Res to Repeal the 22nd Amendment

[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 Should the 22nd be repealed, should it remain as it is, or should it be strengthened to a limit of one term?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/termlimits.asp

 

[MomentsofSanity]

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 Should the 22nd be repealed, should it remain as it is, or should it be strengthened to a limit of one term?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.

 

[EagleKeeper]

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

 

[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.

 

[xj0hnx]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Incorruptible]

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.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

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.

 

[Jaskalas]

The voters should get the President they want, for as long as they want.

 

[ElFenix]

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?

 

[ichy]

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.

 

[ichy]

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%.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

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.

 

[Jaskalas]

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...

 

[sm625]

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.

 

[ivwshane]

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!

 

[drebo]

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.

 

[Anarchist420]

so, the 13th amendment sucks?

It does because it kept the slavery issue a national one.

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.

 

[ElFenix]

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.

 

[Smoblikat]

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.

 

[RampantAndroid]

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.

 

[cubby1223]

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?

 

[Nintendesert]

OP is wrong, you don't need anything except a Presidential edict, I recommend you start writing letters immediately!

 

[GreenMeters]

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.