|
|
 |
|
01-09-2013, 06:27 AM
|
#1
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,109
|
Res to Repeal the 22nd Amendment
The 21st and 22nd Amendments are two of only a few Amendments after the first ten that don't suck. However, I don't think that the 22nd goes far enough because it allows an individual 2 terms rather than just one.
Unfortunately, there is a resolution to repeal it completely rather than strengthen it.
Link
What do you think? Should the 22nd be repealed, should it remain as it is, or should it be strengthened to a limit of one term?
|
|
|
|
01-09-2013, 06:40 AM
|
#2
|
|
Discussion Club Moderator
Elite Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,376
|
__________________
Webmaster, The PC Guide -- Relaunching in 2014 with all-new material!
Author, The TCP/IP Guide (getting a bit old but still lots of good free info)
"The apparent accuracy of a Wikipedia article is inversely proportional to
the depth of the reader's knowledge of the topic." -- Kozierok's First Law
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2013, 07:16 AM
|
#3
|
|
Platinum Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 2,378
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anarchist420
The 21st and 22nd Amendments are two of only a few Amendments after the first ten that don't suck. However, I don't think that the 22nd goes far enough because it allows an individual 2 terms rather than just one.
Unfortunately, there is a resolution to repeal it completely rather than strengthen it.
Link
What do you think? Should the 22nd be repealed, should it remain as it is, or should it be strengthened to a limit of one term? |
And you wonder why you are subject to ridicule when you post things from lewrockwell.com.
|
|
|
|
01-09-2013, 07:51 AM
|
#4
|
|
Administrator
Discussion Club Moderator
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 39,844
|
How about you provide some justification for what you are stating. give your OWN opinions on why you have such a stand.
You do too much regurgitating
__________________
F15 Air Superiority Fighter - Never has one been lost in aerial combat (104 kills)
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2013, 09:55 AM
|
#5
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Corner of FORECLOSURE and BÅNKRUPTCY ST.
Posts: 7,989
|
Think it through, kiddo. Obama can be more brazen now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election. You want even more of that? Or do you want the president to have a motive to listen to the people?
Think about a guy like Romney who was willing to do and say ANYTHING in order to get elected. Imagine if he got elected and could do anything he wanted within the law without considering what the people who voted for him wanted.
__________________
Nemesis 1: Above your age please. The climate is in fact warmer now . Maybe this erection will cool things down mother earth shes hot.
pcgeek11: IMO: Being gay is not a minority. It is a genetic defect
Idontcare: dank69 is hereby permabanned.
Last edited by dank69; 01-09-2013 at 12:26 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2013, 09:59 AM
|
#6
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 8,781
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MomentsofSanity
And you wonder why you are subject to ridicule when you post things from lewrockwell.com.
|
Too be fair though, Lewrockwell is as valid as Mother Jones, Media Matters, or the DailyKos, which get posted here all the time.
__________________
www.svc.com
i7 920 | EVGA X58 E758-A1 | HIS HD6870 |12GB Crucial DDR3 | 5.5TB | OS X 10.6.8
Heat
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2013, 10:39 AM
|
#7
|
|
Lifer
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 14,364
|
Term limits are anti-Democratic.
They're a sign that the people are too stupid to vote, and if we've reached that point then none of it matters anyway.
__________________
“He who controls the past controls the future.
He who controls the present controls the past.”
― George Orwell, 1984
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2013, 10:48 AM
|
#8
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 6,147
|
The moron who suggested the idea needs some common sense instilled into him. Since most of the presidents have been absolutely horrible and have expanded government the 1 term idea doesn't sound so bad but there have been some good presidents who should have two terms.
Keep it at two terms since anything more than that is not healthy for liberty. fdr was the only one who went past two terms and he was a tyrant, his new deal really damaged America and he was a big violator of freedom.
If Ron Paul won and wasn't screwed over and had two terms he would have fixed the country.
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2013, 12:05 PM
|
#9
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Richmond, TX
Posts: 8,114
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Incorruptible
If Ron Paul won and wasn't screwed over and had two terms he would have fixed the country.
|
Even a miracle occurred and he won, he still wouldn't have the support to do anything more than most Presidents. He would need a majority in both houses to get anything major through both and signed into law.
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2013, 12:09 PM
|
#10
|
|
Lifer
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 14,364
|
The voters should get the President they want, for as long as they want.
__________________
“He who controls the past controls the future.
He who controls the present controls the past.”
― George Orwell, 1984
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2013, 12:48 PM
|
#11
|
|
Super Moderator
Off Topic
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 91,841
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anarchist420
The 21st and 22nd Amendments are two of only a few Amendments after the first ten that don't suck. However, I don't think that the 22nd goes far enough because it allows an individual 2 terms rather than just one.
Unfortunately, there is a resolution to repeal it completely rather than strengthen it.
Link
What do you think? Should the 22nd be repealed, should it remain as it is, or should it be strengthened to a limit of one term? |
so, the 13th amendment sucks?
__________________
I killed and ate the Fun Mod with some jellybeans and a little Chianti.
AnandTech Mean Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2013, 12:55 PM
|
#12
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,786
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by xj0hnx
Too be fair though, Lewrockwell is as valid as Mother Jones, Media Matters, or the DailyKos, which get posted here all the time.
|
And people who post that trash are rightfully mocked.
__________________
“Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely soley upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.”
-Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2013, 12:56 PM
|
#13
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,786
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaskalas
Term limits are anti-Democratic.
They're a sign that the people are too stupid to vote, and if we've reached that point then none of it matters anyway.
|
The United States is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. Most of the time the majority decides what happens but the constitution as un-democratic rules in order to make it harder for 51% of the population to vote to enslave the other 49%.
__________________
“Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely soley upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.”
-Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2013, 01:08 PM
|
#14
|
|
Platinum Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 2,378
|
This resolution really exemplifies the completely BS way people choose to approach politics now a days. The Rep. who proposed this has done so every 2 years since 1997. 0-8 so far. However this year it's being presented on numerous blogs and sites as "Resolution to declare Obama President for life."
It is just sad how dishonestly people want to approach political discussions these days.
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2013, 01:25 PM
|
#15
|
|
Lifer
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 14,364
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ichy
The United States is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. Most of the time the majority decides what happens but the constitution as un-democratic rules in order to make it harder for 51% of the population to vote to enslave the other 49%.
|
Which has nothing to do with term limits.
You didn't change what I said, unless you mean to imply that term limits prevent the 51% from 'enslaving' the other... but surely you don't think any of that is related...
__________________
“He who controls the past controls the future.
He who controls the present controls the past.”
― George Orwell, 1984
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2013, 01:46 PM
|
#16
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 3,065
|
Potentially endless terms creates entrenched power, which is bad regardless of how popular the regime is. Because entrenched power creates entrenched corruption. It is better not to have any of that. The entire concept of "an establishment" is inherently against the wishes of the founders. Washington was supposed to be a place where the average person could go to perform a civic duty. Not a place to go to get rich and buy and sell shady pork barrel deals. It's all gone so rotten. One of the main reasons for this rot lies in the amendments. Look at the 17th amendment in particular.
__________________
I am looking for a cheap upgrade to my 3 year old computer.
AT forum member #1: Buy a 3770k
I am looking for a way to get 10 more fps in TF2.
AT forum member #2: Buy a 3770k
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2013, 02:23 PM
|
#17
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 3,838
|
So repealing, whether by strengthening or removing an amendment is ok and worthy of discussion just so long as you aren't talking about the 2nd amendment?
Is that because the 2nd is more constitutional?
Lol at fucking nut jobs!
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2013, 04:16 PM
|
#18
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,538
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaskalas
Term limits are anti-Democratic.
They're a sign that the people are too stupid to vote, and if we've reached that point then none of it matters anyway.
|
Lack of term limits promotes career politicians who are more concerned about their job than the welfare of their constituents.
Which is worse?
IMO, I'd favor strict term limits over the current "elected aristocracy" we currently have.
__________________
"All men are not created equal, and if you believe they are, there's something seriously wrong with you. Some men are destined for greatness. Most aren't. End of story." - Jose Canseco
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2013, 04:19 PM
|
#19
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,109
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElFenix
so, the 13th amendment sucks?
|
It does because it kept the slavery issue a national one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xj0hnx
Too be fair though, Lewrockwell is as valid as Mother Jones, Media Matters, or the DailyKos, which get posted here all the time.
|
LRC is more valid than any commie shit. 
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2013, 04:31 PM
|
#20
|
|
Super Moderator
Off Topic
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 91,841
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anarchist420
It does because it kept the slavery issue a national one.
LRC is more valid than any commie shit. |
it combined with union forces burning down georgia ended the slavery issue. it didn't keep anything.
__________________
I killed and ate the Fun Mod with some jellybeans and a little Chianti.
AnandTech Mean Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2013, 05:02 PM
|
#21
|
|
Platinum Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,830
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anarchist420
The 21st and 22nd Amendments are two of only a few Amendments after the first ten that don't suck. However, I don't think that the 22nd goes far enough because it allows an individual 2 terms rather than just one.
Unfortunately, there is a resolution to repeal it completely rather than strengthen it.
Link
What do you think? Should the 22nd be repealed, should it remain as it is, or should it be strengthened to a limit of one term? |
I think presidents should have 4 terms avaliable to them. But they should be 2 years each, and not 4. That way, if you get a guy that sucks (like hussein Obama) he would only be in there for 2 years. But if you get a guy that wants to help America (Ron Paul) he can still have the total of 8 years.
__________________
2500K @ 4.5|ASrock Z77 Extreme11|4x4gb DDR3 2133|4xHD6970|1440P 120hz - Buzzard
X6 1055T|ASUS M4A89GTD-EVO USB3|2x4gb Gskill 1600|HD4870X2 + HD48701gb - Virgo
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2013, 06:26 PM
|
#22
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,371
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoblikat
I think presidents should have 4 terms avaliable to them. But they should be 2 years each, and not 4. That way, if you get a guy that sucks (like hussein Obama) he would only be in there for 2 years. But if you get a guy that wants to help America (Ron Paul) he can still have the total of 8 years.
|
I'd favor a vote of confidence, actually. The people do a vote of confidence every 2 years (in say, January. So we'd have one Jan 2014.) If the pres fails to get a 55% majority or something (not simple majority) then there's an election. Else, no election.
__________________
i7 3770k @ 4.4GHz | 16GB RAM | MSI Z77 GD65 | eVGA GTX580 | Samsung 840 Pro | Intel 510 250GB | Crucial M4 128GB | ASUS Xonar STX
Nikon D7000 | 18-200mm VR | 70-300mm f/4-5.6 FX | 35mm f/1.8 prime | Tokina 11-16 Wide angle
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2013, 08:30 PM
|
#23
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 9,340
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dank69
Think it through, kiddo. Obama can be more brazen now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election. You want even more of that? Or do you want the president to have a motive to listen to the people?
Think about a guy like Romney who was willing to do and say ANYTHING in order to get elected. Imagine if he got elected and could do anything he wanted within the law without considering what the people who voted for him wanted.
|
Your argument goes both ways...
In other words, you support Obama having the chance at re-election to a third term to keep him focused on helping the country, yet at the same time you want to make sure someone unpredictable as Romney cannot possibly swindle his way into unlimited terms?
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2013, 08:55 PM
|
#24
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: A forest in Murovanka.
Posts: 5,721
|
OP is wrong, you don't need anything except a Presidential edict, I recommend you start writing letters immediately!
__________________
TFP4Life!
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2013, 09:11 PM
|
#25
|
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 136
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cubby1223
Your argument goes both ways...
In other words, you support Obama having the chance at re-election to a third term to keep him focused on helping the country, yet at the same time you want to make sure someone unpredictable as Romney cannot possibly swindle his way into unlimited terms?
|
I think he was saying: consider how bad Romney would be in office if he didn't have to worry about getting elected for a second term.
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:00 PM.
|
