Congress.gov
[QUOTE=Rep. Serrano, Jose E. (D-NY-15)]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I should probably have taclked this onto the stupid liberal idea od the day thread, but this one seemed to go above and beyond. Most likely a non-starter, but really? I can’t see this being a good idea with anyone in office. No co-sponsors, but it’s early yet.
Wow, why hasn’t anybody thought of this before?
The amendment was a very old Stupid Republican Idea of the Day. It turns every president who is re-elected into a lame duck. But it’s no surprise to see the GOP in favor of denying people the right to vote for the president of their choice. They would be in favor of an amendment that only allows people to vote for Republicans.
It happens so often, it would be more newsworthy if it weren’t introduced.
Of course, that fact does nothing to curb the dipshits on facebook touting the “ZOMG look wut Obummer is trying to do now!!” nonsense.
I’m all for repealing the 22nd Amendment. A President winning a third term has only come up once, and he used it to win World War II and finish off the Great Depression. Other than that, two terms seems pretty much the de facto limit.
So a disgruntled Democrat was involved. Big deal. He wouldn’t have been the only one either. When you see congress taking our rights away it’s pretty well guaranteed to be a bi-partisan effort. But you can bet your bottom dollar no Republican would have backed this if they’d ever had a chance of having a president elected to more than 2 terms.
You’re being silly. You are actually pretending that the Republican Party of the 1950s is the same as it is today. They have quite literally nothing in common other than a name.
The linked Wiki article claims there have been attempts ever since Reagan was in office, so apparently it was a Republican president who inspired people to start with this. And Rep. Serrano does this every two years, apparently regardless of who’s in office, so it looks like he merely dislikes the Amendment in general.
Can someone enlighten an ignorant Aussie here? I always understood that the amendment disallowed more than two CONSECUTIVE terms, but that a previous President could stand for election again after one term had been missed.
No. You can be elected in your own right only twice, consecutively or otherwise; if you’re a VP who completes another’s term (due to death, resignation, or removal from office), you can serve an additional two years.
In other words, no one can serve as president more than ten years.
The precedent of a voluntary two-term limit was set by George Washington. Though others (e.g., Teddy Roosevelt) did try to break it over the years, only FDR was able to win a third (and fourth) term prior to 1953, and that was because of the looming World War and continuing Depression.
Glad you put that wink there, or the Aussies might think the Americans were dissing them… 
I imagine it will be sufficient for all the Freepers to scream, “SEE? WE TOLD YOU!” until somebody points out the guy has been proposing this since 1997.
Bullshit.
The problem with the amendment was that it didn’t go far enough - it should have term-limited Congress as well. The idea was to keep someone from creating a dynasty, so to speak, like FDR almost did.
I can totally get behind term-limiting Congress.
And they somehow “tricked” all those Democrats in Congress and the state legislatures to vote for it? Not sure who would be the stupid ones then.
No need for Wikipedia. Just read the amendment.
Pretty clear.
I don’t like term limits in general. If you want someone out of office, we have these nifty things called “elections” that happen on a predetermined schedule.