Posted on 05/07/2003 9:30:27 PM PDT by 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`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only to support its advance in the US.
Bill Clinton vs GWB in 2004?
No, but in political speak, he said the US needed a "regime change", like the one recently inflcted on Saddam Hussein. He is attempting to create the impression that President Bush is a totalitarian, which I totally detest.
If he will openly provide opposition to what need to be done to provide a representative republic in Iraq, what would he do here?
One thing about democrats: they never have the guts to say what they really mean. They don't even have the guts to use the term liberal to define themselves. That's enough for me to have major issues with him. Kerry may have been a hero in VietNam, but like all other democrats on the homefront, he is a coward.
Clinton was the first DemocRAT president affected by it.
That is what necessitated the special election for Ed Case.
Even worse they ran two (expensive) special elections. One to fill her seat for the remainder of the 107th Congress and another to fill her seat in the 108th Congress. That was a really stupid waste of taxpayer money considering hardly any business was conducted after the first special election.
I really doubt it would pass with a 2/3rds majority in both the House and Senate and then get 3/4ths of the states to ratify. It wouldn't even be close.
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.
Interesting how the 22nd amendment specifically did not apply to the president currently holding office when it was adopted (Truman). I bet Clinton would oppose any restricition applying repeal of the 22nd amendment only to future presidents who had not been elected prior to its repeal.
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.