Bill to repeal the 22nd Amendment and 6 out of the 8 were Dems

[sunnystarr]

that sponsored it in 2003. I looked it up because last week one of the Repuke spokesman said it was at the top of the Bush agenda in 2005.

Bush is looking to continue his rule and since he knows how to fix his selection we should be all over this. If he doesn't get enough votes between now and '06, they'll fix enough elections to give them the 2/3 vote they need.

http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/bush050703a.htm

Even if we don't succeed in getting Kerry in as the actual winner, we can't give up on the election fraud issue. Investigations have to continue until enough people make enough noise to tarnish this administration into oblivion and hopefully jail time.

[Jo March]

1. Keep this kicked

We need to be all over this one. The 22nd Amendment is the only thing standing between us and having Dictator george for life.

[DODI]

2. But this means we can get Clinton back!!! If the repukes back

this it will backfire on them Big Time!

[Al-CIAda]

18. Bill Clinton is a traitor

NAFTA, the WTO, World Bank, etc...

Slick Willy's legacy is a party pacified to the multi-national corporate takeover.
The DLC is the scourge of the party.

Look whats coming next to a town near you...

TRADING FREEDOM: THE SECRET LIFE OF THE FTAA
Indymedia, October 2002 (56 min)
Offers an explanation of what the FTAA is, what it will mean, and how people across the Americas are resisting it.

Download 600MB
http://frazer.rice.edu/~tish/video.mov

-----
More videos available for download here-
http://mysite.verizon.net/res7dhyg/id3.html

[Clark2008]

22. OMG... he's still better than Shrub! n/t

[genieroze]

24. A piece of crap is better and smarter. eom

[BarbinMD]

32. And you're...

...an ass.

[mirrera]

41. Why is he an ass???!!

Clinton, for all his charm, and he WAS charming, and SMART, was also rumored to be an accomplice during Iran/Contra. They supposedly used an air strip in Arkansas to run drugs. I think it is no coincidence that he and Poppy are working together on the Tsunami relief. I suspect they have worked together befor. But even if you don't agree...Why the dis-respect?

[slackmaster]

19. If we get Clinton back they'll bring Reagan back

The fact that he's dead won't deter them for a second.

[genieroze]

25. Reagan in his present state is smarter than *. eom

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

42. Reagen in his present state

is smarter than he was as president.

[eleny]

23. I agree

Shrub's policies will prove fatal and Clinton will have a major shot at this if his health holds up. Given the shrub's rumored heart related problems, it would be "no contest". The debates alone would sink * into oblivion.

Btw, I would expect Clinton to cancel Nafta etc upon taking office. He was not without his faults.

[never_get_over_it]

38. Bill Clinton won't beat GW if

we don't get rid of these freaking voting machines!

[eleny]

39. Oh yeah

Definitely.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

44. I, for one, have had enough of Billy boy

though I had the highest hopes for him, and thought he did a great job, and was livid over what they did to him, in the end, I was disappointed in him.

[imenja]

3. I can't imagine anything worse

The only advantage in our current day political system is that we are spared from having any one charlatan for more than eight years. Is the standards for repealing a constitutional amendment the same as passing one: does it require ratification by three fourths of the states?

[WI_DEM]

4. Even if it passed Bush couldn't benefit by it

It would only affect the next president and future presidents not the incumbent at the time it is passed.

[RC]

8. Think Jeb...

[WI_DEM]

10. Jeb could run even without the amendment

for up to two terms then his son George P. could run.

[sunnystarr]

9. Like the Repuke majority couldn't revise Section 1? (nt)

[WI_DEM]

12. Not a majority

it would have to be resubmitted and 2/3rd vote would have to support it. Frankly I doubt they could get 2/3rd vote in the Senate or House to support letting Bush have a third term. There are lots of spineless dems in both, but not enough of them.

[WhiteTara]

17. yes, and we said they couldn't steal the election twice!

 never for an instant think there is no tactic low or dirty or
illegal enough to keep him from being papa doc for life
surrounded by his ton ton machoots.  THey have established too
many dictators and we are too very ripe for them to fail.

[femme.democratique]

5. Barney Frank endorsed this??? WTF????

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. When did a 'Repuke spokesman' say that this was was

at the top of the Bush agenda in 2005? Do you have link to back that up? :shrug:

[sunnystarr]

13. It was on either CNN or MSNBC since I alternate between the 2.

I can see his face, just can't remember his name right now and with the non-stop Tsunami coverage I have C-Span on. I'm sure he'll surface again during the next week so that I can look it up. I will try searching the CNN transcripts to see if I can find it for you.

I was really disturbed by it and I just can't shake the uneasy feeling.

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. No news service is picking up on any such story of Bush pushing for this

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=%2222nd+amendment%22&btnG=Search+News

[Quakerfriend]

7. Yes, ALL OVER IT!

and, their attempts to do away with the filibuster!:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[me b zola]

37. They have set an ambitious agenda

to dismantle our Constitution and write their own, faith based constitution. Whether it is george, jeb, or another one of the BFEE, we cannot relent until we take OUR country, and Constitution, back from them.:mad:

[PaganPreacher]

11. Bill Clinton likes the idea....

and so does Keith Olbermann:

http://www.termlimits.org/Press/No_Uncertain_Terms/2003/0307nut.pdf

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0603/olbermann060203.asp

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[steelyboo]

14. If you want a reason why Dems would do this, see the big ass picture of

The best president in my lifetime in post #6.

Remember, Amendments take FOREVER to pass. I do not think Barney Frank of all people would be in on "it". If the amendment got passed, they sure the hell were not trying to keep Bushilter in power. They likely want us to be able to elect Bill until he shuffles off this mortal coil, and then we will pass the "Weekend At Bernie's" Amendment that will allow us to prop Bill up in a corner, and let Hillary run the show (Im kidding . . . Bill can rule from the dead too! :p)

[roenyc]

15. If shrub is pushing this it can only be bad

edited its name out.

[Eric J in MN]

16. It won't pass the Senate because too many Senators are

looking forward to their turn to run for president.

[Gman]

20. That would mean the Big Dog could run again in '08

I'm all for it. He'd wipe the pavement with Bush. He'd stick Iraq, Medicare reform, Social Security reform and everything else so far up Bush's ass it would cease to be funny. The GOP does NOT want this to happen.

[Journeyman]

21. I support this idea. . .

the 22nd was pushed through by Republicans discouraged by FDR's dominant control of the White House. I, on the other hand, strongly believe the people should be allowed to vote for whomever they want in office, and to retain that person until such time as they vote them out of office. I've supported this idea my entire life, because I believe it is proper and right. I'm not about to change my opinion because it may serve interests other than mine. That would be the most base hypocrisy. If the 22nd had never been adopted, Bill Clinton would possibly be our President today. He most definitely would have been reelected in 2000. So of course I support removal of this amendment.

[genieroze]

26. If the 22nd had never been adopted,

Bill Clinton would possibly be our President today. Even after he was impeached for BJ Gate? Don't you see it's better to screw the country like * did rather than an intern. (sarcasm)

[whalerider55]

27. i'm no lawyer, but...

whatever the Congress decides, would still have to go through the process of being approved by the legislatures (maybe through referendums?) in 37 states- i.e., 13 states could sink it- as happened to the fabled ERA, no?

the second possible way to amend the Constitution is for Congress to call a Constitutional Convention, which is the Nuclear option- it has never been done to amend the Constitution before.

A Con Con needs to be called by two thirds of state legislatures, and then, should it produce anything of worht, that in turn would need to be approved by 75% of state legislatures. I don't know the exact numbers, but surely the dems have 13 blue legislatures over 50, and a chance to strategically increase that by 2006, the earliest any possible Con Con could happen.

I call it the Nuclear option because once the pandora's box is opened, anything can happen. The right has threatened to do this before (gay rights, abortion, etc.- all the hot button, divisive issues that get under their holier than thou skin), but doesn't have the guts to do it because once they open the Pandora's box, anything goes- and they won't have the votes to do what they want when the majority- that fifty-one percent who have gotten the mandate they didn't get in 2000- can be thwarted by a much smaller minority- i think the 37/13 split still holds.

PS- we've never gone the Con COn route.

porbably why there was never a Con Con called to address slavery-
they couldn't meet the 2/3 test, never mind the 3/4 threshhold.

Con Law experts, please feel free to correct me here.

As to the merits of the issue, I'd have given my teeth to see Mo Udall as president for three terms. Since he left politics, I've searched long and hard for someone of such consistent honesty and integrity. And just about the only one I've seen is John Conyers.

I'm not gonna lose sleep over this one. Somehow, with the polarity around 50/50 and statehouses swinging back and forth with each election, i don't see us amending the Constitution all that easily.

Ignoring it or using it as Patriotic toilet paper- now that's what I worry about.

whalerider55

[suston96]

30. Lawyer?

You don't have to be a lawyer to discuss the Constitution. Most lawyers took naps during constitutional law.

All correct up above about the constitutional convention and the rest.

In the beginning of the 1900s the states were all riled up about two things.

One, was polygamy. The other was the direct election of senators.

A scary number of states had passed constitutional convention calls and Congress members were squirming.

The polygamy thing was settled when Utah outlawed it.

But the direct election of senators was being demanded because partisan state legislatures were squabbling and some states were ending up with a senator not being selected.

Not exactly what the Founders had in mind. Thus came the Seventeenth Amendment.

A threat of a con-con - constitutional amendment - might not work this time, what with the corruption in the electoral system.

I believe the Twenty Second should be repealed. It was passed by a bitter Republican Congress - a rare Republican Congress - which hated the memory of Franklin Delano Roosevelt - who had the enormous popularity to be elected four times.

[thanatonautos]

45. Agree ... as long as we make sure the votes will be counted.

I believe the Twenty Second should be repealed.
It was passed by a bitter Republican Congress - a
rare Republican Congress - which hated the memory
of Franklin Delano Roosevelt - who had the enormous
popularity to be elected four times.

[no_hypocrisy]

34. Agreed. A Constitutional Convention could summarily remove the Bill

of Rights and any part of the body of the Constitution. And it could remove the separation of powers, i.e, the checks and balances of democracy. Like a one-party Congress/Senate and a judiciary that rubberstamps whatever the Executive Branch wants. As a matter of fact, a Constitutional Convention could repudiate democracy and make this country a dictatorship legally and officially.

[Ian David]

29. Why would Barney Frank do this???

OK, I finally found something about Barney Frank that's pissed me off.

[whalerider55]

33. you shoulda seen...

what was allegedly his e-mail response to a constituent who asked him to sign on to the house petition to throw out ohio's electoral votes. not exactly what we've come to expect from Barney.

i think he's a little off his game. he'd announced his interest in running for Kerry's seat, and was at the top of the pack in early polls. then bush stole the election.

whalerider55

[thanatonautos]

46. He probably favours repealing the 22nd on principle.

After all it was only passed by those who
detested FDR for being the most popular
President ever, judging by his winning
election to the office for four consecutive
terms.

I personally like Barney Frank, and if
this is the reason he's for the amendment,
I agree with him.

But we should fix the election system first.

[bemis12]

31. No chance

1. Americans aren't interested in removing the 22nd amendment.

2. Bush isn't going to push for it. That's just stupid.

[McCamy Taylor]

35. GOP wont pass this one while Bill Clinton is alive

There isnt enough electronic vote fraud in all of Karl Rove's dreams to keep Bill Clinton from becoming president for life if he was able to run again and again and again.

[stirringstill]

36. More Term Limits

The 22nd amendment will stand, but I would love to see a never to be passed term limit on Senators and Congressmen. A single 5 or 6 yr presidential term would be good for the system too considering Bush spent 2 of his first 4 years simply campaigning. Alas, alack.

[Ian David]

40. I'd rather have Bush campaigning than "leading"

I propose that if we do not eliminate the electoral college, then we make a new rule:

If a president wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote, their first term will be limited to two years.

And then there will be a second in 2 years.

Also, if a president wins by less than 4% of the popular vote, then their term should be shortened.

A president winning the popular vote by 3% would have a 3-year term. Winning by 2%, they would get a 2-year term. 1% or less would be a 1-year term.

The term of office should be proportional to the mandate.

[thanatonautos]

43. This bill has been submitted by Rep. Serrano every year since 1977.

It always gets referred to committee (the Judiciary)
and it appears to have no chance whatsoever of ever
making it to the floor, never mind of getting passed,
and still less chance if it were passed of being ratified.

This doesn't worry me ... there are so many other ways
for the Republicans to do serious damage to our democracy
that we have to worry more about.

One main way being to refuse to do anything at all
to fix the integrity of our election system.

If we had a robust election system, I might
even favour the repeal of the 22nd myself. It
was only passed because a lot of people felt
that FDR was in for too long.

* is actually not all that important to Repubs,
per se, at least as I see things.

If they introduce an amendment to make *
president for life, then we should worry.

So, out of curiosity, what spokeseman said
that it was at the top of the agenda this year?

[earth mom]

47. This is the worst thing I've heard since

the so called "mandate". I find it ominous and not to mention alarming to the nth degree. If this goes through, there's the very real possiblity of looking at * in office as long as he's alive.

I am SO out of here if that happens! :mad: