Prez was BC, I wouldn't wanthim serving more than 8 years!

Being President isa very difficult job (if you do it that is) and it takes a severe toll on anyone who's ever held office! Plus, with unlimited terms, one person would get nice and comfortable in that spot, and pull all kinds of junk out of their .... that would destroy the Country!

Even though the 22nd Amendment is anti-democratic, I support it.

I understand that we miss a third term f an excellent president every once in a while, but the tradeoff is we fon't have to worry about the President For Life crap that so many countries are saddled with.

I think eight years are enough. There are plenty of other places to do good, other than President.

Son of a bitch! Repeal this OVER MY DEAD BODY!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steny_Hoyer

SON OF A BITCH! They are not even gonna think of this!

Because he refuses to do his job as a Whip, particularly when it's bills that benefit corporations.

I hold him directly responsible for CAFTA's passage, if he had whipped those 15 sellouts into line, the bill would have been defeated, but noooooooo. :eyes:

I'm so proud that he's enabling Il Dunce. :puke:

I totally understand what they are doing.

don't want an Anti-corruption, Open Government Democrat to get into the Oval Office.

And rigging the machines plan is getting exposed - so, what's a BFEE way to stay out of trouble? Go with a Dem you TRUST to sell the "move on" ploy.

is a good idea???

DINO Berman strikes again.

that if the voters like their current president, they should be able to reelcet him. Limiting them to two terms is anti-democratic.

Personally, I think we're better off with the two term limit, and I'd extend it to some limit for congresscritters too.

it does depress the hell out of me.

And I can't believe Bill Clinton would be allowed to win- because 'they' are pulling the strings now, and have been since the impeachment shit- they want us to think that we still have a 'hope'-- so even the close elections, and occasional sacrificial lamb are engineered.

I don't have a tinfoil hat, i have a tinfoil skull.

It was introduced almost twenty months ago, gained all of four additional sponsors, was not introduced in the Senate, and and has never even been the subject of a hearing. To move forward, it would have to be approved by 2/3 of both the House and Senate and then it would need 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify it. It dies when this Congress adjourns after a short lame duck session in November/December and would have to be reintroduced.

In other words, I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

1. It's a double-edged sword. It works for Dems just as it works for Repukes.

2. Repealing 22 cannot help the Chimp. There's no way that an amendment gets through the process before the end of Chimp's term. At that point, Dems will likely have the White House. The Chimp might be able to run again, but he'll likely not be able to run an effective campaign from prison.

Plus, there are many who think that the 22nd was a bad amendment. It was, after all, put into law because of FDR, a Democratic President. I am on the fence, but I think I could be easily convinced to support its repeal.

This is not about Big Dawg running again, since I cannot think that that would ever happen. However, three or four terms of a Gore Presidency sure would be good.

it's anti democratic