H. J. RES. 11 Repeal Amendment 22 U.S. Constitution

Thomas.Loc.Gov ^ | Rep. Jos, E. Serrano (D-NY)

[steplock]

Go to: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c108query.html and enter "H.J.Res. 11" in the search box.

I haven't seen this before, and a search here found NOTHING! According to THOMAS, it is still in committee - so it isn't dead yet ???!!!

Rep. Jos, E. Serrano (D-NY), Ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary of the exclusive and powerful House Appropriations Committee, represents the Sixteenth Congressional District in the Bronx. This year, Serrano, who also serves in the influential House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, celebrates his 28th year in the public service. Serrano has been in Congress for seven terms.

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... (Introduced in House)

HJRES 11 IH

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 11 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.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 7, 2003 Mr. SERRANO introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOINT RESOLUTION 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.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article--

`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.'.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[rontorr]

It's hilarious.

Think about it.
Hilaryous

[rontorr]

suffering bodily harm in vietnam ahs absolutly nothing to do with patriotism or righness, he was one of the hudreds of thousads of us who were there against our own wishes, but willlinjg to do what we were obligated to do by the oath we swore

[BenLurkin]

"...as their Friend HO CHI MINH smiles broadly at them from his cold, cold Heart. "

Ho should be burning in hell right now IMHO. He is, however, one of :

HILLARY'S HEROS

[patriciaruth]

if George gets a second term, this would all but guarantee him to keep running

President George W. Bush would never run for a third term even if it became legal. He has a keen sense of history and ethics, especially those that preserve our republic.

The left wing fascists are the ones who want this change because they want to overwhelm and rule forever.

[Smokin' Joe]

Yeah. He must be slipping badly. He used to just ignore it.

[philman_36]

...

[philman_36]

JFK, LBJ, and Carter failed to win a second electoral victory.
That is damned funny! How can a dead man win any election?
Some Missouri Republicans, and some Democrats, said Talent might have won the 2000 race for governor if it had not been for the Oct. 16 plane crash that killed Gov. Mel Carnahan, who was running for the Senate. The accident helped energize Democratic voters and motivated them to go the polls. The governor's name remained on the ballot, and after he won a close contest against incumbent John Ashcroft, his widow Jean Carnahan was appointed to the Senate.
Oh...wait a second...never mind...color me stupid.

[mabelkitty]

You guys are missing the point.

Hillary is going to get this passed, then run to the media and say, "See. George Bush is trying to become King! Look what he sneaked through under George Pataki's nose. Vote him out or you will be in big trouble!!"

Think I'm wrong? Think again.

[mabelkitty]

Welcome to Free Republic.

You can do a search on all kinds of John Kerry's lies and deceptions. Too many here to mention.

[RonF]

Unbelievable. The bent one is now trying to change our Constitution to suit his own needs.

Why not? It's a free country, or at least it's supposed to be. Consider the fact that the term limit was not originally a part of the Constitution, and that the 22nd Amendment was passed due to great effort by the Republicans because of FDR's tenure in the office.

Not that I want to see Clinton as President again. and I favor retaining the 2-term limitation. But it's kind of hypocritical to condemn partisan politicing when it's object is to undo the result of partisan politicing that was itself undertaken to change the Constitution to meet a given party's needs in the first place.

[fqued]

The main problem, and the reason why we have had only about 25 amendments (after the bill of rights) in over 200 years is that it is extremely difficult to get an amendment to the Constitution. After requiring a super-majority in both houses of congress, it then needs to be passed by 3/4 of the states--very, very difficult.

So, even if congress passes this proposal, the various states will have to vote on it. Chance of passing? probably unlikely.

Note in all the above--the president has no say. Remember, he can't even veto it, since it needs a 2/3 majority in congress. Therefore, how on earth can HRC blame it on Bush?

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

Which begs the question - given that 2004 is an election year - wonder what Democrat running in a close election will have an unfortunate Arkancide plane crash in order to elect a dead Democrat's widow or spouse in its place or in order to facilitate a Clintonista's rise to power????

[RonF]

Your statement "failed to win a second electoral victory" doesn't really support your point.

Only one of those 3 people actually failed to win a second election. The other two didn't try, one because he was dead, and one because he'd had enough of the office and all the problems that went with it. With regards to the latter, I was alive then and remember the shock that everyone felt when LBJ declined to either run or serve. Everyone up to that point figured that he was going to run and that he'd have a reasonable chance of winning.

Can you fairly say that someone has failed at something if they didn't try in the first place? Or because they were killed before they tried?

[RonF]

The reason why a President can't veto a Constitutional Amendment isn't because it requires a 2/3 majority to pass. It's because it never hits his desk in the first place.

Oh, and an Amendment may not need a 2/3 majority in the Congress. If 2/3 of the state legislatures call for it, Congress must organize a Constitutional Convention. That convention then can propose Constitutional Amendments that then become part of the Constitution if approved by 3/4 of the states. The makeup and procedures of the Convention is not outlined in Section V of the Constitution, but if it's modeled after the original then it would be an independent body with representatives of all the states that were not members of Congress.

[Teacher317]

Those few bad months in 1913 sure did hurt, didn't they?

[mabelkitty]

Yes, that is all true.

I was commenting that this was pure politics meant to smear the GOP and using the complaint media to spread it around.

Remember, it has been well over a hundred years since GOP controlled Congress and Presidency, and Hillary wants to knock us off any way she can do it. If this ever sees the light of day OUT of committe, pick which one of her paid journalists will exploit it.

This is politics. I'm just commenting on the preparation we should take to douse it with water.

[philman_36]

I'll color you "not" stupid.

[sal002]

I am kinda curious how you are defining anti-U.S. Has he come out and said the Constitution is crap and should be overturned? Has he openly advocated for the violent overthrow of the US government? Or did he criticize the policies of a government (initiated by a Democratic one, I might add) to which he did serve although did not fully believe in the cause (as was said later, many brave Americans went over there and fought without truly believing that it was the right thing).

I think we need to be careful with throwing around the 'anti-American' label. We come off looking like we are trying to say that "either you agree with us 100% or you are anti-American"..and I can see by the posts here that not everyone exactly agrees with anyone else - and that is exactly how this country is suppossed to be (although some people are just wrong, they still aren't anti-American).

I can understand saying Mr. Kerry is wrong on the issues, but anti-American? That seems a large stretch..

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

You have not been paying attention. The Democratic party IS Anti-American, period. Anyone still in it wants out nation (as we have known it) ended and a Euro-Socialist state put in its place. EVERY Democrat running wants this. EVERY Democrat running cares more about power than about principles (except the principle of power). If this were not true, THEY WOULD HAVE EXPELLED THE CLINTON CRIMINAL GANG FROM THE DNC POWER BROKER POSITION - but they have not. They don't CARE that Clinton dismantled (as much as he possibly could) our national security, beginning with the national security apparatus in the White House and going on to include handing over to the Communist Chinese and likely the Russians and who knows who else top secret military and scientific information. The Clinton administration allowed Communist Chinese agents - just one being John Huang - to operate FREELY in our Commerce Dept - feeding information to the Communist Chinese government FREELY. (would walk out of Commerce and go over and make calls from or to the Chinese embassy).

ANY DEMOCRAT PARTY LEADER WORKS NOT FOR THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY OR THE BESTS INTERESTS OF THIS COUNTRY BUT SOLELY FOR THE PERPETUATION OF THEIR PERKS AND POWER. Period.

[sal002]

I have been paying attention. And I don't see what you are saying.

What I did see was an Administration that took many Republican ideas and implemented them (although regrettably not as much as I would like). I also see that Clinton's faction within the Democratic Party was different from the faction lead by such idiots as Al Sharpton. Al Sharpton wants a more Socialist state (although to say he wants our country ended, I don't see that). But then you and I totally disagree..I think there are some well intentioned Democrats (albeit there are some that are not), they are just misinformed.

The reason the Democrats never wanted to get rid of Clinton was because he was successful and popular during his term - same reason we are hesitant to get rid of / cricitize a GOP Administration that violates some of our core principles (Trade tariffs...my ass).