It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


No term limits for President?.....H. J. RES. 5

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:35 AM
Wow that's just blatant. I'm going to say something honest here without sugar coating anything. You guys in America better start growing a pair with all due respect, you just sit there and watch them do this, and then come on ATS and say "Oh grab your loved ones and hide!" Are you serious???!!!!

Why if I was an American I'd be all over that, I'd raise such a storm their heads would spin. There's absolutely no way I'd just sit there and watch these morons trample all over the American constitution like that, I'm Canadian and that offends even myself!

You guys really have to take a stand against this madness, come on guys!!!
Americans are not known to grab loved ones and hide in the corner... Everyone knows Americans as the tough-as-nails ass-kicking good guys, I strongly suggest you stomp that crap out once and for all. They are turning your beautiful country into a fascist dictatorship one step at a time, right in front of your faces! This is just outrageous!!!

I'm almost tempted to buy a plane ticket to Washington and protest myself.
I really do think it's time for the American people to take a stand and show these people who the real boss is!

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Looking_Glass]

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Looking_Glass]

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:55 AM
There is no maximum time limit for our Prime Ministers to serve here in Australia and it seems to work fine for us.

We really only have the two parties though, and over here elections aren't won, they are lost.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:24 AM
reply to post by GuyverUnit I

I mentioned it in my YT Vid - "Legislation - Keeping them Honest"

I guess not too many people are that interested in what's being proposed.

I placed some links in the description box.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:33 AM
reply to post by GBBumblebee

Absolutely true. I'm from Canada myself. Two problems I see with this in the U.S. is that it's a major political and military power, and is often expected to come to decisions quicker than most nations-elections between two major parties on a regular basis would be a total disaster. Second, who would have the power to call an election based on issues of confidence? Would the Congress put the office of the President to a vote whenever it felt like it could challenge the government? That seems like a violation of the separation of powers to me. The people could vote, but who would actually bother to go out every single time? Who would initiate a transition of government in the first place? I couldn't see this working unless some sort of Parliament was implemented. At the time of the founding of the U.S., the Congress would vote directly for President, the only input received from regular citizens being suggestions brought by Representatives to session on pieces of paper, and these were probably often ignored. In a modern liberal democracy, citizens would naturally expect to be involved in the political process. I think they'd feel abandoned and mistreated in they were left out and that might lead to further unrest. In this scenario, as it is in Canada, politics ends up becoming a game of who can usurp power given the opportune moment, at the expense of solving important issues. Recently, the so-called "coalition" of opposition parties attempted to bring down the ruling government over such a triviality as a change in how parties are financed, by removing a law, which would have payed $0.99 for every vote a party receives.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by cognoscente]

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:26 AM
It is sad that people just do not know the current situation let alone understand it. So without further a due here is history 101 that they never taught you in school.

1. On March 27, 1861, seven southern states of America walked out of the Second Session of the Thirty-sixth Congress causing Congress to adjourn, sine die. A Latin term meaning “without [fixed] day” . In so doing, the Constitutional due process quorum necessary for Congress to vote was (temporarily) lost and Congress was adjourned sine die.

2. On April 15, 1861, President Lincoln reconvened Congress under the Executive branch by proclamation number 1;
"I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress." . No where in the Constitution does it state the president has this power.

3. Since April 15, 1861 there has not been a reconvening of Congress. The 4th Amendment for all intents and purposes does not exist, because Congress adjourned sine die and never has reconvened de jure as required by the 4th Amendment.

4. President Lincoln with the Gettysburg Address in 1864, and then Incorporation of District of Columbia by (Presidential) Legislative Act of February 21, 1871, under the Emergency War Powers Act and the Reconstruction Acts. Then further went on to reorganize on June 11, 1878 --16 Stat. 419 Chapter 62. a " Corporation" with a legislature was established, with all the apparatus of a distinct government created (Incorporated) by (Presidential) Legislative Act, 41st Congress, Session III, Chapter 62, page 419.

On June 20, 1874, the President with advice of the Senate abolished and replaced the 1871 government with a commission consisting of three persons. 18 Stat. at L. 116, chap. 337

A subsequent act approved June 11, 1878 (20 Stat. at L. 102, chap. 180) was enacted stating that the District of Columbia should 'remain and continue as a municipal corporation,' as provided in 2 of the Revised Statutes relating to said District from the act of 1871, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. CAMDEN IRON WORKS, 181 U.S. 453 (1901) and METROPOLITAN R CO v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 132 U.S. 231 (1889)

the Act of June 11, 1878 (20 Stat. chap. 180), a permanent form of government for the District was established. It provided ...and that the commissioners therein provided for should be deemed and taken as officers of such corporation." The District of Columbia v. Henry E. Woodbury, 136 U.S. 472 (1890)

UNITED STATES CODE, Title 28, in Section 3002 Definitions, it states the following: (15) "United States" means— (A) a Federal corporation;

We now have a de facto government in the place of the real Constitutional government and have had since 1871.

In fact, in deed, actually; a state of affairs; but is illegal or illegitimate; "by equity" and not "by law"; is not constitutional. Thus an officer, king. or government de facto is in actual possession, but by usurpation, or without lawful title.
Black's Law Dictionary sixth edition

5. In 1933 when FDR declared the United States of America bankrupt. There was a restructuring and a name change of the nation. Ever since 1933 the country has been known as the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Notice it is no longer "United States of America" but "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" in all capital letters. They are not the same name nor referring to the same entity. All capitals denote a corporation which in turn is looked on as a person or persona (image of a person).

The nation became a corporation and the states signed off on the bankruptcy thus becoming a part of the corporation. The federalizing of the states began by changing their names to all capitals. Then introducing the ZIP codes denoting "Federal Zones" within the states. I hope you didn't just think it made the mail easier to sort.

Simply put, our creditors have owned us since 1933. They make the rules and laws that we can use. People wonder why there is no recourse via the Constitution. Its because the law of the land is the UCC and our courts are under maritime law. The courts have already ruled that 'there is no recourse'. I will have to dig up the case again but better yet, people need to dig for themselves.

You can cry about the Constitution all you want, it won't change the facts. We have not been a Constitutional Republic since 1861. The United States of America was set up as a REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY, please get it right people.

A. A republic is a self governing forum wherein a free, sovereign, moral, and enlightened people guarantee to one another and to all minorities the right and obligation to have, retain, and protect each other's God given common Rights to Life, Freedom, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness in their separate capacities as free inhabitants and or as free Sovereign people within a nation, state (nation state), and or a country, all by positively accepting the Oaths as recipients of the oaths of their servants holding public office.


Democracy can be explained as "two wolves and a lamb, voting on what to have for dinner" or "A political system calculated to make an intelligent minority subject to the will of the stupid."
Friedrich Nietzsche

This is a "Mob Rule" form of government giving the impression of representation and rule by it's citizens.

Do you really think they need 2/3 majority to pass this? The president has had the option to stay in office as long as he wants since 1861. Of course they don't because there would be an instant revolt. However, once congress adjourns all they have to do is reconvene without inviting those that would go against it and make it look legal. It is done all the time when they want to ram rod something through. Remember congress has been illegally convening since 1861, and they are not about to change it.

Feel free to debate the issue all you want and wave the Constitution in the air but your only waving a piece of paper that the dirty dogs set aside long ago and didn't even bother to tell us. We The People were betrayed in 1861 and ever since. The Supreme Court has already ruled that we have no recourse because we have voluntarily submitted ourselves to such a form of government.

Now its up to you to further your education.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:16 AM
reply to post by pstrron

Pardon my ignorance, but just a couple questions.

Everything I've ever read said ZIP (Zone Improvement Plan) codes weren't introduced until the 60's. 1963 to be exact. (I guess this is more of a statement than a question)

And, secondly, if there hasn't been a reconvening of Congress since 1861, what would it take to reconvene it?

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:55 AM

Originally posted by epete22

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
Hey "Guyver Unit I", I find it absolutely amazing that even though I heard about this in January, I was JUST discussing the issue with an acquaintance today, and here you go with a Thread on the same subject.

The only comfort that I find in such a ludicrous proposition for "King Obama, Lord Reid, and Mistress Pelosi", is that 3/4 of the States will NEVER pass such an Amendment.

The one cause which unites ALL Americans, both Liberal and Conservative, is the value we place upon our Freedoms and Democracy.

We're a republic not a democracy.

We know - We know



88 and all that good kooder stuff

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 08:14 AM

Originally posted by stevegmu
Is Obama turning into H. Chavez, and we suffer the same fate as Venezuela?

Im not sure what you mean by 'Turning Into.'

We all knew the guy was a Marxist when he was running. Why should it surprise you now to found out that he is in fact -- a Marxist?

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Wolf321
what kind of people would keep electing someone who would even propose something like this? Are they not paying attention or do they just really want a socialist/communist America?

The same people who elected the current president. College Students and constituents who think they are punishing their party by voting for the other.
Worked out great, didnt it.

Think, Chavez, Putin. Why do they keep getting voted in?

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 08:20 AM
reply to post by ANNED

Yeah, like the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, eh?

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 08:50 AM
reply to post by BRQuick

Everything I've ever read said ZIP (Zone Improvement Plan) codes weren't introduced until the 60's. 1963 to be exact. (I guess this is more of a statement than a question) And, secondly, if there hasn't been a reconvening of Congress since 1861, what would it take to reconvene it?

In regards to the ZIP Codes, granted they were a 'zone Improvement Plan' (Federal Zone that is) and were not introduced until the 60's but they were a piece of the puzzle. We still have areas that are outside the 'Zones' and it is possible to send mail by general delivery for $0.03. Though you can not use a Zip Code if you do. It goes back to putting everything under the corporate umbrella so to speak.

The ZIP Code is a federal code and not a state code but that hardly makes a difference since the states climbed on the band wagon with the federal gov in 1933. The states climbed in bed with the fed years ago with the Zip Codes and it looks like some have been getting a case of morals but its to late (wanting to secede if necessary). You can't drink from the federal corporate trough and expect to have things your way. You might remember that Nixon declared the USA to be bankrupt again in 1973 and all the states were right there joining in on it.

As for reconvening congress according to the constitution, not possible under the current situation. It would require the dissolution of Washington DC, all states reasserting their sovereignty and then reinstating the Constitution. You have to dissolve the corporation first and I haven't seen anyone stepping forward to do so. I am sure the creditors wouldn't allow it anyway. Would have to be done by force and that would cause civil war and play right into their hands.

For the past 8 years they have laid the cards on the table and told us to read um and weep. However few paid any attention and the rest have tried to continue to play the game. There is so much to this mess it isn't funny. As I said in another thread; we have been raped and pillaged twice and didn't even know it. Its all been sold as a "New Deal" more like a "Raw Deal". The latest is "Change" and "Hope", the only change is who is rapping and pillaging us this time and we are just hoping it wouldn't happen again.

So they want "no term limits" as if thats going to help. As one persons signature says; the dogs bark but the caravan rolls on.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:09 AM

Originally posted by MysterE
This really scares me, all signs point to a dictatorship in America. We will miss you lady liberty.


Would you really just give up that easily?

If you answer yes to that question then you probably do not deserve to be called American.

We (the citizens of this country) will fight back. Maybe not today, maybe not this month, but we will fight back.

Once you give up, there is zero hope of regaining control of our country, don't ever give up. It is high time to stand your ground and stop giving in to those that would destroy the greatest nation on Earth.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:36 AM
reply to post by pstrron

Sheesh, the stuff they don't teach you in school! I can't say this is news to me because I had read this before, but only on ATS. So it's only been known to me since I started lurking here.

I can almost guarantee your average person on the street is not going to know about these subtle changes. The school civics lessons are very basic, very cut and dry and sanitized. We graduate thinking we know how it all works, but we don't. And of course we've been conditioned to trust what we are taught...or know...bad grades!

Of course I like to verify for myself so I'll give it my best shot. But I'd like to know how you awoke to these facts and put it all together. I have tried discussing this sort of thing before with family members who consider themselves politically savvy and some of whom in fact had even worked for the US govt. But I got rather condescendedly reassured our govt is as it has always been.

Oh edit to add: I'm not kissing lady liberty goodbye anytime soon. Too many have died defending her for me to just shrug and hide in a closet. I will live according to the principles I have believed in all my life. I know no other way.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by SheepleFlavored]

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:37 AM
This has been tried, a few times, to be pushed through before in the last few years. I remember Alex Jones mentioning this on his show and reading a few articles about how it was Bush attempting to become dictator.

I noticed another colonial cousin mentioning about how the PM in Australia hasn't got a fixed term in office. Your system is almost identical to the UK's. But the UK is a small island. Much easier to contain a population, to cover by satellite, we already have more CCTV cameras here than there is in the rest of the universe, it would be easy to cut off Scotland - The Romans done it 2000 years keep us in lol What I'm saying is if it happens in the UNITES STATES OF AMERICA (thanks for that pstrron
) then it'll happen here.

It is imperative to maintain the ruling of a fixed term in office to avert dictatorial takeovers, especially in times like these when MONEY = POWER = WAR = MONEY = POWER etc etc I only wish there was something in place here in the UK.

Or if what pstrron says is true then it all really doesn't matter...for any of us. Capitalism is to capitalize, make more profits. The world is on it's way toward corporate takeover via permanent conflict and oppression.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:41 AM
Notice the sequence of 1's in the bill. This is how they work people, first they invest in a meme, for example 11:11 as a sign from God. They propagate it through the media systems, then it's time to profit from it, by using the subconscious links to make something that is not seem positive.

Here we have the first attempts at making Obama into a Godlike figure, making people believe he is above humanity. They are fishing for theocracy. This is similar to all that maitreya bs that was thrown about a few weeks ago.

I don't see people falling for this, but let's see how this plays out.

Webster Tarpley is a good person to listen to regarding what the world elite plan to do with Obama, but it is clear they have big plans for him. It should become clear from the Berlin speech that he is being setup for something big, either tyranny or a kennedyesque sacrifice.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:42 AM

Originally posted by MysterE
This really scares me, all signs point to a dictatorship in America. We will miss you lady liberty.


Do not give up yet on this Great Nation created for We The People. We must stay one step ahead of obama's hidden agenda that is being exposed on a daily basis. The United States was formed for We The People to have and keep the freedom and Liberty that our forefathers intended for us.

Althought the Declaration of Independence and Constititution are pieces of paper it is what is written on these pieces of paper that matters. To me obama looks at our Constitution as a blank piece of paper to fill in the blanks as he sees fit.

The obama administration thinks they have signed blank checks from the accounts of We The People and can write unlimited checks including for 9000 earmark projects this is called insanity.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:05 AM
You can see it now OBAMA 2016

Old Joe will would end up dying in office form old age as VP

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:46 AM
With 23 states with pending legislation re: sovereignty under the 10th amendment this will go absolutely nowhere hopefully.

Perhaps the Neurally Linguistic Programmed Obamanauts will put up a ruckus over having their messiah anointed for life but hopefully reason will prevail.

We already tossed one king out...

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:57 AM

Originally posted by spec_ops_wannabe
So apparently the guy who wrote this has been trying to ram it through for 7 sessions of Congress.

In each of 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009, Serrano introduced a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd Amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as president. Each resolution, with the exception of the current one, died without ever getting past the committee.

I don't like him.

Me either.
It better never get pass the committee.
What is this guy thinking?
Absurd and dangerous proposal.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:17 PM

Originally posted by spec_ops_wannabe
So apparently the guy who wrote this has been trying to ram it through for 7 sessions of Congress.
I don't like him.

The problem here is that nobody cared about this proposal as long as a president as unpopular as Bush was in power. But now we have the second coming as the American president, this has a worrying chance of getting the green light.

But this'll be turned into a race card yet again. When it's really about the constitution.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in