View Full Version : Senator introduces bill to allow unlimited terms

08-07-2009, 12:23 AM
A resolution, H.J. Res. 5, was introduced into committee on January 6, 2009 which seeks to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, thus removing term limits for U.S. presidents.

Yes, you read it right. Democrat Representative Jose Serrano of New York wishes to allow unlimited terms for President Obama.

The presidential term limit was ratified as an amendment to the Constitution in 1951. However, our founding fathers adhered to the principle of a two-term limit on their own accord. The only president that served more than two terms was Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt, who served four non-..consecutive terms.

Shall we go the way of the Venezuelan dictatorship? Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and President Obama both expressed opposition to the recent ousting of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, calling it a coup, rather than a legal overthrow of a president who was violating Honduran law and attempting to change their constitution to permit him to stay in office indefinitely. The action had gone through the proper legal process, was voted on by the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress, and had the support of the majority of the people.

According to an AP report, Obama stated, "We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the democratically elected president there. It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections," he added. "The region has made enormous progress over the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions. ... We don't want to go back to a dark past."

What’s he afraid of? Why would Obama side with a tyrant rather than the people of Honduras? Could this “precedent” be a threat to his future plans?

The AP article also reports that Obama said the United States will "stand on the side of democracy" and work with other nations and international groups to resolve the matter peacefully. What does this mean – "work with other nations and international groups"? Does this mean he intends to intervene in the results of the Honduran political process in ousting their tyrant?

I am outraged by our president’s support for a power-hungry tyrant over the will of the people.

08-07-2009, 01:03 AM
[B]What’s he afraid of? Why would Obama side with a tyrant rather than the people of Honduras? Could this “precedent” be a threat to his future plans?

:toofunny: :rofl:

Paranoid much?

From http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/05/opinion/05burns.html
Since 1956, many bipartisan resolutions to repeal the 22nd Amendment have been submitted to Congress - and gone nowhere. The most recent one to be buried in a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee was proposed last February. Oddly, both the current chairman of that committee, F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, and the former chairman, Henry J. Hyde of Illinois, both Republicans, have in the past co-sponsored resolutions to repeal the amendment.

When the Republicans tried to do it in 05, paranoid Dems were saying the same crap about Bush. "ZOMG HE'S TRYING TO BE A DICTATOR." It's amazing how people of opposite parties are pretty much the same, but at different times. When their pick is in office, they're the rationalist who disputes any and all conspiracy theories about the President. But as soon as the opposing party makes it into office these same rationalists are all of a sudden spouting the same conspiracy theories that were said about their presidential pick, only now it's a different president playing the part of ringleader.

Here's a little reminder of what it takes to repeal an amendment, which is simply making a new amendment that repeals the one in question:


If you think that any amendment is going to be repealed in this political environment, let alone an amendment that's as politically volatile as the 22nd, you're batshit crazy.

08-07-2009, 04:02 AM
Actually, FDR didn't serve 4 terms, he was elected to 4 terms. He actually only served 3, and died a few months into his 4th term.

Just correcting a historical error there...

Anyway, JackHammer is right - this is not the first time a Congressman wanted to repeal the 22nd Amendment, and it won't be the last. It's one that may be iron-clad as well - I don't think it'll ever be repealed, not when the country is so divided...or even when it isn't.

08-07-2009, 10:11 AM
Actually I think it's one of the big "mistakes" the Founding Fathers made---by "mistake", I mean oversight.

I think that they were so caught up in the whole process of creating a new nation that it never occurred to them to write into the Constitution that terms of the President AND OF THE REPS AND SENATORS should be limited. Their idea was that the people would run the country through representation and that it would naturally follow that the people doing the representing would change every few years so that an accurate "Representation" of the People would occur. I'm guessing that they NEVER conceived the possibility that Career Poiticians would arise and go on to f*ck up this country throught their own ambition, greed, and avarice.

If anything, someone needs to submit a Bill to LIMIT terms of the Senate and Congress, but this will never happen, of course because these hairballs won't want to shoot themselves in the foot

08-07-2009, 10:49 AM
Indo has it pegged correctly. The country is in the pits because it's the same old same old in Congress.

08-08-2009, 11:24 AM
My 15 year old son told me that if he was President for a day he would pass two laws.

1) One term limit of 6 years for all congressional and presidential politicians. (with a provision to vote any politician out half way through their term.) No more career politicians!

2) Mandatory military service for any man or woman between the ages of 18-30 who has been unemployed for over 6 months. (He brought up the healthcare system benefit of getting a whole generation of Americans "in-shape".)

Gotta say...I like his progressive thinking.

08-09-2009, 09:59 AM
Unlimited terms for president?? We need unlimited terms for our crooked senators & congressmen. This is all in an attempt to keep this administration for Osama's entire life

08-09-2009, 10:23 AM
The problem came into being when we made it very "lucrative" to be a politician. By doing this we eliminated the citizen/politician and created a Ruling Class of power-hungry, perk-driven elitists.

I wonder how many of our elected "representatives" would remain in office if we gave them a MEDIAN U.S. wage with "USE-ONLY" of government-owned apartments, cafeteria and public transportation.

When money is involved in politics, it only serves to corrupt. We would all be much better off if elections did not seem to be able to be bought and sold. It is certainly not what our founding fathers intended. If our p[oliticians couldnt accumulate riches and perks, then there would be little motivation to be bribed. .

We should also allow only registered voters from the politicians district to contribute to that politicians campaign. No out of district contributions! Why should someone living in Illinois be permitted to affect an election in Pennsylvania? This is why special interests are able to get their ways so easily.

If there were strict and absolute limits on campaign contributions then nobody's contribution would be so very important and the bribery would not exist so easily. At present, public servants seem to believe that the public exists to serve them, instead of the other way around. The reason we have arrogant politicians is they focus on the pursuit of money, whether salary or campaign financing. We ascitizens.... are the owners of the country. The politicians are supposed to work for us, instead of ignoring us.

08-09-2009, 11:07 AM
Any postion you are elected to ya should only be allowed to serve 2 terms and then your done. And if you jump party your prohibted from holding any office.