The 22nd amendment should be removed

Tinkerpeach said:
It doesn't have to go through Congress.
Click to expand...

Correct. I watched the RW fucking morons ramble on about a Constitutional Convention for years. For some reason they think 1) 2/3 of all states will agree on a single Amendment when even half of Congress can't do it and 2) they think 3/4 of the states will ratify it.

FWIW, I'd rather go the other way; impose term limits on both Congress and and age-limit on SCOTUS. Barring that, an annual competency exam and regular drug and alcohol testing. Those are the rules they imposed on others and I see no reason for them to not be subjected to the same.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Thanks!:cool:
Click to expand...

God bless America!

5gmrkj.jpg
 
Doc Dutch said:
Correct. I watched the RW fucking morons ramble on about a Constitutional Convention for years. For some reason they think 1) 2/3 of all states will agree on a single Amendment when even half of Congress can't do it and 2) they think 3/4 of the states will ratify it.

FWIW, I'd rather go the other way; impose term limits on both Congress and and age-limit on SCOTUS. Barring that, an annual competency exam and regular drug and alcohol testing. Those are the rules they imposed on others and I see no reason for them to not be subjected to the same.
Click to expand...

If enough people want it they can pass it.

If they could pass the 18th and 21st amendments they may be able to pass a new one regarding term limits.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Y’all do realize that it was a Republican political movement that lead to the passage of the 22nd amendment?
Click to expand...

the "movement" began as soon as the nation was born. Heated debates over how to limit the power that would necessarily be held by one man was discussed form the inception

the Senate approved term-limit resolutions in 1824 and 1826 only to be rejected by the house (The GOP was not yet a thing)
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Our government, deliberately designed to be inefficient because nobody envisioned how polarized we would eventually get,
doesn't do much on a national level unless both chambers of the legislature and the POTUS
are on the same page.
Click to expand...

I smell burning toast

what you wrote is complete nonsense. They made it inefficient on purpose because they didn't know how polarized things would be?

yeah dude. the real problem with democracy is people like you get to cancel out people that have a clue
 
Would a change of the Constitution be necessary to impose age limits on elected federal officials?
I suggest the age of 75. It will be their last term if one reaches that age while in office.
 
zymurgy said:
the "movement" began as soon as the nation was born. Heated debates over how to limit the power that would necessarily be held by one man was discussed form the inception

the Senate approved term-limit resolutions in 1824 and 1826 only to be rejected by the house (The GOP was not yet a thing)
Click to expand...

I’m not saying that isn’t true. I’m saying in this actual instance, when FDR broke from precedence, as soon as Rebuplicans had the chance and the power it became a GOP party platform to pass a 22nd amendment banning the President from serving more than two full terms.

In fact what had been a tradition became law. That’s a significant difference. It wasn’t unpopular at the time. Ya know and it was for a long time till FDR broke with tradition. The GOP saw this like the Romans when Sulla marched on Rome.

In other words they wanted to make sure that never happened again. Apparently the American public agreed.

So what’s changed to make it unpopular or is it unpopular?
 
It's an interesting issue, with multiple sides and unintended consequences.

There's been a longtime commonly held opinion that two terms is enough for a president. So it just sort of became a tradition.

What changed with FDR? Well, he was a pretty revolutionary president who did great leading the nation through the Great Depression, and as the 1940 election arrived, his third, public opinion was strongly against entering WWII which he disagreed with. So he had unusually strong reasons to want to run.

If he hadn't, one of the contenders was Joseph Kennedy, JFK's father, who lost his position in government when as Ambassador to England, had said basically England was a lost cause to the Nazis. Not who FDR would want in office. So he ran and won.

Where the 22nd comes from is the wonderful Republican Party practicing the petty politics it's so good at - it was an era of McCarthyism and Nixon and overthrowing democracies to install tyrants and military leadership who wanted global nuclear war. Funny thing, it was widely agreed Eisenhower would have won a third term if he ran. Not many presidents since would win a third term, maybe Clinton and Obama.

The bigger principle is that on the one hand, it's meant to be a safeguard against a president with too much power, 'dictator for life'. To protect against when something has prevented democracy from changing leaders. On the other hand, when a president has that much power, they might get around it - other leaders, like Putin, have. And it does deny voters the chance if there's an FDR.

It's mostly a different issue between the president and Congress on term limits. IMO, for Congress they backfire, weakening government and increasing corruption, including removing experience and accountability to voters.

If the 22nd was removed, would it bring tyranny of some president for life, or would it bring a great third term of a president? Who knows, it could go either way. But given only one president stands out for the third term being important, it doesn't seem a compelling issue. We'd have been a lot better off with a Clinton third term, but people like change also.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
The options for American voters should not be limited by artificial term limits.

If the president is a very good president we shouldn't be denied his leadership for some arbitrary rule.

Term limits are a horrible idea, this is why we have the power to vote, if someone is not performing their duties we simply vote them out of office, they shouldn't have to be removed if they are wanted by the majority of the people.
Click to expand...

Actually, I say one term for everyone.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
The options for American voters should not be limited by artificial term limits.

If the president is a very good president we shouldn't be denied his leadership for some arbitrary rule.

Term limits are a horrible idea, this is why we have the power to vote, if someone is not performing their duties we simply vote them out of office, they shouldn't have to be removed if they are wanted by the majority of the people.
Click to expand...

No surprise you support Trump as dictator
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top