Bush For Life - You think I make these things Up?

[thebullet]

Bush for Life: GOP introduces new bill to Congress
author: Colorado Palestine Solidarity Campaign

Republicans have officially started the the campaign to amend the Constitution by repealing the 22nd Amendment - the one that confines the President to two terms. If the Republicans hold their current strength, or increase it, in the 2006 Congressional elections, expect this measure to pass allowing Bush to remain President...

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. (Introduced in House)

Link to motion on Library of Congress Server
(Notice this is on the Library of Congress server, where the current Congressional record is maintained)

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. (Introduced in House)

HJ 24 IH
109th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. J. RES. 24
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 17, 2005

Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SABO, and Mr. ALLONE) 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 22nd amendment to the Constitution.


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`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.'.

 

[Guest]

Whoever in the office, it doesn't seem to matter anymore, though.

Business. Isn' it.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

What we see here is the modern day version of a king grabbing on to his throne and saying "from now on, you're all gonna do as I say! I'm the dictator of this country! Agree with me or off with your head!"

 

[Halo_n_horns]

Canada and Mexico are starting to look mighty attractive...

 

[Guest]

Doesn't the repeal of an amendement still require 3/4 of the State Legislatures to approve?

That would seem to be a tough hurdle.

 

[thebullet]

Doesn't the repeal of an amendement still require 3/4 of the State Legislatures to approve?

That would seem to be a tough hurdle.

You are absolutely correct. The framers of the Constitution made it difficult to amend so that frivolous changes were avoided. Hopefully this frivolous change will also be avoided.

 

[TheEarl]

Personally, I'd be in favour of the repealing of the 22nd Amendment if I was American. Not to keep Bush in power obviously, but if a President has done a good job and could still do a good job and has the support of the people, then I don't see why an arbitrary timelimit should be set on their time in power.

The Earl

 

[rgraham666]

Earl, the Republicans are hoisted on their own petard.

They introduced the 22nd Amendment to ensure that a commie scum-bag like Roosevelt never held power for more than two terms.

They were really pissed when their next President was Eisenhower who could probably have been so forever.

Now they have the power to undo what they now regard as a mistake.

They're such poor winners.

 

[The_Darkness]

I don't think it'll get anywhere. Stupid frivolous crap like that is put before congress all the time. Besides, we dodged the bullet (so to speak) on the Patriot Act when it was first introduced after the Twin Towers attack. There were provisions in it that tied in with previous acts passed that would have made it, shall we say, optional, to have presidential elections during times of war. Considering we have troops at or near almost every on-going conflict in the world, that's not too hard to construe.

Congress isn't stupid. Bush is an extremely poor President. He didn't get elected, he won due to lack of options. I just wish the Dems or Indies would put up a decent candidate.

I should run for President. In another 12 years.

 

[BigAndTall]

Do you know how many times this has come up?

There were supporters of Reagan and Clinton that began moving on that line of thought. Its not going to get anywhere. You can propose a bill making chickens eligable for the draft and it would have as much chance as this.

No you are not making this up, but you are turning a molehill into more than a gopher's mound.

 

[The_Darkness]

Do you know how many times this has come up?

There were supporters of Reagan and Clinton that began moving on that line of thought. Its not going to get anywhere. You can propose a bill making chickens eligable for the draft and it would have as much chance as this.

No you are not making this up, but you are turning a molehill into more than a gopher's mound.

Exactly.

Politics are politics. Today's "hot debate items" have been in circulation (by and large) for the last 100 years or so....and most of them for the last 50 at least. They haven't passed yet and the US has been in worse situations by far in the last century....not real worried about it now. Fringe groups always introduce crap like that to legislature.

 

[TheEarl]

author: Colorado Palestine Solidarity Campaign

That does bother me.

The Earl

 

[The_Darkness]

That does bother me.

The Earl

It should. You should see some of the crazies in Montana and west Texas. *shudder* Some of those boys make soccer fans look like boy scouts.

 

[thebullet]

The Darkness wrote:
They haven't passed yet and the US has been in worse situations by far in the last century....not real worried about it now. Fringe groups always introduce crap like that to legislature.

The difference today, darkness, is that now a fringe group is running the country. This has never happened before.

You are right when you say 'the US has been in worse situations by far in the last century". During the depression we were faced with financial ruin. During the missile crisis we were faced with death. Now we are merely looking at the destruction of the American democracy. No big deal.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Darkness is right, the only reason Bush was elected is because there was only an idiotic "make Edwards one step away from the presidency" option which scared the hell (rightfully) out of many peoples, democrats and republicans.

Everbody knows, even Bush, or is at least resigned to the idea, that it is Hillary's turn to get blown in office next, unless she chooses Edwards as her VP.

The american people and the world want and deserve a US president they can trust, be proud of supporting, and look up to. Who can change the perception of the world that the US is a strong, and peaceful, nation wanting only to co-exist with other peaceful peoples. Hillary ain't it, but thats prolly the only choice we will be given.

Any stupid amendment allowing Bush or chickens to run for re-election is just another slap in the face of americans, and fist in the face of the world, but will make no difference in the end.

Just my opinion.



http://pics.justhosted.co.uk/uploads/8520224cf3.jpg

 

[BlackShanglan]

The difference today, darkness, is that now a fringe group is running the country.

Amazing how they managed to get half the vote, then.

It's easy to dismiss one's opponents as fringe whack-jobs whose ideas have so little merit that no one with a brain could ever support them. Once, however, they've been elected to the presidency - and to a majority in both the House and the Senate - then I think it's the path of wisdom to acknowledge that however little one might like their ideas, they've got more than the lunatic fringe voting for them.

I say this is the path of wisdom, of course, not out of a sense of fairness, toleration, or generosity. I value those things immensely, but I recognize that I'm in quite a small minority when I suggest that they should have a place in the shaping of America's political landscape. Rather, I'll stick to the pragmatic end: it's never wise to underestimate one's opponents (or one's own flaws). Whatever else Bush might be, a fringe player he is not.

Shanglan

 

[The_Darkness]

The difference today, darkness, is that now a fringe group is running the country. This has never happened before.

You are right when you say 'the US has been in worse situations by far in the last century". During the depression we were faced with financial ruin. During the missile crisis we were faced with death. Now we are merely looking at the destruction of the American democracy. No big deal.

Your anger is understandable, but please realize a few things. First of all, it's a representative democracy, which is in fact not a true democracy at all, it's a Republic. A very select minority of the people represent an overwhelming and vastly differentiated population which often has radically conflicting views and ideals. Much as I hate to say it, the Civil War splitting the North and South, Texas staying separate, and the American South West fighting for independance from Mexico but remaining a separate country probably would have been the best thing for the country as we know it.

The fringe groups really don't control anything....otherwise we'd all be driving extremely fuel-efficient cars that never got above 40 miles per hour, red meat would be outlawed and it would be illegal to own pets because it's not kind to the animal to put it in an unnatural environment.

Once again. Not worried. Ultimately it comes down to the power of the people to decide how many of their civil liberties it takes before they rise up. The Constitution is actually designed to support that; the whole of it is riddled with anti-tyrannical jargon and other things such as the impossibility of the creation of a theocracy.

It's all in how we interpret things, and unfortunately, we read most of it with modern eyes and our views are shaded heavily by these fringe groups and media that leans toward one party or another, but rarely reports the straight truth.

 

[The_Darkness]

Lisa. Hot! Er, I mean, Yes!

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Your anger is understandable, but please realize a few things. First of all, it's a representative democracy, which is in fact not a true democracy at all, it's a Republic. A very select minority of the people represent an overwhelming and vastly differentiated population which often has radically conflicting views and ideals. Much as I hate to say it, the Civil War splitting the North and South, Texas staying separate, and the American South West fighting for independance from Mexico but remaining a separate country probably would have been the best thing for the country as we know it.

The fringe groups really don't control anything....otherwise we'd all be driving extremely fuel-efficient cars that never got above 40 miles per hour, red meat would be outlawed and it would be illegal to own pets because it's not kind to the animal to put it in an unnatural environment.

Once again. Not worried. Ultimately it comes down to the power of the people to decide how many of their civil liberties it takes before they rise up. The Constitution is actually designed to support that; the whole of it is riddled with anti-tyrannical jargon and other things such as the impossibility of the creation of a theocracy.

It's all in how we interpret things, and unfortunately, we read most of it with modern eyes and our views are shaded heavily by these fringe groups and media that leans toward one party or another, but rarely reports the straight truth.

A question does have to be asked though. What do you do when the party in power is working steadily to dismantle the represenative democracy we have?

The GOP isn't a fringe movement, by any means, but the people now running the GOP are defintely a fringe. The lunatic, buissineess centric fringe. They owe their power, in no small part to another fringe, the really scary theologically inclined fringe.

The problem with a two party system is that you have to make an either or decision when you reach the ballot box. If the GOP has ben hijacked by a fringe element, they are still the only alternative to the Dems. If you find the Dem's agenda unpalletable, then you have litte choice at the ballot box. I think a lot of people found themselves in that position. Hold you rnose and vote for Bush or hold your nose and vote for Kerry.

There are a lot of people in this country who believe in the right to keep and bear arms.
There is a large group who think coddling criminals only encourages them.
There are a lot of people who think they are already over taxed.
There are a lot of people who believe abortion on demand is wrong.
There are a lot who believe Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.
There are a lot of people who believe their religion shouldn't be banned from the public square.

You can disagree with their stances, but what you can't do is sell them a Democratic ultra liberal as a viable alternative. Without a viable alternative, they hold their nose and vote for Bush. It's the only choice they can make.

What bullet and so many liberals refuse to grasp is that people who voted for Bush aren't uniformly ignorant. They simply have priorities in their lives that preclude voting for a Democrat like John Kerry. They cannot buy into the Democratic, liberal agenda that forms the platform of the party.

The Dems continuing to villify, discount and lampoon them, coupled with a refusal to address their concerns, prety much guarentees they will vote republican again next time around. Not because they love war or Bush or anything else negative you can attribute to this administration, but because they have no option if they wish to see their prime concern addressed.

 

[Lisa Denton]

A question does have to be asked though. What do you do when the party in power is working steadily to dismantle the represenative democracy we have?

The GOP isn't a fringe movement, by any means, but the people now running the GOP are defintely a fringe. The lunatic, buissineess centric fringe. They owe their power, in no small part to another fringe, the really scary theologically inclined fringe.

The problem with a two party system is that you have to make an either or decision when you reach the ballot box. If the GOP has ben hijacked by a fringe element, they are still the only alternative to the Dems. If you find the Dem's agenda unpalletable, then you have litte choice at the ballot box. I think a lot of people found themselves in that position. Hold you rnose and vote for Bush or hold your nose and vote for Kerry.

There are a lot of people in this country who believe in the right to keep and bear arms.
There is a large group who think coddling criminals only encourages them.
There are a lot of people who think they are already over taxed.
There are a lot of people who believe abortion on demand is wrong.
There are a lot who believe Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.
There are a lot of people who believe their religion shouldn't be banned from the public square.

You can disagree with their stances, but what you can't do is sell them a Democratic ultra liberal as a viable alternative. Without a viable alternative, they hold their nose and vote for Bush. It's the only choice they can make.

What bullet and so many liberals refuse to grasp is that people who voted for Bush aren't uniformly ignorant. They simply have priorities in their lives that preclude voting for a Democrat like John Kerry. They cannot buy into the Democratic, liberal agenda that forms the platform of the party.

The Dems continuing to villify, discount and lampoon them, coupled with a refusal to address their concerns, prety much guarentees they will vote republican again next time around. Not because they love war or Bush or anything else negative you can attribute to this administration, but because they have no option if they wish to see their prime concern addressed.

Colly is right, even those republicans wanting to vote for Kerry were unable to consider it when he chose his running mate.



There are a lot of people in this country who believe in the right to keep and bear arms.
And believe in that piece of paper which guarantees them that right, to defend themselves and thier families.

There is a large group who think coddling criminals only encourages them.
But the criminals think its great as they go out to rob, rape, and kill those who want to coddle them. And think the right to keep and bear arms should be a right only guaranteed to criminals.

There are a lot of people who think they are already over taxed.
And realize most of thier taxes go to hire government lawyers to explain the convoluted special interest robbery groups rights voted in by bribed politicians, to the poor working class slobs who have to pay to be fucked, and pay to have it explained to them why they are being fucked.

There are a lot of people who believe abortion on demand is wrong.
And of course these MEN know more about abortion than any woman ever could.

There are a lot who believe Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Or live, homophobia is a dementia causing disease.

There are a lot of people who believe their religion shouldn't be banned from the public square.
Which it shouldn't, any religion, nor should it be embraced or preached in public by a public servant. But a private thing between the individual and whatever gods or dieties they choose to embrace in private, without any government interference whatsoever.



No party seems to believe in what I do, and I am not a republicrat or a demopublican, or an independant nut, I am an American.

Perhaps the next election should have a republican, democrat, independant, and american nomination.

Just my opinion.

 

[BlackShanglan]

No party seems to believe in what I do, and I am not a republicrat or a demopublican, or an independant nut, I am an American.

Perhaps the next election should have a republican, democrat, independant, and american nomination.

Indeed. I thought it fascinating that when the Dems lost the 2000 election by far less than the number of Green Party votes, their uniform reaction was to crucify the Green voters and scream at them for "losing the election for them." It never appears to have occurred to them to offer a more attractive candidate or platform, only to berate and villify people whose votes they assumed they were owed. As someone who voted Green myself, I was alternately amused and disgusted. Evidently the Dems were incapable of grasping or unwilling to accept that there really were people would would rather have four more years of Bush than 20 more years of a two-party system that continued to force us, every four years, to choose between two equally conniving, thoroughly bought-and-sold, ethically bankrupt institutions.

Alas, they seem to have triumphed in the battle of rhetoric, to judge by the thin showing of the Greens in the last presidential election. That's a pity. The sooner this country has more than two viable political parties, the better. To judge by comments here, anyway, there certainly seems to be room both for a financially/foreign policy liberal and socially conservative party and for a financial/foregin policy conservative and socially liberal party.

Shanglan

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Indeed. I thought it fascinating that when the Dems lost the 2000 election by far less than the number of Green Party votes, their uniform reaction was to crucify the Green voters and scream at them for "losing the election for them." It never appears to have occurred to them to offer a more attractive candidate or platform, only to berate and villify people whose votes they assumed they were owed. As someone who voted Green myself, I was alternately amused and disgusted. Evidently the Dems were incapable of grasping or unwilling to accept that there really were people would would rather have four more years of Bush than 20 more years of a two-party system that continued to force us, every four years, to choose between two equally conniving, thoroughly bought-and-sold, ethically bankrupt institutions.

Alas, they seem to have triumphed in the battle of rhetoric, to judge by the thin showing of the Greens in the last presidential election. That's a pity. The sooner this country has more than two viable political parties, the better. To judge by comments here, anyway, there certainly seems to be room both for a financially/foreign policy liberal and socially conservative party and for a financial/foregin policy conservative and socially liberal party.

Shanglan

There is certainly room for two or three more parties. Preferably one that is more moderate and centrist on both Fiscal foerign policy matters and personal freedom, social concious.

The problem is, it takes money to run campaigns and any third party will be up against the war cry of, you're waseting your vote!

For me, the only option is a wasted vote. I'm tired of voting for evil. And I am tired of voting against my own best interests no matter which party I pick.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

A question does have to be asked though. What do you do when the party in power is working steadily to dismantle the represenative democracy we have?

The GOP isn't a fringe movement, by any means, but the people now running the GOP are defintely a fringe. The lunatic, buissineess centric fringe. They owe their power, in no small part to another fringe, the really scary theologically inclined fringe.

The problem with a two party system is that you have to make an either or decision when you reach the ballot box. If the GOP has ben hijacked by a fringe element, they are still the only alternative to the Dems. If you find the Dem's agenda unpalletable, then you have litte choice at the ballot box. I think a lot of people found themselves in that position. Hold you rnose and vote for Bush or hold your nose and vote for Kerry.

There are a lot of people in this country who believe in the right to keep and bear arms.
There is a large group who think coddling criminals only encourages them.
There are a lot of people who think they are already over taxed.
There are a lot of people who believe abortion on demand is wrong.
There are a lot who believe Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.
There are a lot of people who believe their religion shouldn't be banned from the public square.

You can disagree with their stances, but what you can't do is sell them a Democratic ultra liberal as a viable alternative. Without a viable alternative, they hold their nose and vote for Bush. It's the only choice they can make.

What bullet and so many liberals refuse to grasp is that people who voted for Bush aren't uniformly ignorant. They simply have priorities in their lives that preclude voting for a Democrat like John Kerry. They cannot buy into the Democratic, liberal agenda that forms the platform of the party.

The Dems continuing to villify, discount and lampoon them, coupled with a refusal to address their concerns, prety much guarentees they will vote republican again next time around. Not because they love war or Bush or anything else negative you can attribute to this administration, but because they have no option if they wish to see their prime concern addressed.

I've been trying to say this since well before election time. Nicely done, Colleen.

Q_C

 

[BlackShanglan]

There is certainly room for two or three more parties. Preferably one that is more moderate and centrist on both Fiscal foerign policy matters and personal freedom, social concious.

The problem is, it takes money to run campaigns and any third party will be up against the war cry of, you're waseting your vote!

For me, the only option is a wasted vote. I'm tired of voting for evil. And I am tired of voting against my own best interests no matter which party I pick.

Agreed. I was introduced early to the concept that although what one votes is never revealed, whether one votes is a matter of public record. I want it on record that people of my demographic group vote, and I want to let the two main parties know that neither of them produced a candidate worth voting for.

Shanglan

 

[BigAndTall]

There is certainly room for two or three more parties. Preferably one that is more moderate and centrist on both Fiscal foerign policy matters and personal freedom, social concious.

The problem is, it takes money to run campaigns and any third party will be up against the war cry of, you're waseting your vote!

For me, the only option is a wasted vote. I'm tired of voting for evil. And I am tired of voting against my own best interests no matter which party I pick.

Agreed. Not only that but you would see the far left and far right form their own group so that they can be marginalised as they should.