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.

 

JOINT RESOLUTION -repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution [edited- to fix link]

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 01:51 AM
link   
oh.. its a amendment to the 22 something of the constitution so bush can get a third term id uno is aw it on mysapce

thomas.loc.gov...:H.J.RES.24.IH:



[edit on 1-10-2006 by ADVISOR]

[edit on 1-10-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 02:00 AM
link   
aren't you going to post a comment?


digitalgrl



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 02:02 AM
link   
You need to post your opinion and thoughts about the link.

Tell people what the gist of it is, and waht the 22nd amendment is.


It is ATS policy to do so.



Also, may I suggest you research the topic before posting about it.

It is the 22nd amendment not "22 something".

[edit on 10/1/2006 by iori_komei]



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 02:08 AM
link   
I dont think he would be able to get another term anyway, possible but i dont think so. and technically he could have a third term anyways. a president can only have 2 CONSECUTIVE terms. as long as he skips an election year after he has had 2, he can run again. people thought clinton was going to do that in the last election.


digitalgrl

(Whoopsie daisy!)


Sorry *fixes*

[edit on 1-10-2006 by ADVISOR]



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   
I say yes, allow him to run for more than his alloted time. Give him all the terms he wishes, he then will have more than enough rope to do what ever...

Seriously, let him dig his hole even deeper, he is a war president and he should have to deal with his mess. Let us not keep putting it off onto another generation, but instead fix it here and now, if not then when?



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   
How come my post is in DigitalGrls?

Just curious.

Normally I would'nt do this, as the original poster is suppose to,
but here we go.



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.

SOURCE:
USTL.org


If the propsed amendment to null/void this were to go through it would
mean that a person could be elected more than two ters.




[edit lol, sorry I knew somethng went bad when the comp froze up on me, I just didnt know what, LMAO)
Sorry, honest I have no idea how that happened.

[edit on 1-10-2006 by ADVISOR]

[edit on 10/1/2006 by iori_komei]



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 02:40 AM
link   
easy,

ALLOW another 9-11

declare martial law,

viva la bush FOREVER!!!



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 03:03 AM
link   
I strongly believe in term limits for presidents. It may not be a perfect policy, but it does limit power of a single party or of a single person. History has shown that the public, even with the checks and balances don't always choose the best man for the job and limiting terms forces the public to elect someone new even when they are happy with the existing one. Sadly, the public can support a president for all the wrong reasons and likewise despise a good one.

I am strong proponent of GW Bush. I would like to see him or someone of his drive, commitment and leadership see this war to an end. However, this war will last a long time and having Bush in office for too long runs many risks beyond the outcome of the war.

Personally, I can see no one on the horizon who can even match Bush in his understanding of the current threat against America and who has the fortitude to ignore public opinion in favor of the greater good, but that's too bad.

America will get what it deserves and if that means a silver-tongued pussy, then so be it. We can just become a nation of sitting ducks with no means of self-protection, fighting the war on terror in the courts and bowing down to murderous savages who laugh at our system of justice.


...[S]ome have claimed that a two term limit enables a president to take on controversial or unpopular measures (not that this is necessarily always a bad thing) in his second term since not being eligible for reelection means he has less to lose.

Twenty-second Amendment



[edit on 2006/10/1 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Well, this is interesting. Another milestone in the slide towards fascism. I was wondering how the neocons were going to keep the reins of power, and keeping their puppet at the helm is certainly the way to do it. The idea that Cheney could win an election is probably too much of a stretch even for the gullible American public, most of whom, after all, still think they live in a democracy. As anyone who knows anything about Diebold will tell you, votes just don't matter any more.


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Sadly, the public can support a president for all the wrong reasons and likewise despise a good one.


This is one of the few points that I agree with, though not for the same reasons as the poster.


Personally, I can see no one on the horizon who can even match Bush in his understanding of the current threat against America and who has the fortitude to ignore public opinion in favor of the greater good, but that's too bad.


This is someone who can barely put a sentence together, who is, as even his supporters admit, "incurious", who barely reads a book (well, he says he reads now, but he said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we can draw our own conclusions about the guy's propensity for whoppers), and who looks, half the time, as though he is out of it on drugs.

As for his understanding of the "current threat against America", well it's sharply at odds with people who have not lived the life of a dilettante but who have made the understanding of the real world and its impact on America their profession.

Here is a NYT article on the recently declassified Intelligence Assessment that suggests that the invasion of Iraq has, surprise surprise, worsened the global terror situation.


WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.


The man's a puppet, and his puppeteers are insane. Ray McGovern, CIA analyst for (among others) Bush I, says that the group now known as the neocons were in his day known as "the crazies". "Guess what the crazies have done?" was a phrase frequently used in the CIA during those days, he has said in interview.

Mind you, there are a depressing number of authoritarian types in the US who seem to be entranced with the direction their country is taking - invading some countries, planning to use nukes to effect regime change in others, abolishing habeas corpus which has been a bulwark against totalitarianism since the thirteenth century, promoting the use of torture... looking at all this, is it any wonder increasing numbers of people outside the US now think of it as a fascist country? But the regime will always have that 23 percent who support them.

Good luck to the rest of you. You're going to need it.

[edit on 1-10-2006 by rich23]



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 04:41 AM
link   
I don't see any evidence that the 22nd Amendment will be repealed and I see no connection at all to fascism, as we fought a war against fascism and won even before the 22nd Amendment was proposed.

It was actually a Democrat who introduced the bill to repeal the Amendment way back in early 2005, so I don't think it is accurate to pin the whole thing on neocons.


WASHINGTON, DC – House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (MD) introduced bipartisan legislation today to repeal the 22nd amendment, which states that “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” Representatives Berman (D-CA), Pallone (D-NJ), Sabo (D-MN) and Sensenbrenner (R-WI) joined Hoyer in sponsoring the resolution.

democraticwhip.house.gov...


No matter, repealing an Amendment is a time consuming process that is unlikely to have any impact on the Bush presidency.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeah right
easy,

ALLOW another 9-11

declare martial law,

viva la bush FOREVER!!!


Why would the country WANT to delcare martial law? If that happens everyone stays home, curfews, etc? Would the economy not screech to a halt? How long would the money in Washington last without the working grunts out there paying taxes? Are you thinking that they would do this just short term to get what they want and then lift it?



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   
As the date of this bill is February 17, 2005, it's hardly new news.
Adn, Constitutional discussions belong in PTS.
Moving to US Politics in PTS.

Carry on



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   
The 22nd Amendment is anti-democratic, and maybe should be repealed.

BUT it never will be, so people should stop talking about it!



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Calm down. 5 idiots signed it, it got stuffed down into a subcommittee and left alone since April of '05. It's introductory remarks shared a page on the record with "recognizing the Thomasville Bulldogs football team". No action what so ever has been taken on the resolution since it got to the subcommittee on the constitution. It's never going to get out of committee as far as I can tell. It's a joke. Let's not forget that the committees circular file thousands of bad ideas every session.



History

Page E00303

1 . REPEAL 22ND AMENDMENT TO U.S. CONSTITUTION -- (Extensions of Remarks - February 18, 2005)
2 . INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION TO DESIGNATE THE FEDERAL COURTHOUSE IN SANTA FE, NM AFTER JUDGE SANTIAGO CAMPOS -- (Extensions of Remarks - February 18, 2005)
3 . HONORING THE LIFE AND LEGACY OF FORMER LEBANESE PRIME MINISTER RAFIK HARIRI -- (Extensions of Remarks - February 18, 2005)
4 . RECOGNIZING THOMASVILLE BULLDOGS FOOTBALL TEAM -- (Extensions of Remarks - February 18, 2005)



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join