Should the Twenty Second Amendment be Repealed?

The Fishing Geek · 04-11-2003, 04:16 PM

The text of the proposed Constitutional Amendment is simple:

`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.'.

The Twenty Second Amendment limits the President of the United States of America to two terms.

Regardless of how you feel about the current occupant of the office, should the 22nd Amendment be repealed? Why or why not?

04-11-2003, 04:37 PM

Only if there is a democrat in charge? We don't need the concentration of power that this will create. [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img]

Cool Texan · 04-11-2003, 04:44 PM

Gotta go No on this one. I like the transitions of political leaders.

STGRule · 04-11-2003, 04:49 PM

I agree, my vote is no. I'm guessing there was some reason for it in the first place. I think I would rather have the changing of the guard to keep the ups and downs from being too steep.

Straydog · 04-11-2003, 06:11 PM

Nope. Too much opportunity for too much power to too few people.

Lepper · 04-11-2003, 06:32 PM

gotta say no..

Sea Nymph · 04-11-2003, 08:13 PM

for a pres. i don't like it's too long. for one i do like, it's too short (all of which depends on re-election). kind of evens out in the long run so i vote no.

sn

The Fishing Geek · 04-11-2003, 08:14 PM

Okay, here comes a yes vote. For the longest time I felt as most of you do, that term limits (presidential or otherwise) were necessary to make sure that we don't have what has been called "career politicians". However, the more I thought about it the more it occurred to me that We The People are the ones who keep voting them back into office. If the office holder is doing a bad job, it is up to us to vote them out.

In essence, term limits of any kind are the majority of the people saying that the majority of the people aren't smart/aware enough to know when to remove a bad apple from the barrel. Personally I find it easy to know simply by paying attention.

On the flip side, term limits force a possibly effective politian (they're rare, but they do exist) out of office. What I perceive to be one of the problems here in Oregon is that you end up with too many inexperienced politicians in office who simply aren't effective.

I'm pretty certain that the 22nd Amendment was passed after FDR died, and if I remember correctly it was because Congress didn't like how he had controlled them for so long.

True · 04-11-2003, 08:42 PM

Isn't this how dictatorships get started?

By the way, when I first looked at the title I thought that it was an amendment to making whoopee last longer than 20 seconds.

That's enough for me bartender!

True

The Fishing Geek · 04-11-2003, 08:54 PM

How would a dictatorship get started that way if we are still allowed to have elections which have safeguards for election tampering in place?

True · 04-11-2003, 08:59 PM

Allowed to have elections? If you like the administration vote in the vice president for the third (and fourth) term. I'm sorry but it scares me to think that someone could be in power for that long.

I look at what the PRI did to Mexico. They'll be recovering from that one for a long time. Sure they were voted in and elections were held but it may as well have been a corrupt dictatorship that had taken over...

True

The Fishing Geek · 04-11-2003, 09:06 PM

But if that person is in power for that long in America, it's the will of the people, isn't it?

I'm opening it up across the board, and not just saying "Only if it's a [fill in the party name here]". If I'm in the minority for a dozen years, then that's my problem.

Mexico is an entirely different, and electorally-corrupt, situation.

04-11-2003, 09:11 PM

With one party in control of the Justice Department for to long this will (has in some districts) happen.

Quote:

electorally-corrupt

lost_sailor · 04-12-2003, 10:26 AM

two words come to mind:

(the late) Saddam Hussein

Like the Geek, I used to think term limits were stupid - just vote!

But unfortunately, getting elected is all about money, and the person in office can raise more money than their opponent (broad generalization, but widely accepted).

I suspect it's a good thing that control of Congress, & the White House changes now and then. Not that I see much difference between the Ds and Rs anymore. I wouldn't want 20 straight years of Bush OR Gore.

BonkBonkBonk · 04-12-2003, 12:00 PM

the constitution is already eroded to the point of uselessness, why not

Snapset · 04-12-2003, 12:08 PM

I voted no but if it were to be changed, I would not allow 2 consecutive terms. Any one person could be elected as many times as they can manage, but for every term they serve, they have to take a term off. This would eliminate the unfair advantage of incumbency, and force the voters to view the presidency of a politician through the lens of time, which would add perspective.

Tilla · 04-12-2003, 12:21 PM

I think you need to flush the toilet every once in awhile.

Cool Texan · 04-12-2003, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tilla:
I think you need to flush the toilet every once in awhile.

mirage · 04-12-2003, 05:47 PM

presidential officeshould change to one single 6 year term. hopefuly, the president would be more of a statemen-like not as beholding to party or reelection. thinking about how much tv time and money will be spend till nov. 2004 :depressed:

feisty's wife · 04-13-2003, 06:53 PM

Do you really think your vote makes any differance, after the last election?

highdesertdrifter · 04-13-2003, 08:25 PM

I always thought the first term was spent getting elected to the second term.

04-13-2003, 08:33 PM

feisty,

The only votes Flordia that weren't counted were the Absente Millitary votes. The regular ballots in some districts were recounted several times. The fianal outcome came out the same every on recount.

Here's how the President is elected.
Constitution

Clause 3: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President. (See Note 8)

Silver Hilton · 04-13-2003, 08:44 PM

Keta,

It's pretty well documented that the person who administers the elections in florida, I forget her name, essentially committed fraud in removing black voters from the ballot. Something like 9000 voters were removed, and about 50% of them were done so without basis. Since Florida black voters, for some reason tend to vote about 90% democratic, and the person who made the deceision to remove these people, erroneously and illegally, was republican, it's hard to avoid the impression that Bush was elected illegally. At least that's what the BBC and most reputable foreign journalists thinks.

The local news was seduced by the fox news coverage, which was led by a fellow wwho happens to be George Bush's cousin. Hm-m-m-m-m.

Source, Micheal Moore's angry white men. Not unbiased, but well attributed.

Hoosier Daddy · 04-14-2003, 08:14 AM

I used to be in favor of no term-limits for state and local office but limits on the pres. I'm thinking maybe that's backwards now. Kind of like TFG said. We could pull the limit on the pres., we all have a pretty good idea of what is going on in our national government. However, we aren't typically as up on the local scene because it often gets less media coverage, unless you make a concerted effort to get involved with it that is....so we would be less likely to know who is doing what in our local governments. So.....use the vote to get pres. in or out, and use votes and term-limits to handle state and local, would be my 2 cents......for now....

The Fishing Geek · 04-14-2003, 08:29 AM

That would be Katherine Harris you are speaking of, SH.

And "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast is another great read, not only for the Bush 2000 election stuff but much more. Highly recommend it.

04-14-2003, 10:01 AM

There were only problems in districts that were controlled by the "other party". Why weren't the military absentee ballots counted in these districts.
LINK

Quote:

The controversy over uncounted military absentee ballots in Florida in the recent 2000 Presidential election highlights a longstanding problem which has continued to persist. We are led to believe, however, that the large percentage of overseas military ballots that were set aside and not counted during this election was not at all unusual. The percentage of discounted ballots was similar in the 1996 and 1998 Federal elections as well. What was different this year was the closeness of the Presidential election and the distinct possibility that military absentee ballots may have provided the winning edge in the election

Michael Moore is a liar and if you rely on him for facts you are .......

[ 04-14-2003, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Keta ]

The Fishing Geek · 04-14-2003, 10:57 AM

Greg Palast's book has scans of the Choicepoint contract, so it's legit. Here's an article about it.

Truthfully, Gore lost that election on his own. It should have never been so close as to come down to a few thousand votes.

[ 04-14-2003, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: The Fishing Geek ]

04-14-2003, 12:11 PM

Geek,
It came down to the one that you had to hold your nose the loosest. Bush has been better than I feared but he is up to some of the same stupidity that daddy pulled.

Uglygreen · 04-14-2003, 01:23 PM

I think the vetting process we have now is fine.

The same logic that the Geek makes about voting out idiots if there were no limits applys to voting idiots into office in the first place, limits or not.

Plus the 22nd amendment limits it to two consecutive terms in office. Nothing says that an truly effective politician can not take four years off and then run for another term or two. For example Clinton or Bush Sr. could run for office again in the next election if they so choose.

UG

Uglygreen · 04-14-2003, 01:29 PM

Quote:

At least that's what the BBC and most reputable foreign journalists thinks.

LMAO!!!

Who would those be? Al Jazerra? Abu Dhabi? Maybe French TV?

UG

Hoosier Daddy · 04-14-2003, 02:34 PM

once again, hopefully for the last time...
Gore lost, get over it.

The Fishing Geek · 04-14-2003, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hoosier Daddy:
once again, hopefully for the last time...
Gore lost, get over it.

Human rights violations don't have a time limit, as far as I know. And the right for American's to vote is a right, after all.

However, this is getting off topic so this is the last I will speak to that well-worn issue.

At least in this thread.

OuhtforTrouht · 04-14-2003, 02:49 PM

And Dubya with the help of that idiot Kathryn Harris,his brother Bubba and the Inferior Court stole it! Remember he didn't win,he was appointed.

Hoosier Daddy · 04-14-2003, 03:01 PM

That's more than a bit of a stretch. People can't figure out how to adequately punch out those mind boggling little chads and that's a human rights issue???
Wha?? :shocked:

OK, if someone was monkeying with the electoral process they should pay for it. But were any charges filed against anyone for this stuff??

Gotta go, the black choppers are circling...

[ 04-14-2003, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: Hoosier Daddy ]

Cool Texan · 04-14-2003, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by OuhtforTrouht:
And Dubya with the help of that idiot Kathryn Harris,his brother Bubba and the Inferior Court stole it! Remember he didn't win,he was appointed.

Hoosier Daddy · 04-14-2003, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by OuhtforTrouht:
And Dubya with the help of that idiot Kathryn Harris,his brother Bubba and the Inferior Court stole it! Remember he didn't win,he was appointed.

...and how bright do you have to be to be outsmarted by an idiot, a guy named Bubba, and an inferior court????

FallRiverGuy · 04-14-2003, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hoosier Daddy:
OK, if someone was monkeying with the electoral process they should pay for it. But were any charges filed against anyone for this stuff??

Gotta go, the black choppers are circling...

Check out: this link It has happened before and likely will again.

lost_sailor · 04-14-2003, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hoosier Daddy:
That's more than a bit of a stretch. People can't figure out how to adequately punch out those mind boggling little chads and that's a human rights issue???

I whole mess of people were turned away from the polls due to their skin color. Just the facts, ma'am.

Yeah, I'm over it.

The Fishing Geek · 04-14-2003, 04:46 PM

Hoosier:

Read my link, please.

Lured In · 04-14-2003, 08:02 PM

While I agree that in a perfect world, the citizens of this country would remain involved and up to date on all facets of government activities. Unfortunately, that is not the case and the vast majority of us simply cannot afford the time to keep up on everything going on in WA D.C. (or Salem or Olympia for that matter).

As a result, IMHO many simply vote for the same guy they voted for last time or for the incumbent, or the handsome guy or the well spoken guy. The result is a "false" representation of the election. Yes they voted, but they might as well have included their lotery numbers on the ballot. Or maybe they should have an electoral "quick pick" for a selection on the ballot. A computer randomly selects the candidate you voted for. [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img]

So I think having term limits is a good thing and provides the necessary "toilet flushing" that Tilla referred to.

Personally I would be BIG TIME in favor of shorter term limits in Congress, as well. Somewhere along the line, I believe we lost touch with the fact that the government is "of the people, by the people and for the people." As a member of the "people", i would love to have the chance to run for Congress without having to dump millions of dollars into an election campaign. Additionally, I do not believe for a minute, that most politicians have any better skills in running this country than the average Joe.

Regarding the election of GW, maybe some have forgotten that in the 1992 election, Clinton only got 42% of the vote. Last time I checked that was not a majority. The electoral college exists for a reason and while not perfect (what is?), I believe it works and protects the votes of those states that are not as populous as others.

I saw an interesting graph once, showing the counties that voted for Gore vs. Bush. By county, Bush won something like 85% of the counties in the country. [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img]

The Fishing Geek · 04-14-2003, 08:10 PM

I don't think it is an issue of people not having time to research the candidates. Instead, I think it is gross voter apathy. Generally, people simply don't care about politics anymore, and many of them have just given up. It's sad.

Hoosier Daddy · 04-15-2003, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lost_sailor:

I whole mess of people were turned away from the polls due to their skin color. Just the facts, ma'am.

Yeah, I'm over it.

[/QB]

According to Geeks link they were turned away because they were felons.
Obviously, I get the racial component of that as well.
However, lets not miss any steps and say they were turned away because of the color of their skin. They were turned away because of their background, and a majority of those with that background were non-whites. I get that. Obviously still a very discriminatory practice, as the courts in Florida said. Just the facts ma'am.

Sounds like Jeb and Harris violated the law. Hang them for it.

"However, the media have completely missed the fact that Florida's own courts have repeatedly told the Governor he may not take away the civil rights of Florida citizens who committed crimes in other states, served their time and had their rights restored by those states."

Repeatedly, as in before the election of 2000?

I agree this whole thing is a shame and that people should pay for it. But it looks as if it was standard practice for Jeb and da Boyz prior to the election, which makes it hard for me to see where the conspiracy lies in regards to getting Dubya elected. But it's still wrong and patently illegal according to the courts in Florida, if I'm reading it right.

IMPEACH BUBBA JEB!! Seriously, this does sound like something he should be popped for.

My favorite quote of the article, and I know its WAY out of context is this one....
".....for example, 93 percent of felons of all races favored Bill Clinton in 1996....."

I just love the way that sounds!!! (and yes it would still be funny it it read Bush instead!!)

snowball · 04-15-2003, 10:36 AM

im all about term limits, however, for any flack i may get, i would have liked to see another 4 years with Pres. Clinton-- the pool of candidates this last election was lack luster to say the least....