6 Jan

Bill Introduced to Repeal the 22nd Amendment

                                       

Most Americans probably don’t even realize there are 27 amendments to the Constitution. They probably could tell you there are 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, but probably couldn’t tell you what they all mean. So, it’s a safe bet that most people don’t understand what the 22nd Amendment is and why we should pay attention to any attempts to repeal it.

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.

In layman’s terms, this is the amendment that limits a president to two 4-year terms maximum.

Amendments to our Constitution must pass a strict litmus test to be added or repealed. The Constitution is clear about this as well in Article 5:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Basically, 2/3 of both houses of Congress, the House and Senate, must pass the recommended amendment. Or, if 2/3 of the states demand it Congress can call for a constitutional convention. In any case, 3/4 of the states must ratify any amendments before they are added to the Constitution.

New York Democratic Congressman Jose Serrano is once again introducing a bill to repeal the 22nd Amendment. This would allow President Obama to seek a third, fourth, fifth, or 20th term if no other term limits are added to any repeal. In effect, we would become Venezuela, Cuba, Iran or any other form of democratic socialist state.

Serrano presented his bill, House Joint Resolution 15, last Friday, January 4. It isn’t the first him he or other Democrats have sought to repeal term limits for their socialist godfathers. Barney Frank has sponsored similar legislation in the past as well, along with Senator Harry Reid.

With Republicans still in charge of the House and more Republican governors in office than ever before, the bill stands zero chance of seeing the light of day as the law of the land. However, it’s important to highlight these attempts to destroy the current system and usher in a progressive golden age of socialism and/or Marxism.

HJ 15 IH

113th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 15

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.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 4, 2013

Mr. SERRANO introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

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.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

‘Article–
‘The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.’.

This entry was posted in Constitution and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Sunday, January 6th, 2013 at 4:20 pm
| 2,585 views

44 Responses to Bill Introduced to Repeal the 22nd Amendment

  1. John Galt says: 1

    It will never pass, that’s the reason that Obama will use an EO to strip the 22nd just like the 2nd.
    He’s working on 2’s right now, the 1’s will come latter.

    ReplyReply
  2. Brother Bob says: 2

    I actually like bills like this – it helps to set a trap for some of the dumber members of congress to vote for something that will be cannon fodder against them in their next election.

    ReplyReply
  3. annie says: 3

    They should all only be allowed 2 terms and then your gone because after 8 years they are not working for us they are lining their pockets…..

    ReplyReply
  4. Indigo Red says: 4

    This is nothing new neither is the idea restricted to Democrats. Pres Reagan wanted 22 repealed and said so in a David Frost interview. Mr. Reagan said: ”I would like to start a movement to eliminate the constitutional amendment that was passed a few years ago that limits a President to two terms. Now I say I wouldn’t do that for myself, but for Presidents from here on.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/29/us/reagan-wants-end-of-two-term-limit.html

    In 1985, Reagan said it was “ridiculous” that a president be limited to two terms if the voters wanted him to serve longer citing the elections of FD Roosevelt(D) as the example. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=336&dat=19850914&id=aJopAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AYQDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6931,6214727

    FDR thought his four terms were absolutely necessary because he believed he was uniquely qualified to lead the nation at that time (FDR was a bit of a narcissist.) Reagan, of course, was a Republican and since Roosevelt’s multiple terms only Republicans had won re-election. Pres JF Kennedy(D) supported the 22nd, primarily because he had voted for it as a Senator Kennedy. As usual, Pres Carter(D) was odd man out for his support of a single six year term.

    ReplyReply
  5. it was mentioned before that he would try to hold on the seat,
    and now we are hearing about them trying,
    some of bloggers here have well read OBAMA, FROM HIS BEGINNING
    IN ORDER TO SEE THAT COMING,
    HOPE FULLY HE WON’T COME BACK,
    IF THAT IS PASS, LET’S GET PRESIDENT BUSH TO CLAIM HIS SEAT,

    ReplyReply
  6. Rides A Pale Horse says: 6

    NEVER say NEVER……..

    Especially with this bunch of corrupt, traitorous SOBs.

    I guess a lot would depend on how much destruction he can create in a certain amount of time and whether WE the people would have the guts to rebel against it.

    If the economy should, by some miracle, recover (which I doubt), then………………

    I wouldn’t put it past this usurper to at least give it a try by XO.

    ReplyReply
  7. Beth just south of Berkeley and just east of San Francisco says: 7

    Way too close to one man, one vote, one time …

    ReplyReply
  8. Redteam says: 8

    @annie: Obama has never been working for anything except lining his pockets and sending Michelle on luxurious vacations.

    ReplyReply
  9. Redteam says: 9

    @Rides A Pale Horse: I don’t believe an XO can be used to circumvent an amendment. But you never know.

    ReplyReply
  10. Indigo Red says: 10

    Gee, I don’t know, Redteam. RA Pale Horse could be right – hugs and kisses have been known to achieve much more improbable results.

    ReplyReply
  11. Smorgasbord says: 11

    I could go along with listening to both sides of eliminating the 22nd amendment, if there were two sides. Since we no longer have a two-party system, just one party with two branches, we aren’t getting a president with WE THE PEOPLE in mind, no matter which branch of the tree wins. Both branches of the tree feed from the same roots. It’s WE THE POLITICIANS that interests them.

    Right now we have the same thing as unlimited terms for president. Both branches of the tree wanted obama in office twice, otherwise the republican branch would have gone after our illegal president for not having an American birth certificate, using someone else’s Social Security number, having at least 39 Social Security numbers linked to his name, and not having a REAL Selective Service registration card. Does he even have an Illinois drivers license. Illinois doesn’t allow illegals to have them. Not one republican challenged him on ANY of these issues. He was both the democrat’s and the republican’s choice for president.

    ReplyReply
  12. Smorgasbord
    I think we have to deal with the lesser of the two,in the mean time,
    instead of eradicate all,
    the worse are those trying to kill the CONSTITUTION PIECE BY PIECE,
    AMENDMENT BY AMENDEMENT,
    THOSE ARE GUILTY OF TREASON.
    THEY CAME AS A FOREIGN ENTITY WITH THE AGENDA TO DESTROY AMERICA, they have the UN ORG. HELPING THEM,
    AND OTHER HATERS. AND UNIONS WHO ARE ACCREDITED TO THE WORLD COMMUNIST COUNTRIES BIG SYMPATISERS
    REMEMBER THAT TEAM OF TWO FATHERS WHO GOT TOGETHER TO WRITE A BOOK?
    the white man son who was killed by the other
    black man son, who they said was indoctrinated and lead to kill, he was a good BAPTIST FOLLOWER AND A GOOD BOY
    he change his behavior when he adopt the MUSLIM FATE,
    NOW DID WE INQUEST IN THE OTHER MASS KILLERS
    RELIGIONS OR FRIENDS OR WHO THEY FELT INFLUENCE BY?
    DO WE FOLLOW THAT LEAD WITH THE ONE DISAPEARED AND FOUND DEAD AFTER DAYS OR MORE DONE BY WHO?
    DO WE INQUEST ON THE SAME LEAD TO PLANES CRASH
    WORKER OR ANY WITH ACCESS TO IT, OR THE ONE REFUELING IT,
    THOSE ACCIDENTS ARE BECOMING TO FREQUENT
    SO TO NOT BE SUSPICIOUS, AND THERE ARE A LOT OF HATERS COMING THROUGH THE BORDERS OR THROUGH THE STRONG INFLUENCE OF MOSQUE OWNERS,

    ReplyReply
  13. Smorgasbord says: 13

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #12
    I think they have also infiltrated both parties and the white house.

    ReplyReply
  14. Smorgasbord
    it was said over and over by different person and credible,

    ReplyReply
  15. Beckwith says: 15

    Serrano has filed this bill before. It’s his pet and get’s him in the news every couple of years.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/13/hope-and-change-move-to-repeal-presidential-term-limits-started/

    ReplyReply
  16. Liberal1 (Objectivity) says: 16

    @Smorgasbord: “…we no longer have a two-party system, just one party with two branches….”

    We extreme liberals have been saying this at least since 1969.

    ReplyReply
  17. Just another step toward communnists,Dictatorship ,

    ReplyReply
  18. Smorgasbord says: 18

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity): #16
    As I have said different times: I take a long time to decide things new to me. Keep in mind that I didn’t start paying attention to politics until some time after the year 2000.

    ReplyReply
  19. DrJohn says: 19

    The same liberal morons think we live in a democracy and we can simply create and vote away rights.

    ReplyReply
  20. DrJohn
    hi,
    they seem to get what they want all the time, if not from the CONGRESS
    IT’S WITH HIS PEN, OR SNEAKING BILLS UNDER THE PILES TO BE PASS FOR THEIR OWN INTEREST,
    WHAT DOES A MOVIE HAVE TO DO WITH THE SANDY DESTRUCTION,AND OTHER BILLS.
    IT’S ABOUT TIME THE REPUBLICANS NOTICE IT, THEY BETTER NOT SLEEP ON THE JOB,

    ReplyReply
  21. FedUp says: 21

    Term limits. Age limits. Minimum IQ level. No pensions. No benefits. Live like the rest of us

    ReplyReply
  22. Liberal1 (Objectivity) says: 22

    @Smorgasbord: OK

    ReplyReply
  23. Liberal1 (Objectivity) says: 23

    The following site offer interesting background on this issue.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/termlimits.asp

    ReplyReply
  24. FedUp
    hi,
    when did it changes and why.
    there was a time that the politicien where not fully depending
    on the people for money, they had their other interest depending on their skills and family
    interest before they where voted in, they also where fully working at it,
    that was how the people could judge them and their merit to be voted in,
    today you got a bunch of many too many people suposivly working only in the WHITE HOUSE
    NOT HAVING A CLUE OF WHAT A DAY WORK IS, THE WORK THAT MAKE YOU SWEAT, they even hire other to do their own jobs at the cost of again the PEOPLE
    THEY ARE GATHERING UNABLE TO FIND THE RESOLUTION OF BIG ISSUES AMONG THEM,
    unable to take the people interest by exposing the misfits,
    and the one no ability to govern, who they should throw out swiftly
    no they instead cover each one ass, from the scrutiny of the smart alert people
    on guard to protect their AMERICA, WHICH THEY REALLY CARE FOR,

    ReplyReply
  25. Smorgasbord says: 25

    @FedUp: #21
    The politicians can have the same retirement system we do: 401(k).
    They should have the same medical coverage we do: ObamaCare.

    ReplyReply
  26. Nan G says: 26

    @Redteam: @annie: Obama has never been working for anything except lining his pockets and sending Michelle on luxurious vacations.

    Exactly!
    Why would anyone want more Obama?

    Eric Golub bucked the ”racism,” cry and actually went there.
    How many dog whistles are contained in the question: Is Obama Lazy?

    But despite all that, look what Golub found:

    Obama, like Dwight Eisenhower, golfs a lot in office.
    Dwight Eisenhower was openly called lazy for that.

    Obama was, like many students, ordinary in college. His hobbies included alcohol, drugs, surfing, and “chilling.” He was a “stoner” and a “slacker.”

    Obama struggles without teleprompters, stuttering and stammering when veering from programmed scripts. Intelligence (or lack of) is not a work ethic.
    Intellectual laziness is not divorced from physical laziness.
    (I might add that too often Obama’s stray, off-the-cuff remarks land him in hot water.)

    George Herbert Walker Bush constantly telephoned world leaders built relationships.
    Bill Clinton spent all-nighters discussing policy with legislators.
    George W. Bush after 9/11 devoured all information necessary to deal with threats.
    Obama is an introvert who eschews building relationships.
    He enjoys “being” President, but prefers nights at home with his family.
    He dislikes “doing” the rigorous work of governing.
    (Remember his comment about faking working while really watching TV?
    Remember that he even skipped daily intelligence and regular economics and even jobs’ meetings?)

    If you support Obama you must look at this and merely see, ”racism.”
    I don’t.
    I see laziness.
    Where some see evil I look at how much work it takes to really be evil.
    Obama is lazy.
    He lets his friends be evil for him.
    And if they get caught being too evil, he blames Bush.

    ReplyReply
  27. Smorgasbord says: 27

    @Nan G: #26

    (I might add that too often Obama’s stray, off-the-cuff remarks land him in hot water.)

    Different times I have said that when a liberal speaks without a script, they either babble on and say nothing, or they tell the truth. Remember Pelosi’s, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To

    ReplyReply
  28. FedUp says: 28

    #25. The point is since their job would be short term they shouldn’t get a pension. Plus “the rich” should redistribute their wealth!

    ReplyReply
  29. johngalt says: 29

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity):

    We extreme liberals have been saying this at least since 1969.

    Perspective, Lib1. From your perspective, everyone else looks downright conservative.

    ReplyReply
  30. johngalt
    MEYGAN AT FOX NEWS WILL tell of the new law that OBAMA has decided
    on gun, she said it will be more radical than expected,
    THIS COMING SOON ON HER SHOW NOW
    BYE

    ReplyReply
  31. ONE GUESS SAID THAT IF THE WOMAN WOULD HAVE CONFRONTED 2 OR 3 OF THOSE CRIMINALS, SHE WOULD HAVE LOST, because she ran out of bullet on one, she should have had at least 10 and more to shoot, but it seem that FEINSTEIN PLAN AND OBAMA ARE AGAINST THAT MUCH
    IN THE NEW OBAMA PLAN.
    SO it will tell the criminals to come as more than one, to do their ramsacks

    ReplyReply
  32. FedUp
    yes they should start by giving their own example on paying their taxes,
    raising their own tax, give of their own money for the DEBT THEY COULD NOT STOP
    THE LEADER FROM SPENDING,
    why are they elected for, is in it to protect the PEOPLE FROM BEING ABUSED
    BY THEIR OWN ELECTED BROTHERS

    ReplyReply
  33. ARM says: 33

    Exactly, it states in the healthcare bill that the Congressman are exempt from the medical care that they issue out to everyone else.

    ReplyReply
  34. Redteam says: 34

    @Smorgasbord: #11 Well, you certainly have a point.

    ReplyReply
  35. Otis says: 35

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/termlimits.asp

    Unless you’re calling Mitch McConnell and other Republicans that have put forth similar proposals in the past Marxists, I would suggest you not throw out names. Makes you seem childish

    ReplyReply
  36. Redteam says: 36

    @Otis:
    Otis, who was calling anyone names?

    ReplyReply
  37. tony says: 37

    @Smorgasbord:

    you mean they mix little bits of the truth with lies

    ReplyReply
  38. Smorgasbord says: 38

    @tony: #37
    Yes they do, but they don’t do it on purpose.

    ReplyReply
  39. Pingback: Repeal | Bell Book Candle

  40. GAI says: 39

    It really does not matter.

    The World Trade Organization and the United Nations want to do away with national sovereignty and the traitors in the District of Criminals are going right along with the plan.
    Just do a search on Pascal Lamy (Director General of the WTO) and Global Governance. Also add in “Westphalian sovereignty” Then check out key words like “London School of Economics” Soros, Clinton, Lamy, Tony Blair, “The Third Way” and Fabians.

    Of What Use is Global Governance?
    by Pascal Lamy, Director, World Trade Organization (WTO)
    …The essence of the E.U. is already at the heart of this first initiative: the creation of an area of joint sovereignty, a space in which members agree to manage their relationship without the constant need for international treaties. What characterizes the paradigm of European governance is, thus, the combination of three elements: political will, a defined goal, and an institutional structure. The method of governance employed is certainly a major technological leap from Westphalian principles. One innovation is the primacy of E.U. law over national law; another is the existence of a commission with a monopoly on legislative initiative; a third is the creation of a court whose decisions are binding on national courts; a fourth is the creation of a bicameral parliamentary system with, on one side, the Council that represents member states, and on the other, the European Parliament that represents the citizens. These are major institutional innovations, of course….

    Everyone makes the mistake of thinking the socialists and bankers/corporate elite are enemies. Nothing could be further from the truth: http://www.citizensforgovernmentaccountability.org/?p=1643

    ReplyReply
  41. GAI
    YES WHAT YOU GIVE US IS VERY REAL AND IMPORTANT,
    It was predicted by THE THINKERS here in THE USA MANY AS WARNINGS
    of loosing the USA SOVEREIGNTY IF IT IS NOT REPEL AGGRESSIVELY,
    thank you for this,
    it is more dangerous because the white house is leaning on them,
    they even use the UN TO CHECK ELECTIONS IN THE LAST NOVEMBER WHICH IRRITATED GREATLY TEXAS, WHO MADE SURE THEY WHERE NOT WELCOME,
    AGAIN I am noting the many ways of OBAMA TO AGGRAVATE,
    AND ANTAGONIZE THE STATES AND THE CITIZENS
    HE DOESN’T LIKE, THOSE ARE THE SMART CONSERVATIVES.

    ReplyReply
  42. Mary Vaughn says: 41

    The same people who are pulling Obama’s strings must be pulling this guy’s strings too. We have so many people in congress who can not think for themselves and when they do their thoughts are horrendous with no educated meanings. OUR COUNTRY IS IN A MESS! I shudder to think what the next four years will bring our country. Don’t some of us wish we could spend and vacation like the first lady does with someone else footing the expenses?

    ReplyReply
  43. Mary Vaughn
    the thing I see dangerous is that cut in half of AMERICA , AND ADD THE 11 MILLIONS OBAMA WANT TO GET THEM CITIZEN, HE SEE THE NEXT 2016 AS IN THE POCKET, AND WHAT THE HECK HE THINK ,
    I’LL MAKE MYSELF KING, BY CRASHING THE 22ND AMENDMENT,
    BUT FIRST I HAVE TO DISARM THE AMERICA’s LOVERS and faithfulls, SLOWLY A BIT AT THE TIME, THAN
    HE WILL HAVE HIS AGENCY AND EMPLOYEES UNDER HIS AGENCY TO BECOME HIS CIVILIAN ARMY,
    HECK HE FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH HIS DRONES AND HIS MILITARY OBEDIENCE ASSURE, he can call in the UN TO HELP
    IF HE HAS TROUBLE SELLING IT,
    HE HAS ALSO
    HIS DEMOCRATS, HIS BLACK VOTERS , HIS UNIONS THUGS AND LEADER TO KEEP THE PEACE, IN CASE OF
    THE CIVILIANS WHO WANT TO GATHER IN FRONT OF THE WHITE HOUSE TO PROTEST,
    HE’S GOT IT MADE,
    WHAT CAN WE DO TO SAVE AMERICA? DO WE HAVE MORE GUTTS THAN TONGUES OR AS MUCH.
    HE JUST HAVE TO SAY WE ARE ALL TERRORIST,
    TODAY ON FOX THEY FOUND THE PRESIDENT TOOK THE RIGHT TO KILL AMERICANS , IN AMERICA, HE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO KILL AMERICANS ANYWHERE,
    WHILE WE ARE TALKING, HE ADVANCE STEP BY STEP TO TOTAL POWER. AND TIME IS NO OBJECT

    ReplyReply
  44. frank says: 43

    It is possible for It to become a L-pres – a- dent- a In which case we are done for

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>