IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 6, 2009
H. J. Res. 5
Mr. Jose Serrano (D-NY) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.....
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 read full text herePlease tell me this is a joke...
from the combox: Mark in Spokane says....
****"This is no joke -- the Democrats have groused for years about the 22nd Amendment. Bill Clinton has made no secret that he would have run for a 3rd term if he could have. Ever since FDR -- our nation's first president for life -- the Democrats have yearned to replicate the idea of a permanent president, so long as that permanent president was a Democrat.
****The 22nd Amendment was enacted after FDR's death to restore the practice of the Republic prior to the the 1930's -- no more than 2 terms for a president. Every other president in American history understood this and embraced this tradition. Washington did. Jefferson did. Grover Cleveland did. Teddy Roosevelt did (although he did run for president again after he left office).
The idea of a president for life is repugnant to liberty."
12 comments:
I'm not sure if he's trying to suck-up to the hobgoblin, or to trying to impress his constituency, or if he's just suffering from a severe and malignant case of dumb-dumb.
OH NO!
I think we need a Dick Cheny moment here....
This is no joke -- the Democrats have groused for years about the 22nd Amendment. Bill Clinton has made no secret that he would have run for a 3rd term if he could have. Ever since FDR -- our nation's first president for life -- the Democrats have yearned to replicate the idea of a permanent president, so long as that permanent president was a Democrat.
The 22nd Amendment was enacted after FDR's death to restore the practice of the Republic prior to the the 1930's -- no more than 2 terms for a president. Every other president in American history understood this and embraced this tradition. Washington did. Jefferson did. Grover Cleveland did. Teddy Roosevelt did (although he did run for president again after he left office).
The idea of a president for life is repugnant to liberty.
Thanks for elevating me to the main page of your blog!
I had to restrain myself from calling you "that smart lawyer feller". I deserve credit for that....
Credit recognized!
I would have voted for W. if he'd been allowed to run for a 3d term - in large part because of the War on Terror and for the hope of increasing gains in the War for Life.
I find that the repugnance I feel toward this news is connected to my dislike of the one it is likely to benefit, if passed.
Let me put it this way: what if the Demscraps do pass this ammendment, then Dr. O screws things us even worse, and we get a 12 year Refundican administration? They'll try to change it back.
But just in case--if you go to cheaperthandirt.com, you can order ammo and supplies in bulk over the 'net.
Basically, we have lost our republic, and are trying to decide what kind of elitist Oligarchy we will have in it's place.
I have given up hope for America's founding ideals, and my Grandchildrens liberty.
IR - I have had the same thoughts, however, I doubt it will even make it out of committee...
I somehow doubt many of you would have found this idea as disparaging if it were a Republican in office. As Laura stated herself, she would have voted for W. again had she the opportunity. It seems to me that a great majority of people who seem angry at this, on the right at least, to me, seem to just be angry that it isn't their team passing the bill.
Personally, I'm all for the dissolution of a central governing body, and I would be happy as a clam to see a state's right to govern it's people locally and self-sufficiently without the meddling of a federal body. I would just take off to Washington or California or one of the various states that align my own values.
This probably won't make it very far, and I'll say it's a good thing that it doesn't. I don't think we need to give the wealth (conservative or democratic) elite any more power than they need.
ANON - I really prefer people to sign their name when commenting.
As to your assertion that we would be "all for this bill to pass if it was our party doing the passing" - well, I highly doubt it.
As for the rest - the Federal Government has exactly two tasks. Guard our borders and oversee the highway system. They have no business or mandate doing everything else they are doing.
Post a Comment