No term limits for President?.....H. J. RES. 5, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 32 times


reply posted on 11-3-2009 @ 07:54 PM by danielfochtman
reply to post by xman_in_blackx


again i agree. T.J. used to say that the vote should be limited to the educated, that weigh the pros and cons of each law. And yes i'm aware of us being more a republic or imperial state than a true democracy...we are very much on the same page in our beliefs.

however, am i wrong that in democracy if we want someone gone we should vote him gone and if we want someone to stay we should be able to vote him to stay?

I understand this is not realistic as it seems most in politics end up getting bought out by big business. BUT shouldn't we have that right?

what if superman existed...the moral pillar. And he fixes everything (all hypothetical)
then after 8 years (and a bunch of pissed off Madoff wannabees later) our options are Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton...I would want superman back!

Term limits were only imposed on the president, you could be VP or senator or house representative and not have these...so what makes term limits on the Prez right or wrong? Dick Cheney did more damage than bush if you ask me. The thought of him being VP for life is scary as #....nobody wanted him on their team, cause they knew "we the people" would vote our opinions of him on that one.


reply posted on 11-3-2009 @ 08:05 PM by cognoscente
reply to post by danielfochtman


It wouldn't be feasible to remove the term limit without restructuring the party system to a great extent. Otherwise, whenever the President makes a mistake or starts losing public appeal, the other party would try to collapse his government. Just think about all the elections...

[edit on 11-3-2009 by cognoscente]



reply posted on 11-3-2009 @ 09:52 PM by Lasheic
reply to post by spec_ops_wannabe




Since 1992, Serrano has sponsored a bill to repeal the 23rd Amendment every presidential election cycle.


You're right. This is nothing new. The only thing that would be new is if this thing actually passed.

This has nothing to do with Bush, Bush Jr., Obama, Clinton, or any other president.

To those idiots claiming "Goodbye freedom" and "King Obama", realize that for the vast majority of this nation's history - we didn't have a 22nd Amendment. The only thing that kept sitting presidents from running for a third term, was a traditional respect for Washington's example and (most likely) being sick and tired of the damn job. The only president to serve a third term was FDR, and those were extraordinary circumstances.

Repealing the 22nd Amendment would not do anything aside from restoring the constitution, even if just a little, to it's original form. It would not limit freedom in the least.


reply posted on 11-3-2009 @ 10:12 PM by Lasheic
reply to post by danielfochtman




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


Because you're wrong. Bush did a horrible job his first term, yet he was re-elected. I think the problem was there's too much of a "sports team" "us vs. them" mentality which has infected people's minds. Politics are complicated, and far too many are willing to just turn off their brains and let their favorite talking heads (be it Rush or Olbermann) tell them what to think. The problem here is, what those cretins spew is not news or politics, it's speculation and insults. Too many people vote along party lines, without truly looking at qualifications on the individual level.

This is dangerous, because it gives the power of the people over to the power of the party. The party, however, have their own interests - and often co-opt their candidates and affiliates.

This is why I didn't vote in the last election. Obama is highly likable, but highly underqualified and naive. McCain is experienced and bull headed, but even he was shown to be a vulnerable to being co-opted into a puppet by the same GOP and Religious Right that held Bush's strings. Plus, Sarah Palin is just... ugh...no way would I let that dunce near a managerial position at McDonalds, let alone the highest office in the land.

Party Term limits are good, all in all, prevent a party from nominating the same candidate over and over and over again. It forces new blood into the president's office, for better or for worse, and prevents the office from stagnating. I believe there is no term limit for either the house or the senate - yet their terms in office vary between 2 and 6 years for the former and latter respectively. This is exactly the sort of balance the founding father's strived for - having both those who are highly experienced and those with fresh ideas rotated constantly at the will of the people to strike a balance between new direction and caution. Term limits on the president, either written or unwritten, have proven to be an exemplary compliment to this system IMO.


reply posted on 11-3-2009 @ 11:37 PM by imd12c4funn
reply to post by Wolf321


Red Dwarf is it?
Nice Avatar.

Say no to no term limits


reply posted on 12-3-2009 @ 12:23 AM by danielfochtman
Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by danielfochtman




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


Because you're wrong. Bush did a horrible job his first term,


wow, thats a little harsh. I have been more than respectful in my posts and replies. But great way to spend half your rant talking about something we all know...the far right used fear and terroristic tactics to convince people we needed bush to keep us safe after 911...we know this. I am aware that politics is about who can convince the most boobtube watching, mcdonalds eating, lazy thinking farts to vote for which party. That is why in my earlier post i Quoted Thomas Jefferson when he stated elections should be kept between the educated. BUT, there is 2 ways to look at this.

#1) This is democracy, people vote them in, and if they do a bad job vote them out....we are the term limits.

or...

#2) Our votes really don't count, democracy is a sham, the powers that be will put anyone in power that they think will further their agenda in which case it doesn't matter WHO is in the throne, and term limits are still useless, if its obama, clinton or bush pushing us towards gloabl economy...does it really matter who's doing it?

so how am i wrong in that logic?

you compalined about Bush....do you honestly believe if he ran again, that 9-11 hype would've carried him through another election....hell no! everybody realizes they f-ed up...even my own parents who vote republican down the ticket EVERY election because they are christians, and the abortion issue yada yada yada, expressed regret in voting for him because he tortures...They would rather not vote than vote democrat, but if he ran again, they wouldn't have voted....and what happened, a lot less republicans showed up to vote.

So either voting and elections and politics is rigged in which case term limits dont matter.
or its not...in which case we are the term limits...the masses decide...isn't that what democracy is...the majorities decision...if the majority wants someone to run a third term, who's to say he can't....oh wait it was republicans...cause Franklin D Roosevelt became the first to run 3 elections....


reply posted on 12-3-2009 @ 01:39 AM by pstrron
reply to post by cognoscente



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.


Sorry if it seems that I was portraying Republicanism as a form of dictatorship, I was not. In Republicanism the people hold the power and try to practice equality for the masses through their power. However, Democracy is nothing more than mob rule and morals have little or no effect. Ben Franklin was asked which do we have a Republic or a Democracy? He replied that we had a Republic if we could hold on to it. Thus it is understood that there is a difference between the two. Though it can be argued that both equate to the same thing to a lesser or greater degree.

I am not picking on you in any way shape or form nor do I wish to offend. So I will simply state;

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.

b.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage."

Attributed to Scottish History Professor at University of Edinburgh Sir Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747-1813)


So with "b" we have mob rule without morals as in two wolves and one lamb. A republic is something that is very hard to hold on to, something akin to a greased pig. There is no doubt that the USA is a democracy on the verge of a full blown dictatorship. Then what happened to the republic? We failed to hold on to it and through a civil war lost it.

Now we have Mr. Serrano wanting to remove limits, congress passing stimulus bills loaded with pork and bill after bill removing peoples rights. All of this is being done regardless to the will of the people. The USA is no longer a democracy, its a dictatorship/police state disguised as a democracy. As for the republic, its no where in sight and Ben Franklin warned us about it.


reply posted on 12-3-2009 @ 09:25 AM by skeptic_al
Originally posted by GuyverUnit I
How many people have heard about this?
Quietly submitted on January 6, 2009 by Rep José Serrano D-NY

111th CONGRESS 1st Session H. J. RES. 5 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 6, 2009 Mr. SERRANO introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification: `Article-- `The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.'.


Library of Congress

[edit on 11-3-2009 by GuyverUnit I]


Wouldn't that make the US more like a Regime. The US should know what
a regime is, that was one of the reasons for Invading Iraq, a Regime Change.

Which is really kinda weird, Iraq is becoming what the US was and the US
wants to be like what Iraq was.


reply posted on 15-3-2009 @ 08:06 PM by cognoscente
reply to post by pstrron


Thanks for the clear explanation. What needs to be said when describing the difference between a pure Democracy and a Republic is that although certain liberal ideologies are professed in both, in a Republic you have value-oriented beliefs about society, and in the case of the U.S., these are derived from common ideas of morality, and ultimately inspired by God or some power greater than the will of mere men alone. That's why I said Democracies, for all their promises of personal and economic liberation, tend to become social dilemmas very quickly, and in that regard I would completely agree with the venerable Sir Tytler.

A Republic works very well, but I'm afraid they tend to decline a couple of generations after they are first founded. The spirit of a nation is integral to preserving the state. With the nation in decline, it is easy to see where liberal democracy is starting to take precedence over the core values of the Constitution; the only remaining form of pure spirit constituting the nation. You said the average age of free states are about two hundred years. Well, it seems the U.S. has lasted just about thirty-three years more than that average... it could be approaching its end.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by cognoscente]


reply posted on 16-3-2009 @ 10:36 PM by theEXxman
Originally posted by cognoscente
reply to post by pstrron


. What needs to be said when describing the difference between a pure Democracy and a Republic is that although certain liberal ideologies are professed in both, in a Republic you have value-oriented beliefs about society, and in the case of the U.S., these are derived from common ideas of morality, and ultimately inspired by God or some power greater than the will of mere men alone. That's why I said Democracies, for all their promises of personal and economic liberation, tend to become social dilemmas very quickly, and in that regard I would completely agree with the venerable Sir Tytler.



[edit on 15-3-2009 by cognoscente]


But one of the main reasons the founding fathers came over here is religious spiritual reasons and I'm not going to name anyone's individual beliefs but many were deists, many where masons, and irreligious as well. Most of us in this day and age are very irreligious compared to the someone from the 18th and 19th centuries even though some may profess it when asked for maybe a news poll or something. Wikipedia lists the First Admendment as
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.""
That being said it's even more diverse now more that ever and the biggest group that keeps opening there mouths and claiming every president was the ANTICHRIST since FDR is the religious right. That being said I've seen sites saying we're Babylon 13 and stuff. He is not the Anti-christ I wish people would just stop it please there is some in his own party that don't like him. He hasn't done anything remotely close to what Hitler has done in History yet. So he's not Darth Vader or the Emporor and I don't see him dissolving the Galactic Senate anytime soon. Which by the way the same people that has said that Bush is Darth Vader or Palpitine is saying that Obama is the Devil incarnate. Look at Clinton they said he was the antichrist and you see him more on the news running around smiling and standing with the other ex-presidents. I don't like him and for some stupid reason I voted for him, but I don't have his picture in my room and I'm not bowing and praying to his picture. Because I realize he's just a man fallible and stupid and maybe sometimes brilliant and maybe sometimes not. And Jesus was just a man too, same thing. If I want to take a green little rock and say hey this is god and put it in a little shrine and worship it I'm free to do so. If I want to sit at home on Sunday and watch sports all day and drink beer all day and not think twice about any kind of church I'm free to do so. If I want to hand out these little card about the Church of Satan I'm free to do so(I'm being sarcastic by the way) If I want to base my view of god more along the lines of hinduism(which is more how I view god more along the lines of pantheism or many faces of god) or buddhism or maybe "Battlestar Galactica" than it's my right. You can't prove a belief scientifically and the only real way any of us will know whether there's a god or not or whether screwed my life away is when I draw the last breath.-

That out of the way if Bush really want to stay in office he could have done so and he didn't Obama is the POTUS now and you can see in the news the honeymoon is all ready over. Personally repealling the term limits is bad but this is probably a crap bill anyway. Call you congressman or senator if your really think its important.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



DEA is Investigating Montana State Legislators Over State Laws
  Posted 12 days ago with 59 member flags
The CIA in Australia: America\'s Foreign Watergate
  Posted 2 days ago with 19 member flags
Who is really behind the birthers and what is their real motive?
  Posted 12 days ago with 11 member flags
ESF and Black op funding.
  Posted 11 days ago with 11 member flags
There is NO Media Bias in America
  Posted 11 days ago with 10 member flags