Bill introduced into Congress to repeal 22nd amendment

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MacGeek7, Jan 19, 2009.

?

Do you think the bill to repeal the 22nd amendment will pass?

  1. Yes

    1 vote(s)
    1.5%
  2. No

    59 vote(s)
    90.8%
  3. Not sure

    5 vote(s)
    7.7%
  1. MacGeek7 macrumors 6502a

    MacGeek7

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    #1
  2. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #2
    Not too much, unless all parties and the public agreed to it.

    Doing it, because you can, really would add to the current fights between the parties.

    Might as well let Arnold run for President.
     
  3. Schtumple macrumors 601

    Schtumple

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Location:
    benkadams.com
    #3
    Wouldn't that just open the flood gates for dictatorship though? (If the wrong person were to get in...)

    I guess having just 2 terms of a presidency can have it's limitations, but still, that's 8 whole years of the same person, that's enough time for alot of things to be done...
     
  4. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #4
    It's a pretty terrible idea. ...If he were immortal, I suspect FDR would still be president. If history's any judge, a clever ruler can gain the support of the people, even when he doesn't support their best interests.

    I think the President should be limited to one 6-year term, thus eliminating the wasted time spent campaigning for reelection.
     
  5. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #5
    Do we really want to see Bill Clinton vs George W. Bush in the next election?

    Of course with the way the last few months have gone I doubt Bush would run again. Bill would run again in a heartbeat if there weren't any legal restriction to doing so.

    I'm not a fan of letting the president serve more than one term anyway. I really don't like the idea that they are going to be trying to position themselves for reelection before they even really start the job. Of course the 2 year terms of Congressmen/women also seems quite ludicrous since they basically spend half their time campaigning...
     
  6. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #6
    Prior to 1947 there wasn't a POTUS term limit yet no dictatorships cropped up. Removing the term limit would help prevent the POTUS from becoming a political lame duck during his second term and the 22nd Amendment was largely a partisan effort against FDR, IIRC.


    Lethal
     
  7. MacGeek7 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    MacGeek7

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    #7
    Even though the 22nd amendment wasn't ratified until 1947, presidents followed Washington's example of refusing to run for a 3rd time up until FDR.
     
  8. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #8
    Yes, but only in that can't-take-my-eyes-off-the-traincrash kind of way. Watching Bill Clinton versus Bush, 2012, would be like watching that jam session at the end of each Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame induction - you can't decide whether you are watching something historically incredible, or watching incredibly horrible.
     
  9. Benjamindaines macrumors 68030

    Benjamindaines

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Location:
    A religiously oppressed state
    #9
    I personally don't see a problem with it, if a president is doing a good job, and can continue to get a majority vote he / she should be allowed to stay president for as long as the American people are happy with them.
     
  10. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #10
    Agreed. I don't think it's a bad idea to repeal this. If a President wins a 3rd term it was because the country thought he did a well enough job the last two times around.
     
  11. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #11
    Do you think the German people would have voted Hitler out of office?

    The people, as pessimistic as it sounds, cannot be trusted.
     
  12. Benjamindaines macrumors 68030

    Benjamindaines

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Location:
    A religiously oppressed state
    #12
    If this does get appealed will it effect Obama or will it take place after him as salary changes would?
     
  13. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #13
    FDR was the first to be POTUS for more than two terms but not the first to attempt it. Washington didn't intend to set a precedent he was just ready to retire. In his farewell address he even says he didn't want to initially seek a second term but eventually changed his mind after talking to his advisors and taking account the state of the country at the time.

    I guess I don't see the need for the 22nd Amendment. Our country did fine for over 100 years w/o it and it didn't get created because we needed it but because of a partisan political action against FDR. I mean, the Republicans were pissed at FDR so for the last 60 years we've had POTUS term limits. It seems rather arbitrary and unnecessary, IMO.


    Lethal
     
  14. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #14
    The German people never voted Hitler into office.


    Lethal
     
  15. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #15
    Not true. The 22nd amendment was introduced in 1947, two years after the death of FDR, and was ratified four years later. It was certainly introduced in response to FDR's 4-term reign as president, but in no way did it affect him.
     
  16. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #16
    It's not quite so necessary there. Incumbency is a huge advantage in congressional elections.
     
  17. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #17
    What difference would it make?

    If it went into effect after his second term then he'd be eligible for a third term, unless we explicitly ruled out those who had served 6 years or more as president prior to the amendment going active.
     
  18. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #18
    I agree but this didnt sit very well with the bastards in congress who all want to be #1. Its why the senate never got term limits. These guys all crave control and power and thought by limiting the Pres they would have a better chance.
     
  19. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #19
    I didn't mean to imply that it affected FDR directly as obviously he was long dead by then.


    Lethal
     
  20. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #20
    I think the Second World war had a lot to do with Roosevelt's political longevity. Voters tend not to change leadership in the midst of a crisis so long as the President is not the cause of the crisis.

    I don't see a point in fiddling with the amendment.
     
  21. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
  22. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #22
    I hear Clinton's ears perked up a little.....:p
     
  23. MacGeek7 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    MacGeek7

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    #23
    According to WorldNetDaily this isn't the first time it's happened.

    Now the question is will it pass?
     
  24. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #24
    I'm guessing no, for two reasons. First, it's been sent to a committee, which is one way to kill a bill. The committee will hem and haw over it for a while and then shelve it and move on. It's a kind of purgatory for unwanted bills.

    Second, we have more pressing issues these days.
     
  25. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.

Share This Page