Bill to remove term limits from presidency

[ronpaulhawaii]

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f%3Ahj5ih.txt


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.

:mad:

[sevin]

I've said before that I think Obama could be president for a looong time.

[Pete]

The O-gasm continues...

[hadenough]

Emperor O. ?

[slacker921]

It wouldn't work for a President with horrible approval ratings... but for a President with a massive number of rabid followers? Youbetcha...

I'm not surprised by this effort... and I don't think Obama is the intended beneficiary.

[zach]

Peace on earth and mercy mild.. :rolleyes:

[RPTXState]

He's tried this before, in 2005. This isn't much of a surprise.

[nobody's_hero]

You're saying there's a bill that would ensure that there's absolutely no change from one 4-year term of presidency to the next?

Wait. Don't we already have that?

(All kidding aside, I'm not surprised that they'd try this :mad:)

edit: Luckily, such an amendment would have to pass ratification by the states. I could be mistaken, but I don't think 3/4 of the states would approve.

edit #2: Of course, nothing's stopping them from NOT amending the Constitution and just ignoring it. I'm sure, given the state of our government, Obama could simply issue an executive order granting himself presidency for life (stating the poor economy as justification)and Congress would just roll over and play dead. It's rotten to the core.

[angelatc]

IIRC, the term limit amendment was added to derail FDR, who could have been president for life because he was so popular.

I think it's a miracle that they've actually acknowledged the Constitution still exists.

[mconder]

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f%3Ahj5ih.txt



:mad:

Removing term limits is one of the best things that could ever happen for this country. Then America will get exactly what it deserves and keep getting it.

[AdamT]

OMG no.

[Join The Paul Side]

Could you imagine if there were no term limits on the presidency now and an unlimited Bush? :eek:

[Cowlesy]

If that even got to a vote my head would explode.

[nobody's_hero]

Could you imagine if there were no term limits on the presidency now and an unlimited Bush? :eek:

OH man. I don't even want to imagine that. His approval rating could be –35% and republicans would still vote for him because "We can't let those nasty democrats win" :(

[kathy88]

I really can't think of anything to say. FUCK comes to mind.

[MRoCkEd]

If it weren't for the institution of term limits, FDR would still be president today.. with a New New New New New New Deal.

[nobody's_hero]

If it weren't for the institution of term limits, FDR would still be president today.. with a New New New New New New Deal.

We would be appealing for foreign aid from Zimbabwe.

[Danke]

If this passes, then we can forget about Obama's second term, we'll just keep the Clinton/Bush dynasty going! :D

[qh4dotcom]

If it weren't for the institution of term limits, FDR would still be president today.. with a New New New New New New Deal.

He died a long time ago...

[qh4dotcom]

How about reducing the term limits instead of eliminating them?

Four years of Obama is a loooooooong time. Elections every two years seems more reasonable.

[MRoCkEd]

He died a long time ago...
http://www.toontowncentral.com/gallery/data/500/orly-42891.jpg

[Rangeley]

I'm not a fan of term limits. How is being successfully re-elected a bad thing?

[qh4dotcom]

I'm not a fan of term limits. How is being successfully re-elected a bad thing?

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press97/prfeb12.htm

Ron Paul is a fan of term limits...you think he's wrong?

[vodalian]

I'm not a fan of term limits. How is being successfully re-elected a bad thing?

I guess that depends on your opinion regarding the legitimacy of elections here in America.

[SLSteven]

He died a long time ago...

But his policies live again.

[demolama]

I'm not a fan of term limits. How is being successfully re-elected a bad thing?

When you rob Peter to pay Paul you can always expect the vote of Paul... get it? There will always be more people willing to receive some form of handout and will always vote for those who make it happen.

That is what made FDR so popular... he was just throwing money at the people in the form of Social Security, farm subsidies, corporate welfare ,etc.

[Knightskye]

Send him a message:

http://serrano.house.gov/Forms/Contact.aspx

[Kotin]

Bill Clinton 2012////

[AJ Antimony]

Well, whether we like it or not, term limits are actually AGAINST the idea of democracy. If you give the people the power to choose their representatives, shouldn't they be able to elect the same one over and over if they so choose? Just as how laws shouldn't force people into political office (ie keep them in power), the laws also shouldn't force people out of office.

Bottom line is, the people should be free to elect whoever they want to represent them, and if they happen to elect a devil over and over, then it's their own fault. And don't forget people, the original Constitution included no Presidential term limits.

Looks like the Founders understood what representation was all about.

[nodope0695]

You title is a little vague...Bill who?:p:D

[american.swan]

I've always thought the law should state only two terms in a row...that way he'd have to leave for at least four years before being re-elected.

[nobody's_hero]

Well, whether we like it or not, term limits are actually AGAINST the idea of democracy. If you give the people the power to choose their representatives, shouldn't they be able to elect the same one over and over if they so choose? Just as how laws shouldn't force people into political office (ie keep them in power), the laws also shouldn't force people out of office.

Bottom line is, the people should be free to elect whoever they want to represent them, and if they happen to elect a devil over and over, then it's their own fault. And don't forget people, the original Constitution included no Presidential term limits.

Looks like the Founders understood what representation was all about.

Er, we have a Republic, a form of representative democracy. I don't think 350,000,000 people can all be represented over-and-over by the same single guy for the rest of his life (granted, there's no difference between Barack and George, but term limits mean theres a small chance the people might screw up and elect someone who actually has an ounce of integrity).

Thomas Jefferson was in favor of limits on tenure for members of Congress. The Articles of Confederation put term limits on delegates. So there was indeed a desire for term limits during the time of our nation's founders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_United_States

This might help too:

The Politics and Law of Term Limits (http://books.google.com/books?id=PJtRgu3wWWkC&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=richard+henry+lee+on+term+limits&source=bl&ots=cB1RUsscDL&sig=-lcPIkdbvgktJ3ocAXg-tm-U7UI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result)

[AutoDas]

Good, I'm in favor of ditching term limits as well.

[Kludge]

I wonder how Ron Paul will vote on this... On one hand, it's a restriction of the People's voice and wasn't originally in the Constitution. On the other hand, it's a defense against governmental tyranny.

[qh4dotcom]

I wonder how Ron Paul will vote on this... On one hand, it's a restriction of the People's voice and wasn't originally in the Constitution. On the other hand, it's a defense against governmental tyranny.

Ron Paul favors term limits

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press97/prfeb12.htm

[Rangeley]

We already have term limits for the Presidency and I can't really see any tangible benefits towards restricting government. If Bush could have run a 3rd time, would he have fared better than McCain? A Bush vs. Obama matchup would have been a landslide for Obama. And a Bush vs. Clinton (3rd term) would have been a landslide too, this time with Bush winning. The only person in recent times that could have won a 3rd term was possibly Reagan if he would have wanted to run for one, but rather than him Bush Sr. ran and won instead.

Rather than being a restriction on government, it really seems to me to be a restriction on people that hasn't really had any beneficial effects. It hasn't necessarilly had any real bad effects either (though wouldn't Reagan for a 3rd term be better than Bush?) but my point is in the end it has really had no effect in limiting government. And I guess you could argue in forcing parties to go for fresh faces, it gets elections farther from issues, and even more about personality.