Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New York congressman introduces bill to abolish presidential term limits
The Daily Caller ^ | January 6, 2013 | Patrick Howley

Posted on 03/28/2013 4:09:48 PM PDT by Nachum

New York Democratic Rep. Jose Serrano reintroduced a bill in Congress on Friday to repeal the 22nd Amendment, which places term limits on the U.S. presidency.

The bill, which has been referred to committee, would allow Barack President Obama to become the first president since Franklin Roosevelt to seek a third term in office.

H.J. Res. 15 proposes “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.”

(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 113th; abolish; bho44; corruption; democrats; elections; limits; obama; presidential; radicalleft; serrano; socialism; term
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last
To: Nachum

Let me guess, I won’t even look at the article. The congressman is a democrat.


41 posted on 03/28/2013 6:39:28 PM PDT by Blue Collar Christian (One "bitter clinger" praying for revival. <BCC><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeganC

That didn’t stop Jerry Brown.

The Governor shall be elected every fourth year at the same time and places as members of the Assembly and hold office from the Monday after January 1 following the election until a successor qualifies. The Governor shall be an elector who has been a citizen of the United States and a resident of this State for 5 years immediately preceding the Governor’s election. The Governor may not hold other public office. No Governor may serve more than 2 terms.
— Article V, Section 2, Constitution of California.


42 posted on 03/28/2013 7:32:57 PM PDT by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
The bill, which has been referred to committee, would allow Barack President Obama to become the first president since Franklin Roosevelt to seek a third term in office

Wait. Somebody thinks this could be passed and sent to the states where 39 of them would ratify it?
Within the next 3 years?
That is some mighty powerful LSD somebody got their hands on.

43 posted on 03/28/2013 7:41:19 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OKRA2012
He introduced the same bill when GWB was in office.

Yeah, in January 2009, after the African communist Ubama had already been elected.
What's your point?

44 posted on 03/28/2013 7:49:52 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Fiji Hill
If Obama wants a third term, he'll get the Roberts court to OK it--perhaps by a ruling that the 22nd Amendment doesn't apply to blacks homos.
45 posted on 03/28/2013 7:51:52 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

To be more specific, Jose Serrano introduced bills to repeal the 22nd Amendment in 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011 and now 2013.


46 posted on 03/28/2013 7:57:40 PM PDT by OKRA2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: OKRA2012
To be more specific, Jose Serrano introduced bills to repeal the 22nd Amendment in 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011 and now 2013.

Serrano is clearly eccentric and obsessed. What's his game?

47 posted on 03/28/2013 7:59:38 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

He seems to have an issue with the 22nd Amendment.

In all it’s history all the 22nd has ever done was deprive us of a third term of Reagan.


48 posted on 03/28/2013 8:06:01 PM PDT by OKRA2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: OKRA2012
In all it’s history all the 22nd has ever done was deprive us of a third term of Reagan.

And, arguably, a third term of Clinton. And a fourth.
Reagan was a little long in the tooth by 1988.

49 posted on 03/28/2013 8:37:58 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
Thanks for the civics lesson. Apparently you've never heard of "exaggeration for effect," or as Rush says "illustrating absurdity by being absurd."

Hopefully things would sort out as you suggest. Realistically, when has Obama ever let the Constitution limit his actions? When has Congress really stood up to him? We now have a President who wants to be a dictator. His powerful like-minded backers are determined to make it so "by any means necessary," to quote from their Marxist-Leninist creed.

50 posted on 03/28/2013 8:56:59 PM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Serrano is a one trick pony.
51 posted on 03/28/2013 9:03:08 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro can't pass E-verify)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bernard Marx
What?

Me? Exaggerate for effect?

-PJ

52 posted on 03/28/2013 9:50:40 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: pieceofthepuzzle
One thing is certain. The cream of the crop do not go into politics. Clearly.

Are you trying to tell me that the 535 buffoons now in the congress aren't the "best and brightest" this country has to offer?

53 posted on 03/29/2013 5:15:40 AM PDT by dearolddad (/i>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

Not to worry, the Rats will introduce an amendment to have it apply to Obama......if it isn’t already included on page 15,493 of this bill.


54 posted on 03/29/2013 5:25:08 AM PDT by liberalh8ter (The only difference between flash mob 'urban yutes' and U.S. politicians is the hoodies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MeganC

I hear RuChelle is interested.


55 posted on 03/29/2013 6:03:05 AM PDT by Pigsley (nan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

Barry is looking more and more like his drunkard, Commie, sperm donor every day. Frank, not O Sr.


56 posted on 03/29/2013 6:05:15 AM PDT by Pigsley (nan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
That's true, but the 22nd Amendment isn't exactly a model of clarity. It says that no person shall be elected to the office of President more that twice, not that no person shall serve as President for more than two terms.

There is a straight-faced argument, I think, that a former two-term President could run as a Vice-President, and that would be OK under the 12th Amendment.

57 posted on 03/29/2013 6:14:09 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius

No it wouldn’t beause the VP has to meet the exact standards as the prez. Ineligible to run for prez, ineligible to run for vp.


58 posted on 03/29/2013 6:19:48 AM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: jjotto
You're not looking at the precise language. The 12th Amendment says that "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." Under the 22nd Amemdment, it's not clear that a two-term president is constitutionally ineligible for the office of President. It says that a two term President can't be elected again, not that a two term President can't serve again.

Let's say, for instance, that GWB decided to run for Congress, he won, and then was elected Speaker of the House--third in line for the Presidency. And then let's further say that both the President and VP died in office, making the Speaker of the House the President. Could GWB serve? The language of the 22nd Amemdment certainly seems to support that position, since he wouldn't have been elected to the office of President more than twice.

The VP issue is admittedly a little less black-and-white, but the same principle applies. The 22nd Amendment doesn't address eligibility, just electability.

59 posted on 03/29/2013 6:28:42 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius

Yes. I see there are unknown hypothetical situations.

But the idea that the parties would play a game of musical chairs with prez and veep isn’t set up by the Constitution or Amendments.


60 posted on 03/29/2013 6:32:20 AM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson