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.

Comments Feed

Displaying 31-60 of 403 total comments.

  • parlezlibrement 01/12/2009 7:20am
    Link Reply
    + 19

    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!

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 02/23/2009 7:56am

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    fightinbluhen51 04/20/2009 11:07am

    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.

  • Tylervw 01/16/2009 5:05am
    Link Reply
    + 16

    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?

  • Comm_reply
    pegwinn 03/19/2009 5:33pm

    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)

  • Anonymous 01/18/2009 4:14am
    Link Reply
    + 16

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    Tony1980 02/09/2009 9:17am

    My exact thought

  • Comm_reply
    niraj 02/10/2009 9:57pm

    done

  • Comm_reply
    kenj0418 02/11/2009 11:45am

    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)

  • Comm_reply
    johntudor 02/13/2009 3:43pm

    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?

  • Comm_reply
    kenj0418 02/16/2009 6:51pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 02/23/2009 2:29pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    milehifreedom 02/20/2009 9:49am

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 02/23/2009 2:41pm

    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!

  • Comm_reply
    jbeyes 06/23/2009 11:18am

    I totally agree….we need to let our representatives know that’s how we feel. They represent us, not rule us!!!

  • Anonymous 01/18/2009 4:34pm

    What a foolish piece of legislation… no matter what your politics, Obama has not even taken office…

  • mrpolitico 01/18/2009 4:48pm

    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 -

  • Comm_reply
    kenj0418 02/11/2009 11:48am

    Again – not the founding fathers that put this in the constitution. That was the 20th century congress that did that.

  • dixiepreacher 01/19/2009 10:03pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    gwgalloway 02/22/2009 7:01am

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 02/23/2009 7:31am

    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?

  • Comm_reply
    carljn 03/03/2009 1:15pm

    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!

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 04/07/2009 3:00pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    There is no God, according to our Constitution. Have you bothered to read it?

  • Comm_reply
    bmwtriton 10/27/2009 5:52pm

    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.

  • Anonymous 01/20/2009 11:16am

    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.”

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 02/18/2009 3:01am
    Link Reply
    + -2

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 02/23/2009 2:34pm

    Soon to be the United Socialist Slaves of America! Ready your arms people, the revolution is coming!!!

  • Comm_reply
    csledbetter 02/27/2009 10:22pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    WystenDraco 04/19/2009 12:52am

    I agree with setting term limits for all positions of govt, fed, state, and local. I think this amendment cant hurt either.

    “All religion is seperated from all of the government. All schools are seperated from from all religion. All science, scientific research, and all scientfic endeavors are seperated from all religion. All medicine, medical research, and medical endeavors are seperated from all religion and from the the government. All religions must pay their taxes like everyone else and cannot be exempt at all. The law, the legal system, agencies of the law, and offices of the law are seperated from all religion. It is mandatory to accept nothing short of strictly literal interpretation of this article.

  • Filtered Comment [ show ]


Vote on This Bill

2% Users Support Bill

97 in favor / 4406 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments