Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Repeal the 22nd Amendment anyone?

Rate this topic


aequalsa
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj111-5

H. J. Res. 5:

111st Congress

This is a joint resolutions (H.J.Res. or S.J.Res.) in the U.S. Congress. Joint resolutions serve two purposes. First, they are used exactly as bills to enact law, generally for limited matters. Used this way, they must be passed by both the House and Senate and must be signed by the President before becoming law. Joint resolutions are also used to propose amendments to the Constitution. Used this way, they must be passed by both the House and Senate and be ratified by three-quarters of the states, but do not require the signature of the President, to become a part of the Constitution.

Bill numbers restart from 1 every two years. Each two-year cycle is called a session of Congress. This bill was created in the 111st Congress, in 2009-2010.

The titles of bills are written by the bill's sponsor and are a part of the legislation itself. GovTrack does not editorialize bill summaries.

2009-2010

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw this a while back, and apparently the congressman who proposed this (Jose Serrano, D-NY) has tried this six other times in the last 10 years. It's nothing new. The question is whether it'll pass. Even with the Obama frenzy, I don't think so.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?b...amp;tab=related

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw this a while back, and apparently the congressman who proposed this (Jose Serrano, D-NY) has tried this six other times in the last 10 years. It's nothing new. The question is whether it'll pass. Even with the Obama frenzy, I don't think so.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?b...amp;tab=related

True, but in all past attempts Congress was more diverse in their political thinking. Now, the majority of Congress is not only the same party as the President, but the vast majority of Americans (in and out of COngress alike) worship the new President in such a bizarre way that they are likely to not only allow but to encourage this "repeal the 22nd" idea. If it does not move any further now, I would venture to say that should Obama be elected to a second term we may see the populace pushing this idea starting in about 2015. Lets just hope he screws things up enough that we can keep the populace silenced on the matter, and let the idea sit only in the mind of one screwball Congressman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is inaccurate to say that "...the vast majority of Americans ... worship the new President". I cannot see how one can draw such a conclusion, unless one is taking the attitude of the media as reflecting that of the American people as a whole. A vast majority of the media might think Obama is a great guy, and they might want to convince a vast majority of Americans about this, and perhaps they even might (though I doubt it). However, for now, a vast majority of Americans most definitely do not worship Obama.

The coverage of the Presidential inauguration cannot be taken as a good sampling of the general public. If one interviews people as they come to a concert by a particular rock-band, a vast majority of them will be fans. This cannot be extrapolated to the general public.

Of course, it is true that the vast majority of Americans do not think that Obama's brand of socialism is evil. I guess the general viewpoint could be something like: "a decent enough guy, who seems thoughtful, who seems willing to tackle the country's problems, and who should be given an opportunity to do so". This does not mean that the GOP-voters among them want to change their votes. Most of them would still prefer McCain (or Huckabee, etc.), but do not think ill of Obama, and are approach him with the spirit of: "let's work together".

Obama is in a honeymoon period. Today, I think the best objective measure of his more enduring (non-honeymoon) popularity is to look at people who actually voted for him. He got 53% of the popular vote. This is a good number, but nowhere near a "vast" majority. For some historical perspective, here is the percent of popular vote to winners of the last few elections:

2008: Obama - 53%

2004: G.W.Bush - 2nd term - 51% [Remember Bush stupidly talking about how he was going to use this great "political capital"]

2000: G.W.Bush - 1st term - 48%

1996: Clinton - 2nd term 48%

1992: Clinton - 1st term 43% [Not commensurate, because Perot took about 19%]

1988: Bush Sr. - 53% .... .... Look at that! Who would have thought that boring old Bush Sr. got the same as what Obama got

1984: Reagan - 2nd term 59% ... Now we're talking about a real sweep!

1980: Reagan - 1st term 51%

1976: Carter - 50% ... Not too bad for him; that's better than Clinton's second term

1972: Nixon - 2nd term 61% ... who would have thunk it! He even beat the gipper! Ended up impeached.

1968: Nixon - 1st term 43% [Not commensurate, because a third party took 13%]

1964: Lyndon Johnson 61% [barry Goldwater got just 38%... shame on America! But, it shows that we are not at some extreme point in our history]

1960: JFK 50% [For all the talk of Camelot, and all the excitement about Jackie's wardrobe, the split on votes was 49.7% to JFK and 49.5% to Nixon]

There is zero chance that the amendment will be repealed during the next four years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is inaccurate to say that "...the vast majority of Americans ... worship the new President". I cannot see how one can draw such a conclusion, unless one is taking the attitude of the media as reflecting that of the American people as a whole. A vast majority of the media might think Obama is a great guy, and they might want to convince a vast majority of Americans about this, and perhaps they even might (though I doubt it). However, for now, a vast majority of Americans most definitely do not worship Obama.

The coverage of the Presidential inauguration cannot be taken as a good sampling of the general public. If one interviews people as they come to a concert by a particular rock-band, a vast majority of them will be fans. This cannot be extrapolated to the general public.]

Okay, I agree the phrase "vast majority" may not have been the best phrase to illustrate what I was trying to get at...

True, there are MANY Americans out there who do oppose Obama, and I will agree with you that he is in the honeymoon phase. But what troubles me is not how much coverage he gets (or the coverage that his supporters get) but the nature of that coverage. The big emphasis seems to be how his election is being tauted as proof of the ability of a member of a minority group to rise to power: grandparents cry at the thought of his election because they think of what they went through in their own day in the Civil Rights movements, and the thought of what their ancestors went through as slaves. These are valid assessments, but I am very troubled by how both the media and many of Obama's supporters see him as a SYMBOL rather than a POLITICIAN. When people hold someone with great political power up as a symbol, they tend to be less judgmental of mistakes and gross violations of liberty that that individual may condone. I think back to John Adams and how troubled he was at the level of public veneration for figures such as Geroge Washington. Had someone such as Adams - who held much less public veneration- acted to suppress Shay's rebellion, I am sure the result, and the outrage on the public's behalf, would have been much different. Veneration is dangerous in politics; people can get so caught up in the good about someone (or the good they think that someone possesses) that they forget to remain vidulant. That was my point. I am worried about how Obama is a symbol more than he is a person. I have come across many supporters of his who cannot explain a single one of his viewpoints on any issue, besides spurting out some nonsense about "he represents change."

What is more troubling is how the media is almost exclusively defining change as always being for the better... this is only compounding the fact that many ignorant Americans are already failing to see how change can also be for the worse. Obama represents change, yes, but so did Napoleon, and Stalin, and Hitler. I am not equivocating these historical figures; I am just using these men as examples of change having occured for the worse.

I sincerely hope we NEVER see the 22nd amendment repealed. Even if there was a fantastic President in there who rightfully earned the support of the majority of Americans - a majority who desired his continuation in office, I am of the belief that the slate needs to be wiped clean from time to time: otherwise, there is too much potential for people to become too entrenched in connections and favors, creating an open door for plutarchy, inherited office and all those nasty things this country was established in oppostion of. Wiping the slate clean is, in my estimation, one of the prinary things that prevents such non-representative forms of government from taking complete hold in this country again. There are enough bad influences in government as it is right now - esp in terms of favoritism - so lets hope the 22nd is never repealed so that these checks can remain in place.

Politicians are people too and we should judge them as such. I just hope my fellow Americans can continue to do the same.

Edited by 4reason
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. In fact, I would be in favor of far stricter limits.

What would actually constitute stricter limits? Only one term, no reelection?

Given the current state of the country, I'd almost like it to be that the president cannot have served in *any* federal post (elected OR appointed) prior to his/her election. Likewise for senators and representatives. You can be a governor or a representative in the state legislature, but all federal posts should be mutually exclusive--and I think even *running* for an office should disqualify you from attempting to gain ANY other federal office.

If anything, it'll at least cut down on the number of stupidly pointless federal appointments--fewer of these professional power-lusters would want to be in charge of this or that if that meant it was the end of their federal political ambitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with sNerd that there is zero chance of this happening. I think the media and politicians on every inch of the political spectrum will come out against it. It's just one of those things thats so ingrained in our culture now that it can't be changed. I mean, Republicans wouldn't want a Democrat to be elected forever and Democrats wouldn't want a Republican elected forever. They'd tear each other apart before it even came close to passing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...