Posted on 10/08/2006 11:22:08 AM PDT by janetgreen
Bills introduced in Congress to repeal 8-year restriction of 22nd Amendment
WASHINGTON – One thing is certain about the 2008 presidential election campaign that begins in one year: It won't involve George W. Bush as a candidate.
But bipartisan legislation to repeal the 22nd Amendment restriction of two terms for U.S. presidents could change that certainty for future presidents.
Two of the most passionate congressional advocates of such a move – Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-MD, and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-WI – have teamed up to sponsor a resolution that would represent the first step toward that change in the U.S. political system.
"The time has come to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, and not because of partisan politics," explained Hoyer. "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."
Until President Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to his fourth term during World War II, there was no such restriction in American law. A tradition of presidents serving two terms only began with George Washington.
"We do not have to rely on rigid constitutional standards to hold our Presidents accountable," said Hoyer. "Sufficient power resides in the Congress and the Judiciary to protect our country from tyranny."
Hoyer argues the 22nd Amendment "has the effect of removing the president from the accountability to political forces that come to bear during regular elections every four years."
Rep. Howard Berman, D-CA, is another advocate of the move.
"I don't like arbitrary term limits,'' he said. "I think our country was better off because Franklin Delano Roosevelt was able to run for a fourth term. Imposing an arbitrary limit makes no sense.''
Should the resolution pass and be approved by the states, the repeal would not go into effect until after the Bush presidency, making him ineligible for multiple consecutive terms.
The 22nd Amendment states: "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."
Hoyer's bill is not the only one in the House with the same goal. Rep. Jose Serrano, D-NY, has introduced a similar resolution. Both of the Democrats have been working on repealing the 22nd Amendment since the presidency of Bill Clinton.
Former President Clinton is on record as approving of the repeal of the 22nd Amendment.
If you would like to sound off on this issue, participate in today's WND Poll.
Absolutely.
Bush 1
Clinton
Bush2
Clinton......
I think FD Roosevelt was the second worst president, right after Buchanan.
Imagine if he had sent a single Marine Regiment to push the Germans out of the Rhineland, shutting Schicklgruber down with minimal effort. That would have saved about 300,000 US lives as well as at least another 50 million.
Rather, he was busy violating the constitution, raising taxes, and paying white land owners to fire their black sharecroppers.
No. 1 term, 6 years. No re-election.
REPEAL 22ND AMENDMENT TO U.S. CONSTITUTION -- (Extensions of Remarks - February 18, 2005)
[Page: E302] GPO's PDF
---
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
[Page: E303] GPO's PDF
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.
REPEAL 22ND AMENDMENT TO U.S. CONSTITUTION -- (Extensions of Remarks - February 18, 2005)
[Page: E302] GPO's PDF
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r109:1:./temp/~r109m67AX5::
I would say that quickly puts things in perspective ... :)
I heartedly agree with you. In fact I'd like to change the empires that the Congress and Senate have built. They should have term limits as well. That would not entail the cahnge in the twenty-second Amendment. But would require another amendment to include senators and Congressmen. No more life long Senators. No More life long Congressmen. Two terms and your OUT. Get fresh blood into these political arenas. Want to cut out Partisan wrangling. Want to cut out politcal corruption? This is the best way to do it.
Any attempt to do this will also involve removing the restriction on being born in the USA, guaranteed. (Bad ideas, both.)
They should be elected for life. You know, like Castro.
I hear all the best leaders are elected for life!
First of all, I wouldn't have a good showing in a candidate's earlier races increase the hurdles in later ones. On the other hand, requiring that a candidate receive 50% to get in office, 66% to stay in office one extra term, 75% for two, 80% for three, etc. might not be a bad concept. The biggest difficulty would be having to deal with multi-way races. Perhaps the proper thing would be to set up the election similar to California's recall vote, with two questions for voters:
Even that, however, would not be entirely without problems. Perhaps retention should be determined in the primaries. People casting primary ballots for any party would be allowed to answer the retention question; if the official didn't manage to receive enough votes, the replacement selected by his party in the primary would go on to the general. Note that retention votes may be tabulated separately by party; in the unlikely event that a candidate receives the required 67% overall retention vote, but fails to win a 50% vote by his party, the party may decide to replace him despite his eligibility.
I say yes!
Our nation would be blessed if we had at least Four More Years with George W. Bush as our President.
So what happens when party X realizes its candidate is going to lose, so they encourage everyone to vote for party Y's candidate, thus effectively limiting him to one term?
I think including a retention vote in the primary might work, but trying to do things in the general election would create a mess.
I don't know what to think of that! 6 years of Clinton is better than 8, but 6 years of incompetants like Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford would have been disasterous!
Hey, Steny Hoyer, (D-MD), and Jim Sensenbrenner, (R-WI) you've got a lousy idea! Go away! Quit writing legislation! Stop the Pork! Just shut up and enjoy the perks we give you for life, OK?
NNNNOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Have a nice day, fellow Freepers...and Semper Fi.
I know that too.
"Why not just have Kings (or Queens)......"
The way we are getting with family political dynasties...Siblings, sons, daughters, wives, etc., we are pretty much there already. To be honest I did not like it when it was pretty much the Kennedy clan and I do not like when it is the Bush family, or the Clintons, or Murkowski (in Alaska).....It ALWAYS sucks.
Of course such a restriction would have to be self-imposed, so that'll happen when pigs fly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.