It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We can agree, the 22nd Amendment must be changed.

page: 1
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 07:36 PM
link   
We all can agree, that the 22nd Amendment must be changed regarding President Trump.
Currently, the facade that the SociaDems are trying to shove down the throats of the American people has stunted the growth, and change, that normally would have happened back in the 50’s to the late 80’s. Because these perverse and corrupt people, have leached the time from America and this Presidency, we need to repeal the 22nd Amendment, allowing our President to run for a third term. There is now no doubt, President Trump, will win from a landslide this year. The American people deserve a third term from President Trump. He has propelled The USA into financial prosperity, strengthened the resolve of The American people, and once again, since the 1980’s, made America GREAT AGAIN! MAGA! MAGA! MAGA!
edit on V382020Saturdaypm31America/ChicagoSat, 04 Jan 2020 19:38:05 -06001 by Violater1 because: []lwrefj



+4 more 
posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Violater1

No.

No matter how good one president may be, another might be Barack Obama's second coming.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko
What, from behind bars?



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 07:40 PM
link   
No, we can't all agree. If we cancelled that amendment, Obama would still be President, or Clinton. We need some churn.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Violater1

I'm just saying that what you allow for one, you allow for the other.

So you might allow a rules change for something good this time around, but consider always that it can then be used to extend the time allowed for something terrifying to you down the road.

The Democrats are learning that the hard way with judicial appointments right now. They changed the rules for their own convenience and thought it was great, and it has come back to bite them in the butt while they watch Trump remake the judiciary over these past three years.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Violater1

I'll bite.

I'm all for it.

Obama 2024!



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
No, we can't all agree. If we cancelled that amendment, Obama would still be President, or Clinton. We need some churn.


Once AG Barr locks up these crooks, this would never happen. Like I said above (as below
) What, from behind bars?



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Violater1

And Democrats also thought they had a virtual lock on national elections and would never be defeated from the presidency again too.

They didn't think they stood to lose power.

Never, ever count your chickens before they hatch. Honestly, does no one ever read those old stories and there morals anymore?!



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Violater1

No



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Violater1

No. No. And more No.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Violater1

Nope



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 08:00 PM
link   
bad idea



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 08:16 PM
link   
The 22nd amendment wasn’t heavily debated in Congress.

It was more of a “that’s a good idea let’s go with it “ .

A bigger point is that it’s never been contested in the judicial system .


I read about this a while back but I figure I needed to bring something to the table here .....


To begin with, congressional deliberations about the amendment were curtailed. For example, the House restricted debate to two hours. Furthermore, the discussions leading up to the proposing of the Twenty-second Amendment did not obviously suggest a consistent, clear legislative purpose. Lawmakers expressed, at various times, their interest in limiting a President's "service," "terms," "tenure," and "[eligibility for] reelection," without elaborating exactly how they understood these terms. Moreover, when Congress dropped early proposals to foreclose a person's eligibility for office if he had served in two prior terms and instead adopted the current text that focuses on limiting individuals twice elected to the presidency, it provided little explanation for this important shift beyond needing "compromise" as part of the lawmaking process. One should also note that the framers of the amendment did not obviously intend to create a two-term tradition in any narrow sense, because they specifically discussed allowing someone who became President through an "emergency" within the first two years of one term to secure election for two additional terms. We are therefore left with some uncertainty about the precise goals of the Twenty-second Amendment's creators.


Snip


Although numerous court opinions make passing reference to the Twenty-second Amendment, its parameters have not been systematically examined by the judiciary. No doubt the low profile of the amendment in the courts reflects limited interest in and opportunity for testing the provision.



It doesn’t seem to be particularly well thought out for something that changed our constitution .

More of a slap a Band-Aid on it moment .

Heritage foundation

If it was challenged and overturned by the Supreme Court. It would just go back to Congress. But maybe they would at least put a little effort into it this time .



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Violater1

You're not thinking clearly on this one. The term limits protect us against a charismatic person becoming de-facto royalty.

That genie should never be let out of the bottle.

The line between partisan and fanatic is a very thin one. Take time to study history just a bit. President for life is dangerous enough to make us all slaves of a single party state.

The Right vs the Left is actually a good thing and even better when the country is evenly split. It stops one side from gaining complete control.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555


The term limits protect us against a charismatic person becoming de-facto royalty.


Exactly correct. Or de-facto authoritarian.

 


ETA:

I believe in the separation of powers. Even if it's a president I agree with and like I do not think he or she should be given more than 2 terms. America needs change, periodically.
edit on 4-1-2020 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-1-2020 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 08:30 PM
link   
The original constitution was basically a blue print to prevent monarchies from forming.

Allowing people to run and win multiple times beyond two terms is one step closer to that.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Violater1
Yea sure, why not. We can just make it so he serves until he passes or retires, kind of like a judge. We will have the writewthe amendment so it exclusively outlines Trump as the one and only permitted to do just this.

The challenge is convincing djt to stay on after two. I think he would be a bit wore out and reluctant to serve again.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Violater1

Agree with this 👍

There isn't much done over the last 100 years or so that wouldn't put us in a much better place if it disappeared tonight.

The less modern interference, interpretations limiting RIGHTS, and general acts of the woefully discredited congresses of past the better. Lawyers have convinced people of this nonsense to bloat a very simple legal system into a monstrosity we have today.

I am concerned with Amendments 1-10. And a very small handful of select acts after this point.
edit on 1/4/2020 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Violater1

Trump supporter here.

Just no.

For the love of God, no.

Please no.

Nein. Nyet. Nada. Nope.

No.

Please.

No.

Uh-uh.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Not only no but HELL NO! A third term of Obama would have effectively ruined our economy and pushed it past the point of no return. At least not for a long, long time.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join