Repeal 22nd Amendment?

you can't repeal amendments can you? wouldnt they have to add an amendment to say that the 22nd was no longer valid like when they ended prohibition?
 
The 16th was never properly ratified anyway.
Click to expand...

I've read that but not anywhere I would consider trustworthy. It would be an interesting research project to see if that could be proved or disproved.

Anyway, the 16th is the one amendment I disagree with (except for the one about prohibition, aka, let's create a black market for alcohol, what could possibly go wrong). :rolleyes:

Jim
 
yeah, I'm with you there..

I think they should restructure the term limits. 12 years accrossed the board for elected officials on the Federal Level. I'd even say 8 years.. lets get some new blood in the senate though... some of these guys turn a service into a carreer which is wrong.
 
locked, that's what they're doing. Congress has proposed all sorts of constitutional amendments, but they never get off the ground. The anti-flag-burning amendment is a biennial favorite.

I think the 22nd amendment needs to be improved... one term max. Reelection is such a distraction, and it's a corrupting influence.

Jonathan, Ron Paul likes proposing amendments that do things like repeal the 16th Amendment. :)

Has any amendment gone to the states and failed since the attempted ratification of the equal rights amendment?
 
Hmmm,

Me thinks that maybe the dems are trying to set up a kingship or something? Maybe wanting their old pard back (bill clinton)....

Since they've learned that they can get away with fraudulent votes (Washington State), you think that maybe they can get one of their own in and for some reason, will reign until death?

Something is fishy here and it's coming from the place that it always comes from (Washington D.C.)

Wayne
 
The 16th was never properly ratified anyway.
Click to expand...

A lot of people use that as a justification for not paying income taxes every year. A lot of people go to jail when they find out the courts disagree with them.
 
Red,

Delay is correct, we should abolish the amendment. It wasn't included in the first ten and goes against the Constitution itself.

When the 22nd was "ratified", what President was in charge? I can bet you that he wasn't a republican. It just seems as if this is just another inch that they, the dems, which to take to take us back to the days of kings and rulers.

Now, before anyone states that I'm just bashing dems, lets look at the Constitution:

Article. II.
Section. 1.
Clause 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows: (you can read the rest yourselves)
Click to expand...

The 22nd is:
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 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.
Click to expand...

Which just added on, four more years to be President.

Now, if the amendment is abolished, as presented by the repubs then we'd have to go back to the Constitution as written. If changed by the dems, kings can be set up and ruling until death.

So, honestly, which one do you wish?

Wayne

Oh, for the History on Trueman:

Order: 33rd President
Term of Office: April 12, 1945 -
January 20, 1953
Predecessor: Franklin D. Roosevelt
Successor: Dwight D. Eisenhower
Date of Birth Thursday, May 8, 1884
Place of Birth: Lamar, Missouri
Date of Death: Tuesday, December 26, 1972
Place of Death: Kansas City, Missouri
First Lady: Bess Truman
Profession: farmer, businessman, Senator
Political Party: Democratic
Vice President: Alben W. Barkley (1949-1953)
 
Oh, side note:

I know, I know, you will say that the President can be elected many times over and over and over.. but the Constitution, and I may be just taking it at it's core, states "4 years".

But, to go against myself.... only in a few instances were Presidents elected more then 8 years, George Washington being one. Then does the Constitution say that a President can be re-elected many times, hence no limit on how many times or does it mean, for 4 years only? The majority after Washington was 4 years only, unless they were killed.

So, am I wrong in the first post above about only 4 years or is it possible that the forefathers created a "kingdomship" accidentally by allowing a person to be elected, many times over, for a set period of 4 years at a time?

And maybe I'm wrong about a democrat stopping such a thing for happening, which only happened once (over 8 years) so that they could stop the repub hoard?

Things that make you go hmmmm?

:)

Wayne
 
While you are watching the Democratic party for election fraud, note that the companies that make electronic voting machines are owned by Republicans. Not that I am suggesting they would do anything improper. :rolleyes:

I do agree there should be term limits for everyone, at least at the federal level. A career politician doesn't have any idea what's going on beyond the beltway no matter how many whistle stop tours he or she goes on. Somebody that serves his country in Washington and then goes back to his life seems more like what the founding fathers had in mind.

Jim
 
usp45, the presidency was a kingship because one person could be re-elected indefinitely (until death)? I suppose that makes the Senate a house of lords?

You're confusing some concepts that really shouldn't be confused. A monarch is generally not elected, holds the position life, and passes the monarchy to his/her children.

A Presidency has none of those characteristics. It is still succeptible to the corrupting influence of the majority of the electorate (which is why I would vote for a 1-term limit), but it is not and was not a kingship in any way.
 
"you can't repeal amendments can you? wouldnt they have to add an amendment to say that the 22nd was no longer valid like when they ended prohibition?"

Correct. But it is considered a repeal. It even says so in the language of the 21st amendment:

"1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress."
 
"When the 22nd was "ratified", what President was in charge? I can bet you that he wasn't a republican."

The 22nd amendment was floated largely by Republicans who didn't want to see a repeat of Roosevelt.

Interestingly, Congress, in 1947, in passing the bill that brought the proposed amendment to the states, exempted Truman from it were it to pass. That's the provision that the Republicans threw in to garner enough Democrat support to get it passed.
 
"While you are watching the Democratic party for election fraud, note that the companies that make electronic voting machines are owned by Republicans. Not that I am suggesting they would do anything improper."

And I suppose that every line worker, every programmer, every analyst, etc., in those companies is a carefully vetted member of the conservative Republican wing of the party?

There's been a lot of frothing at the mouth, wild gesticulating, and even some loud screeching by people who see these companies being owned by Republican supporters and who immediately assume (note the first three letters in the word) that this means a Republican vote stealing cabal.

It would be funny as all get out if it wasn't just so damned pathetic.
 
I'll vote for your repeal of the 22nd Amendment, if you'll vote for my repeal of the 17th Amendment.

LawDog
 
tyme,

That's why I did what I did (two posts). The amendment and the corresponding Article can be abit confusing and I just like to have conspiracy theories when it comes to democrats :D.

Wayne
 
A lot of people use that as a justification for not paying income taxes every year. A lot of people go to jail when they find out the courts disagree with them.
Click to expand...

(Oh, I pay)

Using your logic, David Koresh & family were convicted on all counts and got the death penalty. The higher ups with the machine guns saying its so does not a valid argument make. It only breeds fear, and siding with them out of fear isn't correct, it makes one a lemming.

Not flaming you personally, just running with your point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top