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

Skip to comments.

Should Presidents Be Allowed To Serve More Than 2 Terms?
World Net Daily ^ | October 8, 2006 | WND

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 22ndamendment; amendmentrepeal; berman; hillary; hoyer; sensenbrenner; serrano; twotermsareenough
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last
To: janetgreen
"The time has come to repeal the 22nd 16th Amendment to the Constitution, and not because of partisan politics...

There, fixed it.

21 posted on 10/08/2006 11:35:04 AM PDT by unixfox (The 13th Amendment Abolished Slavery, The 16th Amendment Reinstated It !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi

Yes, but only if it would have applied to President Reagan or President Washington. Otherwise, no.


22 posted on 10/08/2006 11:36:13 AM PDT by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter

Yes, but only if it would have applied to President Reagan or President Washington. Otherwise, no.
----
Well put -- the rest should have been just ONE TERM. Especially Clinton...got help me forget the thought and sight of those two criminal Marxist maggots.


23 posted on 10/08/2006 11:37:50 AM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: janetgreen
FDR provided some spectacular leadership at times in his tenure, he did not have the psychical strength to be a leading factor in the Yalta Conference.

Dewey would have been elected if Roosevelt could have not run a 3rd and term. And yes, the a Allies would have still won WWII and the atom bomb would have been developed.

24 posted on 10/08/2006 11:38:43 AM PDT by oyez ( The older I get, the better I was.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
One six-year term. No re-election worries affecting the decision-making of the President, and no "perpetual campaign season."

That is one of the best suggestions I've seen in a LONG time. Every year before an election, all that is done is politicking. The president could be involved with the country more and find out what really goes on instead of the insulation of partisan politics.

25 posted on 10/08/2006 11:39:15 AM PDT by WatchingInAmazement ("Nothing is more expensive than cheap labor," prof. Vernon Briggs, labor economist Cornell Un.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ImpBill

Hell No!!


26 posted on 10/08/2006 11:40:04 AM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon
term-limit congress

Many in Congress on both sides of the aisle, those imbedded pains in America's hindside, need to be unceremoniously ushered out.

27 posted on 10/08/2006 11:40:15 AM PDT by janetgreen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: janetgreen

ABSOLUTELY NOT... The Libs must be grabbing for this one. Hillary wants to be Queen.


28 posted on 10/08/2006 11:40:57 AM PDT by madison10 (Live your life in such a way that the preacher won't have to lie at your funeral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: janetgreen
The first line of this piece is a gross mistake. Congress does not have the power to "repeal" anything that is in the Constitution -- whether the subject is the 22nd Amendment, the creation of the District of Columbia as not belonging to any state, etc.

Over 10,000 proposals to amend the Constitution have been put in the hopper in Congress over the centuries. Only 52 have passed even one House of Congress. And only 27 have been ratified by 3/4ths of the states, as required by Article V.

In short, this article is a tempest in a tea pot.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article: "Sex, Politics, and Hypocrisy"

Please see my most recent new statement on running for Congress, here.

29 posted on 10/08/2006 11:42:24 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob (Have a look-see. Please get involved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: janetgreen
There should also be limits on Congress also. 4 - 2 year terms for Congressmen and 2 - 6 year terms for Senators. Far too many or these people lose their way after staying too long.

Power corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

30 posted on 10/08/2006 11:42:24 AM PDT by TruthFactor (The Death of Nations... pornography,homosexuality,abortion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: All
Someone introduces this amendment in every Congress and it always goes no where. It will never even see the light of a subcommittee.

World Nut Daily must be out of NAU conspiracy stories to bring this up yet again.

31 posted on 10/08/2006 11:44:43 AM PDT by COEXERJ145 (Free Republic is Currently Suffering a Pandemic of “Bush Derangement Syndrome.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madison10
Hillary wants to be Queen

What can Sensenbrenner be thinking? What is his aim in this bill? Doesn't make sense.

32 posted on 10/08/2006 11:45:47 AM PDT by janetgreen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: janetgreen; Victoria Delsoul; wita
President George Washington had it correct, two terms is enough. Representative Hoyer, D-MD, stated; "...This is an undemocratic result."

I say to Representative Hoyer; "This is a Republic, not a democracy!" And I note it always is the Democrats; FDR, Clinton, Hoyer, etc. who want more. Their craving for power doesn't get more obvious. When they get it, they rule the country vice run the Executive.

The 22nd Amendment is a wise restriction on budding dictators who occasionally make it to the Presidency. Repealing it would be high folly!

33 posted on 10/08/2006 11:46:40 AM PDT by DakotaGator (Fascists, Communists, Socialists, Liberals, Democrats; different names, same totalitarians!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145
Someone introduces this amendment in every Congress and it always goes no where.

My question is why would Sensenbrenner propose it?

34 posted on 10/08/2006 11:48:33 AM PDT by janetgreen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Credo
Why not term limit Congress Critters instead?

Regulatory-agency-bureaucrats are even worse than Congress. Term-limiting Congress would shift even more power over to those bureaucrats.

35 posted on 10/08/2006 11:50:12 AM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: janetgreen
Someone introduces this amendment in every Congress and it always goes no where. My question is why would Sensenbrenner propose it?

Maybe Sensenbrenner is thinking about some stray FBI files, or IMs...

36 posted on 10/08/2006 11:51:42 AM PDT by madison10 (Live your life in such a way that the preacher won't have to lie at your funeral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: janetgreen

Think about Klinton in 4 or 8 more years.


37 posted on 10/08/2006 11:52:26 AM PDT by Joe Boucher (an enemy of islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Boucher
Think about Klinton in 4 or 8 more years.

That isn't even a thought, that's a nightmare.

38 posted on 10/08/2006 11:54:36 AM PDT by janetgreen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: WatchingInAmazement

great idea....one six year term!!!

now...let's do something likewise for congress...especially the senate where shi-ite heads like fat ted are there for life!!!


39 posted on 10/08/2006 11:55:07 AM PDT by hnj_00
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: janetgreen

We should do it like Rome. One, one year term.


40 posted on 10/08/2006 11:56:40 AM PDT by Gradient Vector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 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