H. J. Res. 24amendment to repeal the 22nd amendment

www.govtrack.us...
www.govtrack.us...
109TH CONGRESS
H. J. RES. 24
1ST SESSION


Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal
the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.




IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FEBRUARY 17, 2005
Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SABO, and
Mr. PALLONE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was re-
ferred to the Committee on the Judiciary




JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives
2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-
3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol-
4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con-
5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all
6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
8 States within seven years after the date of its submission
9 for ratification:
2
1 ``ARTICLE --
2 ``The twenty-second article of amendment to the Con-
3 stitution of the United States is repealed.''.

Not being a steward of political science it is my assumption that this amendment has passed and will be placed before the states for ratification within time limits.
I hope that others more placed with in this type of understanding of politics can bear some witness to its understanding.
I find it true that bills and several of them have been attempted to repeal the 22 admendment. This is a reality of the times that changes do happen to the constitution and as george says, it just a piece of paper. So is the 22 amendement
gone or is it soon to pass away!


[edit on 16-9-2006 by mondegreen]

[edit on 16-9-2006 by mondegreen]

I think its just being proposed, meaning they're submitting a plan to repeal the 22nd amendment, but they still need permission. I doubt it'll ever get passed, especially not during this President's term.

Ok this is the article,


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.

[edit]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.

Now what I don't understand is what will be the reason to appeal. What will be the repercusions of doing that?

Can somebody explain?

en.wikipedia.org...
22nd and 12th Amendments, "eligibility"
Some have questioned the interpretation of the Twenty-second Amendment as it relates to the Twelfth Amendment, ratified in 1804, which provides that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

While it is clear that under the Twelfth Amendment the original constitutional qualifications of age, citizenship, and residency apply to both the President and Vice President, it is unclear if a two-term President could later be elected—or appointed—Vice President. Some argue that the Twenty-second Amendment and Twelfth Amendment bar any two-term President from later serving as Vice President as well as from succeeding to the Presidency from any point in the United States Presidential line of succession. Others contend that the Twelfth Amendment concerns qualification for service, while the Twenty-second Amendment concerns qualifications for election. Considered opinion though, appears to favour the former view of ineligibility.

Since the ratification of the Twenty-Second Amendment, no two-term President has later sought to become Vice President, and thus, the courts have never had an opportunity to decide the question.

If the 12th Amendment does not restrict non-elected succession, then any former President could become President again by first becoming Vice-President (or reaching the top of the order of succession via some other office).


So if Bush can run as vice-president with his brother Jeb then we would have two Bushs in office and a challenge to the 12 amendment. Which would go the the Judicial branch; which by choice are all bushs boys. Kind of weird if this was to happen, yet as we have seen for the past five years any thing goes and any thing can happen in Washington. Maybe Cheney would run for the Presidents office with Bush as his vice-president and still be able to move the NWO towards it intended goals. Bush's father could run as vice-president with Jeb as President and we would still have the same order of politics in Washington. Either of the above scenarios could happen even Rice as president and bush as the vice-president.

The fact that the repeal of the 22 amendment is ongoing is a need to worry about checks and balances.

Now I see the dangers of that kind of politics and could become a future agenda if the challenge is to be won.

Interesting I never though about that one before.

We could have dumber and doomier in power.

This hasn't been passed by the Congress and handed to the states yet, and most likely it never will.

Although term limits are somewhat anti-democratic, I think it's a good check on human nature to go with what you have rather than try something new. Eight years is enough for a President to reign, no matter what the circumstances.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
This hasn't been passed by the Congress and handed to the states yet, and most likely it never will.

Although term limits are somewhat anti-democratic, I think it's a good check on human nature to go with what you have rather than try something new. Eight years is enough for a President to reign, no matter what the circumstances.

I believe it will or it was stated in the congressional record to be placed before the congress today, sept 18, 2001. But it has passed everything else. I agree term limits appear to be anti-democratic, but the massachusetts compromise that inserted amendment clauses does allow for laws that limit or unlimits time periods for presidents. there could even be an amendment to limit terms to only four or even two years. The most likely never will phrase is like someone stating " No one will ever break the babe's record".

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives
2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-
3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol-
4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con-
5 stitution of the United States. This is what has occurred as of now, there will be a removal of this term limit either now or in the future and that is certain.
But, even without the 22 removal, the 12 amendment allows two term presidents to obtain the office again and this has never been challenged or placed before the judicial branch to concur. Our leaders in washington passed the patriot act without ever reading what was in there, this has opened a super can of worms that americans will be fighting for the next two hundred years.
So who will benefit the most if the 22 is removed or the 12 is applied! Sinister politics are working through foreign powers to weaken the powers of the US Constitution in ways that can destroy this nation. 911 was the first blow and information as it is being developed from events unfolding is as dark a time as the russians faced before and during the communist revolution.