U.S. Congress - H.J.Res.5 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-se...
H.J.Res.5 - 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.
view all titles (1)All Bill Titles
- Official: 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. as introduced.
This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.
Vote on This Bill
-
Share This Bill
More Share via Email
Sort By
Comments Feed
Displaying 31-60 of 405 total comments.
Moderated Comment
Kind of like the Kennedy dynasty? You would think that with all that has happened with that family over the years, and with the two that have been in the spot light recently (One is an alcoholic with a brain tumor and the other is a dunce) that they might have gotten the message that God doesn’t want them in politics. Too bad they can’t stop breeding!
The reason Congress even proposed and passed the 22nd Amendment was to uphold the traditions/teachings of Our Founding Fathers to prevent any one person from attaining the status and/or power of a king. This is a republic, from latin ‘res publica’ which means the ‘public thing’ (where thing translates to the law), where we live by the “rule of law”. Given the right circumstances, it would be very easy for one person to become a dictator. FDR had four terms because he was popular, and had been successful in restoring the nation during the Depression (if not for WW2 he may have only gotten two terms). This legislation will be like a can of worms, and will only lead our country astray towards a democracy (majority rule) from what it truly is and meant to be… A Republic!
Actually, FDR was elected the first time in 1932, he was elected to his third term in 1940, one year prior to our involvement in WWII. Also, he wasn’t really that successful in restoring the nation during the depression. There were several members of his cabinet that complained that after all the money they had spent, all they had succeeded in doing was extending the drepression. But you are right that the 22nd Amendment was about preventing a fiasco like that from happening again by returning to the principles of the Founding Fathers.
The only reason FDR had 4 terms was because he continuiously promised the most amount of hand outs.
Go Google Alexander Tyler, and report back.
Agreed I believe in term limits for everyone. Our forefathers did not intend for politicians to hold office for 20 or 30 years passing legislation that would make them rich. Most of these people who serve in office now are very wealthy and only a few were that way when they started. Kind of makes you wonder huh?
If our forefathers did not intend for pols to hold office for 20+ years why wasn’t the limits written in the original signed document? It is very tempting to try to read thier minds based on writings and musings that hold no constitutional water at all. I believe they were neutral on the subject since it wasn’t mentioned one way or the other. Of course they intended the state legislature to appoint Senators….. (an awesome idea btw)
The incredible disregard for the wisdom of the founding fathers in this bill astounds me. Given the timing and the sponsor’s party affiliation, it is a clear attempt to consolidate power and establish a Democratic party Kingdom led by Barack Obama for the next 20+ years.
My exact thought
done
The founding fathers didn’t put the 2 (2 1/2 really) term limit on Presidents. That happened in the 20th century, after FDR was elected 4 times. (Whether or not this bill is a good idea or not is a different issue)
Perhaps some history would help me understand this discussion. Didn’t one of our founding fathers who served as president decline to serve another term because he felt no one man should hold himself higher than the republic he represented?
Well all of them stopped at two (or less) terms. The only exception was FDR who was elected for 4 (although only served a tiny bit of the 4th one). Washington refused to run for a third term (although he almost certainly would have won) – that set the precedent for 2 terms.
I believe it was George Washington that declined the offer to be king of the new republic reminding the citizens of what they had just fought for.
You’re exactly right…we are closer now than we should be to the Democrat Party Kingdom of the Inner City of the United States of America. We need to preserve a few of the checks and balances against a monarchy or dictatorship that our founding fathers gave us.
He wouldn’t be dictator for that long. People would march on Washington, armed to the teeth, and forcibly remove him from office. At that point the people can once again re-establish a working government of the people, by the people, and for the people, not just the chosen people!
I totally agree….we need to let our representatives know that’s how we feel. They represent us, not rule us!!!
What a foolish piece of legislation… no matter what your politics, Obama has not even taken office…
do not pass this bill. the founding fathers were and continue to be smarter and right with the CONSTITUTION of the U.S.A. all polititians of now and recent memory should not try to mess with that. how foolish to initiate this bill. you get a -
Again – not the founding fathers that put this in the constitution. That was the 20th century congress that did that.
The term limits for Presidents should not be repealed. They were implemented for a reason. Our President, as the Commander-In-Chief should be required to have at least 4 years of active military service before they can run for office. Our politicians should be required to read “The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States.” Our founding fathers constructed the Constitution of the United States the way they did for particular reasons. In other words, Americans can’t even obey ten simple, easy to learn laws that God gave us in which our laws are base upon. And this is a Christian Nation stated by our founding fathers. How do politicians believe we can obey by 66,000 plus laws on the books now? Some of them can’t even do it. It’s time to get back to the basics. Term-limits should be placed on all elected officials-local, state, and federal-of two 4-year terms and their salary shall be based on the military officer’s rank pay-grade structure with increases based on what they vote for the military and social security, and if there are no term limits, then our elected officials shall not retire until they have 20 years or more of service. I believe in a flat income tax. If every man, women and child-including politicians-that makes a salary, pays a flat tax of say 7-9%, the government would see a considerable increase in revenue. If a person makes $10,000 or $1,000,000, they receive a post card from the IRS stating what they should have paid. The key is NO LOOPHOLES. Billions of dollars can be saved by reducing the paperwork by the IRS. Also, our elected officials shall be required to live in apartments while in Washington D.C. that way they will have an incentive to return to their residence in their home states while in closed session which would allow for salaries to be reduced saving taxpayers billions of dollars. Think about it. Politicians work for the people who put them in office.
Flat Tax, YES. Under one condition, it would requier a maj. vote of the people of the country to be increased. If the rate of tax was left in the hande of the politicians it could be changed at will and we all know the direction that would take.
Also, our elected officials shall be required to live in apartments while in Washington D.C. that way they will have an incentive to return to their residence in their home states while in closed session which would allow for salaries to be reduced saving taxpayers billions of dollars.
Apartments, ha, if you’re going to go that far, lets just take it a step further and have them all live with each other in a barracks style situation? Bunk beds and all. Now wouldn’t that be a good incentive to go home?
If I remember right, one of the reasons that DC was picked as the Capitol was due to the awful swampy conditions during the summer. They hoped that the awful heat and horrible mosquitos would force the congress to go home to their constituents during the summer!
There is no God, according to our Constitution. Have you bothered to read it?
How about instead of the Flat Tax, have the Fair Tax, which would get rid of the IRS and institute a national sales tax to replace the income tax.
Re: The previous commenter. No, the Constitution says right up front that no state religion shall be established.
However I agree with limiting each president to 2 4-yr terms, and simplifying the tax code, and Congressional salary raises should be voted on by their constituents.
Also Roosevelt did not end the Depression, his policies prolonged it. Very good argument for term limits. Read Amity Schlaes “The Forgotten Man.”
Wrong, it says Congress shall not interfere with any established Religion.
From the United States of America; the Bill of Rights:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
What you are talking about is the 1977 Constitution of the USSR:
Article 52: -In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.
This is the USA, and not the USSR.
Soon to be the United Socialist Slaves of America! Ready your arms people, the revolution is coming!!!
The First Amendment does prevent a state religion. That is what “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” means. Remember that England had a state church, and the King was the head of that church. This is what the founding fathers wanted to prevent here. It also goes on to say “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. So it prevents a state religion and also prevents the state from interfering with any religion. In fact, if the President wanted to put an altar in the oval office, that is allowed by this Amendment. If a judge wanted to hang the ten commandments on his wall, that is allowed by this Amendment. But I am glad to see you know where the concept of “separation of church and state” came from. It was not from our Constitution.