Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States

[IggyD]

There is a bill right now making its way through House committees to be judged on whether or not it should go to the floor of the entire House of Representatives..... The official title of the bill is "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution" .

 

Here is the 22nd Amendment in its entirety:

 

Amendment XXII - Presidential Term Limits. Ratified 2/27/1951. History

 

1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

 

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

 

This bill was introduced to the House committees February 17, 2005... The last action performed on the bill was April 4, 2005 when it was referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

 

Our elected officials are changing the very document that is the law of the land, which protects us while at the same time limiting them!

 

Call your representatives Here on H.J. Resolution 24... If they support the bill, they are not keeping their sworn pledge to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States.

[kapkomet]

Pass the crackpipe while you're at it. It will never pass, which is why there has been nothing happen on this bill since 18 months ago.

[FlaSoxxJim]

To Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SABO, and Mr. PALLONE):

 

[Rex Kickass]

Frank Pallone is my congressman.

[Texsox]

Term limits are wrong, for any office. The public should be allowed to vote for who they choose. If they really like someone, they should be allowed to elect them for ever and ever.

[kapkomet]

Term limits are wrong, for any office. The public should be allowed to vote for who they choose. If they really like someone, they should be allowed to elect them for ever and ever.

Pffffffft.

 

[GoodAsGould]

the only time id want a constant president is if we are in the middle of a war, like a world war, other than that im good with the 2 term limit.

[jackie hayes]

C'mon, this would be f'n awesome. Clinton v Clinton in the 2008 Dem primary? Who wouldn't pay to see that?

[southsider2k5]

If you really want to protect against being fed the same crap during the election cycle, this bill doesn't matter. If you really want to change things, get rid of private funding for races. Set it up so the government gives a base amount for an election cycle of a particular race, and type of office. After you have spent that amount, you are done. That way the race becomes about message and debate, instead of who can raise and spend the most money.

[NorthSideSox72]

If you really want to protect against being fed the same crap during the election cycle, this bill doesn't matter. If you really want to change things, get rid of private funding for races. Set it up so the government gives a base amount for an election cycle of a particular race, and type of office. After you have spent that amount, you are done. That way the race becomes about message and debate, instead of who can raise and spend the most money.

I'd be OK with a cap on private funding in total (not the current per contributor thing that is easy to get around). So any one candidate can spend X amount of money up to the primaries, another X amount to the generals. And it should be a smallish number (say 1 million for Prez, 500k for US Congress seats, etc.). This somewhat levels the playing field, but still forces the candidates to show they can do some basic fundraising, which is not a bad thing.

 

Here is the catch, though - what about money spent just to get on a ballot? How do you limit that, since up to that point, they aren't even officially a candidate yet? Anyone have any ideas?

 

And to further SS2K5's point, I think that TV and radio time should be evened up as well.

[Texsox]

If you really want to protect against being fed the same crap during the election cycle, this bill doesn't matter. If you really want to change things, get rid of private funding for races. Set it up so the government gives a base amount for an election cycle of a particular race, and type of office. After you have spent that amount, you are done. That way the race becomes about message and debate, instead of who can raise and spend the most money.

 

How do you respond to the people that say you are infringing on my right to free speech if I privately fund a commercial for my candidate? Think someone like the Swiftees?

[NorthSideSox72]

How do you respond to the people that say you are infringing on my right to free speech if I privately fund a commercial for my candidate? Think someone like the Swiftees?

Here is the problem with that argument (sorry, I'm totally budging into this argument)...

 

There are some dynamics in politics and government, and their relationships with private citizens and businesses, where goal alignment creates a permanent dissonance. For example... I don't think institutional health care (hospitals, EMS and accordant funding) should be allowed to be privatized. Why? Because the goal of private business (for-profit) is to make money. And that primary goal will never be aligned with providing good health care. (***Please don't start arguing about health care, which is a whole different animal - I was just making a parallel)

 

Looking now at the election puzzle... spending gobs of private money on electing candidates is never going to allow for true political process to take place. So, for me, the compromise (private spending caps, evening out TV and radio time) allows for fundraising and ingenuity, but it prevents big brother from meddling in the outcome of elections. Its a balance between free speech and a good election process.

[Texsox]

Here is the problem with that argument (sorry, I'm totally budging into this argument)...

 

There are some dynamics in politics and government, and their relationships with private citizens and businesses, where goal alignment creates a permanent dissonance. For example... I don't think institutional health care (hospitals, EMS and accordant funding) should be allowed to be privatized. Why? Because the goal of private business (for-profit) is to make money. And that primary goal will never be aligned with providing good health care. (***Please don't start arguing about health care, which is a whole different animal - I was just making a parallel)

 

Looking now at the election puzzle... spending gobs of private money on electing candidates is never going to allow for true political process to take place. So, for me, the compromise (private spending caps, evening out TV and radio time) allows for fundraising and ingenuity, but it prevents big brother from meddling in the outcome of elections. Its a balance between free speech and a good election process.

 

But if I, as an individual, want to take an ad out telling everyone why I think Mike would be a great school board member, shouldn't I be allowed to do that? Who should be stopping me? The candidate? I won't tell him. The government? That would be censoring me. Should this site be barred from talking about his candidacy?

 

Also, wouldn't we be crippling some industries that get a big boost every election cycle. What happens to the sign shops, printing shops, etc. Somebody is making all that red, white, and blue paint,

[NorthSideSox72]

But if I, as an individual, want to take an ad out telling everyone why I think Mike would be a great school board member, shouldn't I be allowed to do that? Who should be stopping me? The candidate? I won't tell him. The government? That would be censoring me. Should this site be barred from talking about his candidacy?

 

Also, wouldn't we be crippling some industries that get a big boost every election cycle. What happens to the sign shops, printing shops, etc. Somebody is making all that red, white, and blue paint,

I'm not too worried on the sign makers.

 

But your point about individual free speech is a good one. Maybe you have a cap on each individual and business on spending for political purposes? Sounds good, except it would be a nightmare to enforce. I don't have a perfect answer for it. Its definitely a tough issue.

[Texsox]

On the surface, I always have liked a plan like SS. Then the discussion turns to individual rights and things get confused for me. I belive disclosure of who is spending for whom, is a great tool, but not always an accurate predictor of the candidate's views.

[southsider2k5]

How do you respond to the people that say you are infringing on my right to free speech if I privately fund a commercial for my candidate? Think someone like the Swiftees?

You have free speech still. YOU can go tell anyone you want to go do whatever you want. What wouldn't be able to be done, is for you to call your party chairman to get the gameplan straight. Also I have made this arguement before, but I have a hard time buying the arguement that free speech=$. It is an inherently unequal from the start when the ability to spend money is equated to free speech, because not everyone has disposable income. It literally becomes a separate but equal situation in my mind.

[IggyD]

If you really want to protect against being fed the same crap during the election cycle, this bill doesn't matter. If you really want to change things, get rid of private funding for races. Set it up so the government gives a base amount for an election cycle of a particular race, and type of office. After you have spent that amount, you are done. That way the race becomes about message and debate, instead of who can raise and spend the most money.

 

 

Bingo....

[longshot7]

agree with Tex's first reply. Term limits are un-American. Don't like the person in office- vote them out! Clinton would probably still be in office.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

If you really want to protect against being fed the same crap during the election cycle, this bill doesn't matter. If you really want to change things, get rid of private funding for races. Set it up so the government gives a base amount for an election cycle of a particular race, and type of office. After you have spent that amount, you are done. That way the race becomes about message and debate, instead of who can raise and spend the most money.

 

 

While you're at it. All the Lobbyists in Washington need to be sent packing. Im sick and tired of groups buying influence in Washington.

[Texsox]

While you're at it. All the Lobbyists in Washington need to be sent packing. Im sick and tired of groups buying influence in Washington.

 

Even when I agree with the cause, I hate that bit of politics. I was invited to travel with a group promoting a manufacturing program that was being cut back. We got the money restored. I realized that it was a giant hand job. They pretend to cut, voters arrive and ask for help, they help restore a couple million dollar project and we go home and vote for the congressman.

 

 

BTW, when term limits are discussed basically people want the other sides incumbents tossed out.

[mr_genius]

While you're at it. All the Lobbyists in Washington need to be sent packing. Im sick and tired of groups buying influence in Washington.

 

totally

 

it's one of, if not the biggest, problem in government.

 

it's basically legalized bribes.

Edited October 4, 2006 by mr_genius

[Soxbadger]

I dont see the big problem with letting people run as many times as they want.

 

If the person is the best for the job, why should we be denied them just because they only get 8 years?

[southsider2k5]

I dont see the big problem with letting people run as many times as they want.

 

If the person is the best for the job, why should we be denied them just because they only get 8 years?

 

Absolute power corrupts absoultely.

[Texsox]

Absolute power corrupts absoultely.

 

AKA the public is stupid and can't stop voting for a crook. Name another legal job that you actually get worse at doing instead of better with experience?

[southsider2k5]

AKA the public is stupid and can't stop voting for a crook. Name another legal job that you actually get worse at doing instead of better with experience?

 

There seems to be a pretty solid history of length in power and corruption as I understand history. Things like the Daley Machine and Tammany Hall didn't happen over night. And to be honest, just because the public votes for a crook, they probably don't even know they were/are a crook.