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: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:24 PM
reply to post by cognoscente

Since the system is different in the US than the rest of the world's democracies [the United States doesn't have a coalition government], the whole system of government would probably have to be totally revamped and reworked. And essentially, I believe, the Speaker of the House would end up being the main authority in government, making the presidentcy a figurehead role. Off the top of my head, that's how it works in Germany and Israel. The people choose parties, instead of people to be elected, the parties then choose the representatives for the people, and the parties wheel and deal to make the "majority" coalition and the majority then chooses the Prime Minister who acts as the POTUS does. The presidents of Israel and Germany give pep talks and hold nice dinners and things like that.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:28 PM
Thank you for the info. The things that they try and slip by silently are astounding.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:34 PM
reply to post by SheepleFlavored

But I'd like to know how you awoke to these facts and put it all together.

It started back in 1968 while I was researching the banking cartel and it just led from one thing to another. To tell you the truth, what I know about it is probably just a drop in the bucket. I used to have hard copies of congressional records where they admit to the dirty deeds. Even so far as to say; that if the American public knew what they had done to them they had no doubt the people would move on Washington in the morning. This says the deed was done at night and the people would kill them for it. Evil loves darkness and hates light.

The only reason they are getting bold and letting it out in the open is because they feel we won't do anything about it or we can't. It would be better if it is the former and God help us if its the latter. Though I suspect it is a combination of the two.

Now if Mr. Serrano holds off for just a bit, he will have no problem getting it passed. When the markets crash and banks fail you can bet they will propose the NAU and stuff the 'no time limit' on the backside. People will be down and out and accept anything that looks like it will save the bacon. The real sad part is that the people will love them for it.

If the markets collapse doesn't get it then another "Pearl Harbor" event will. I would like to think the American public would fight to the death but I am afraid they will just lay down without a fight. Rioting and looting is not fighting, just chaos. The police, Guard and active duty military will have no problem shooting rioters and looters. However, an angry people set in returning the Constitution to its rightful place is another story. The people will have to ban together and fight as one unit with one objective or all is lost.

I guess Mr. Serrano hasn't payed much attention to history. Once a time limit is gone tyrants show up and it goes down hill from there.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:40 PM

Originally posted by ANNED
Leave it to the democrats to try something like that.

just be glad that it would have to be ratified by the states to become law.

And with the number of states claiming state sovereignty it is unlikely to happen.

Yea leave it to the democrats...the same people as the republicans who cash their checks from the same government....Wake up...Republicans and Democrats are the SAME! want change...? Vote a different party in who hasn't been running the country into the ground for the last 50 years like the republicans and democrats about that?

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 02:44 PM
Sorry for the one liner but, Antichrist and the seven years of tribulation.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 02:58 PM
Sounds to me like the democrats are seriously trying to make Obma their King. I'm surprised they haven't tried to pass a "President for Life" just Uncle Fidel.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:00 PM
reply to post by pstrron

It's the banding together of the people itself that is becoming increasingly dangerous to do. I'm not saying we have surrendered that right completely, because once the local press got wind of police infiltrating decades old peace and anti-death penalty activists groups and spying on them under new homeland security regulations, "we the people" had a fit about it and the the local govt has backed away from the practice. Here is the link to support the anecdote.

Under the new "patriot" rules I can't imagine how it will go down for people quietly assembling in what they think is the privacy of their homes to discuss how to restore the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to the United States of America. Hell, I admit I get nervous just posting about it. And no that doesn't make me a coward or a sheeple--just someone thinking about all the responsibilities I have and what will happen to the people who depend on me if I end up on some govt sh*tlist. These days anything you say can and will be used to label you a terrorist, no matter how absurd a "fit" that label might be. I'd better tell my mom-in-law to keep a watch out on her shuffleboard club. I'm sure the dept of HS takes a dim view of older ladies wielding sticks and pucks.
You just never know when somebody's grandma may take a notion to knock some sense into the politicians.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:14 PM
If this gets passed,

then it will show how much the boasted democracy fails in this country.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:56 PM
Well, I had to investigate for myself, and sure enough, House Resolution 5 is worded thus. I thought, maybe it meant he wanted to limit the terms down to 1 from 2, however, this is not the case as accurately portrayed by the OP. Hmmm...I don't think that this is a wise thing.

To the poster who said "leave it to the democrats"...mind you it was Bush administration executive orders that severely harmed constitutional rights (what was the exec. order that made it possible for him to remain president in an emergency of his naming [choosing]?)

Please do not generate into an "us vs. them" mentality (dem vs. rep.). It is totally arbitrary what political party you belong to (or whether you consider yourself liberal - as I "more or less" do - or conservative). The concept of a tangible dichotomy only serves to divide the masses for them to be more easily controlled and taken advantage of....don't continue to fall prey to that trick...especially in an atmosphere where this type of legislation is being seriously considered, it certainly doesn't serve you.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:21 PM
reply to post by Wolf321

I think I have that one person I have been wanting to reach...
HBO did a documentary on how they get who they want where they want them.. and its called "Hacking Democracy"

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:22 PM
I hadn't heard about this one.

I strongly support term limits even for the Pres.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:30 PM
reply to post by GuyverUnit

I found this a while back and posted it on another thread I had, also with the note that the gentleman(?) had introduced the bill numerous times, AND noting the fact that Hugo Chavez had recently SUCCESSFULLY initiated the same thing......

Unfortunately, I must be on a lot of people's IGNORE list, LOL!!

Here's the thread which didn't go very far.....and a quote from it!

Read this next part, it's very interesting:

" Will this referendum result send the country towards a dictatorship? We are already in a totalitarian government. So we are adding one aspect, one new aspect to a framework that the country and the government has been constructing, during the past 10 years. We have a country where there is no check and balance, no separation of powers at all. The executive controls the assembly, and through the assembly it controls the Supreme Tribunal, the attorney general, the prosecutor general, the defender of the people, the comptroller general. So all the branches of government are completely controlled, and the power concentrated in the executive. We are already in a totalitarian regime. But democracy is not only elections. Democracy is a lot more than elections. It is check and balance, it is pluralism, it is the respect of human rights, freedom of expression, and a lot more aspects that are in, for instance, the Inter-American Democratic Charter. So we are already in a totalitarian regime, and this is one step more that will allow the people who are governing to continue in government, to be reelected, using without limit the resources of the government in order to obtain reelection. And this is then one step more in this process of consolidation of an authoritarian regime."

You could almost switch "Venezuela" to "America" and the article would still make sense. What do you think?

Is American media and government hypocritical when they imply it's bad for Venezuela but say nothing about the same thing being put in place here?

Should Americans be worried about the Resolution above?

Should we at least get to vote on it like Venezuela did?

I'm glad someone is paying attention to your thread.

(My thread about China taking over America using the Bird Flu is lagging also, go figure!)

[edit on 11-3-2009 by sezsue]

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:37 PM

Originally posted by TheSaint298
Thank you for the info. The things that they try and slip by silently are astounding.

You are right, and like I said on another thread, they put these out there over and over again, and it serves two purposes.

For the few that don't know, or maybe don't care what is going on, they get used to seeing these and just roll their eyes and go on about their business.

For the ones who do care, because they know what is going on, these bills are laying in wait to be passed, just like a rattlesnake, when the time is right.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:42 PM
If you believe in democracy...term limits ARE undemocratic....

It seems i'm on the opposite side of the spectrum for this argument...i just want to point out that We The People ARE the term limits. If someone is doing a good job, like Roosevelt did around the depression, people would have probably reelected him indefinately, which scared politicians which is why they came up with term limits in the first place.

If a president does a bad job, we VOTE him out. If he does good, we keep him in.

I've always disagreed with term limits in the first place.

but thats just me...any thoughts, i'd really like to hear why term limits are good in a democratic society...

not that i don't believe the voting game and electoral college is flawed anyways, but if it was good hearted, than term limits are wrong.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:48 PM
I'd be asking myself "WHY".
Why would anyone want to change it, its definately not in the the publics best interest so who would benefit...Hmmmmm????

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:10 PM

Originally posted by danielfochtman
If you believe in democracy...term limits ARE undemocratic....

The Unites States is not a democracy. Never has been. Presidents aren't elected by the people.

I agree to term limits on all governmental offices. They are duties and not lifetime occupations.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:43 PM

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx

Originally posted by danielfochtman
If you believe in democracy...term limits ARE undemocratic....

The Unites States is not a democracy. Never has been.

I don't disagree entirely with this, although as a tremendous fan of Thomas Jefferson, I think it started off as a true democracy. It just didn't take long for it to be corrupted.
With that in mind. If you don't believe we even affect the outcomes of elections, why even care about term limits. "they" are just gonna put in another puppet anyways, right? If you really believe democracy is a farce, term limits or no term limits are redundant. catch my drift?

On the other hand, if you believe democracy has a chance (that is if we got off our lazy asses and revolted once a century when the gov gets out of hand) then term limits are opposite what democracy is supposed to be.

again i say, we are the term limits....or at least are supposed to be if we knew how to stand up to whats right and wrong.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:09 PM
reply to post by GuyverUnit I

And here I was thinking that we should have MORE laws in place to keep the same "families" from showing up over and over and over again, let alone the same people....ahem....Bush....Clinton....Bush....Clinton. I've had enough. I mean, good grief, you can't be eligible to win a lottery or sweepstakes if someone in your family is working or HAS worked for the companies involved, so shouldn't the White House be the same? There is a definite conflict of interest, and they need to ammend the constitution to keep it from becoming a family dynasty.....oh wait....too late.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:59 PM
reply to post by pstrron

Yes, the term Democracy was used in that sense, but only served as a conceptual tool, or derogative, for which early political theorists could derive new principles of governance, much like the use of the term "state of nature", which although refuted by anthropological evidence, has remained the peremptory of social contract theory for much of modern political philosophy, and again regardless of its inaccuracy.

Democracy is being practiced regardless of what you believe, even in a Republic, but one would be more accurate to refer to it "isonomia", or equality under the law. You practice democracy, but it is practiced under terms of constrained rationality, or perhaps an induced alignment of morality onto law. That's why you have all the talk of God and providence in the Constitution. Republicanism then, enforces value-oriented equilibria, which if it not otherwise present might turn the so-called freedom and justice of pure Democracy into a social dilemma, as we have seen with Plato's tyrants in ancient Greece.

So you don't really accomplish much by pointing out what you think others don't understand. There really is no issue. I'm sure the existence of the written word is the only impediment to our mutual understanding of the non-existence of this contention of basic concepts regarding forms of government... Sorry, it just always irks me when people pull the "It's a Republic, not a Democracy line." What are you implying? If I'm not mistaken, it seems that you're portraying Republicanism as a form of dictatorship? Republicanism is a vision, and democracy through representation is how you practice it. I'm positive people are educated enough to discern between the two.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by cognoscente]

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:10 PM
reply to post by danielfochtman

We live a Republic, not a democracy.

Since you are a fan of Thomas Jefferson here are some wise words:
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. "

I too am a huge fan of Mr Jefferson.

If you are a fan of George Washington, in his farewell address he stated the following:

"Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it. "

Read the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Know what it is we have and how important these things are.

Freedom is not just a word in the dictionary and the Constitution is not just a piece of paper as GWB would have us believe.

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in