Hope and Change: Move to repeal presidential term limits started

[stephanie]

some links in article.
posted at 5:00 pm on January 13, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Maybe I’m just being too cynical, but somehow I doubt that Rep. José Serrano introduced HJ Res 5 in order to allow George W Bush to run for a third term in office. One week ago, the New York Democrat introduced a measure to repeal the 22nd Amendment, which provides the only term limit on federal office — the Presidency. The amendment, added in 1951, restricts anyone from seeking a third term in office, and Serrano wants that repealed.heres the billhttp://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj111-5

Why now? Apparently, the notion of Hope and Change has overwhelmed Serrano to the point that he just can’t stand to see Barack Obama limited to two terms in office. Never mind the fact that Obama has yet to start his first term, and no one knows yet whether he’d get re-elected in 2012. Maybe it’s that New Deal vibe; Serrano may want to prepare the way for a more tangible comparison between Obama and FDR in 2016 and 2020.
Of course, a repeal wouldn’t just apply to Obama.

What other former President might decide he wants to return to the White House? Someone who couldn’t quite close the deal by having his wife run for the office?
Normally, I don’t like term limits, but the office of the presidency has enough power to make the 22nd Amendment a reasonable limitation on it. So far, no one has added themselves as a cosponsor to Serrano’s bill, but if any do, perhaps Democrats might want to explain why they suddenly have a yen for Hugo Chavez-style executives after screeching hysterically about Bush’s ideas of the “unitary executive,” which they completely misunderstood anyway.
Update: Via Amerpundit in the comments, I see that this is an ongoing effort by Serrano. He introduced the same bill in 2003, when Bill Clinton would have been the obvious beneficiary. Steve Benen wrote an interesting history of it at the time.

from.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/13/hope-and-change-move-to-repeal-presidential-term-limits-started/

[Gaffer]

As I said before. His o-liness is planning a lifetime career in the presidency.

Phony elections in 2012, the 22nd dropped. He's in line for president for life.

[Immanuel]

Ain't gonna happen.

In fact, I think they need to extend the idea of term limits to all federal level elected positions. We need to get rid of the idea of career politicians if we as a nation want to survive.

Immie

[DannyR]

Maybe I’m just being too cynical, but somehow I doubt that Rep. José Serrano introduced HJ Res 5 in order to allow George W Bush to run for a third term in office.

...
Why now? Apparently, the notion of Hope and Change has overwhelmed Serrano to the point that he just can’t stand to see Barack Obama limited to two terms in office.

What do you mean "Why now?" You should do your homework a bit before making assumptions about exactly what Serrano thinks. Simple fact is that this isn't the first time he's proposed this bill, and he's done so pretty much every year since the late 1990's. His bills in the early 2000's would easily have benefited Bush. Not everything is about partisan politics.


Official Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
Status: Introduced (By Rep. Jose Serrano [D-NY])
Introduced: Jan 6, 1999
Last Action: Feb 25, 1999: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Official Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States repealing the twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution.
Status: Introduced (By Rep. Steny Hoyer [D-MD])
Introduced: Mar 11, 1999
Last Action: Mar 18, 1999: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Official Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
Status: Introduced (By Rep. Jose Serrano [D-NY])
Introduced: Jan 3, 2001
Last Action: Feb 12, 2001: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Official Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.
Status: Introduced (By Rep. Steny Hoyer [D-MD])
Introduced: Mar 20, 2001
Last Action: Apr 18, 2001: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Official Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.
Status: Introduced (By Rep. Steny Hoyer [D-MD])
Introduced: Feb 25, 2003
Last Action: Mar 6, 2003: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Official Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
Status: Introduced (By Rep. Jose Serrano [D-NY])
Introduced: Jan 7, 2003
Last Action: Mar 6, 2004: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution. among many others...

The reasons? Very simple. They don't like term limits. And this isn't a democrat only stance. There have been republican sponsors of the bills as well. The reasons likewise aren't partisan. One sponsor of the bill explained:
"We do not have to rely on rigid constitutional standards to hold our Presidents accountable," said Hoyer. "Sufficient power resides in the Congress and the Judiciary to protect our country from tyranny."

Hoyer argues the 22nd Amendment "has the effect of removing the president from the accountability to political forces that come to bear during regular elections every four years."

[red states rule]

The liberal media is in love with Obama, and TIME thinks he is FDR. Would not surprise me if the Dems would push hard to try and have Obama Predisent for Life


http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2008/1101081124_400.jpg

[stephanie]

The reasons? Very simple. They don't like term limits. And this isn't a democrat only stance. There have been republican sponsors of the bills as well. The reasons likewise aren't partisan. One sponsor of the bill explained:

So, I take it you would of supported this, say if it went through with President Bush..

I don't care how many times this bill has been pushed, or by who.

we not only need term limits for Presidents, we now need to push for them on Congress...sooner rather than later.

[Immanuel]

What do you mean "Why now?" You should do your homework a bit before making assumptions about exactly what Serrano thinks. Simple fact is that this isn't the first time he's proposed this bill, and he's done so pretty much every year since the late 1990's. His bills in the early 2000's would easily have benefited Bush. Not everything is about partisan politics.

among many others...

The reasons? Very simple. They don't like term limits. And this isn't a democrat only stance. There have been republican sponsors of the bills as well. The reasons likewise aren't partisan. One sponsor of the bill explained:

Greetings DannyR. Welcome to dp.com.

As you may be able to tell from my earlier post, I think term limits should be applied to all elected officials. We've got to get career politicians out of Washington DC if we want to save the U.S.

Of course the politicians like Serrano are going to disagree with me, but they're just a bunch of crooks anyway.

Once again, welcome to dp.com. I hope you enjoy your stay.

Immie

[DannyR]

So, I take it you would of supported this, say if it went through with President Bush.

I wouldn't support it with any president.

Just pointing out that your assumptions on why this bill is being pushed now are wrong. It has nothing to do with Obama, as its been presented pretty much every year since the 1990's. Not everything is partisan.

[stephanie]

I wouldn't support it with any president.

Just pointing out that your assumptions on why this bill is being pushed now are wrong. It has nothing to do with Obama, as its been presented pretty much every year since the 1990's. Not everything is partisan.

Okay, if you must..

[DannyR]

Are you implying you'd rather be wrong so long as you get a good slam into the other party? Just trying to get a feel for what this board is about. Are most of the members here just cheer leaders for each party, repeating the latest talking points without any thought?

[red states rule]

Are you implying you'd rather be wrong so long as you get a good slam into the other party? Just trying to get a feel for what this board is about. Are most of the members here just cheer leaders for each party, repeating the latest talking points without any thought?



It will not surprise me, since the Dems are running DC, yhey will try to pass this bill now

The theme now in DC and in the liberal media is "Hail Obama - Hail Obama"

[stephanie]

Are you implying you'd rather be wrong so long as you get a good slam into the other party? Just trying to get a feel for what this board is about. Are most of the members here just cheer leaders for each party, repeating the latest talking points without any thought?

What are you looking for from a board? I have never portrayed myself to be non-Partisan and everyone here knows it. I would try to be non-Partisan if I thought there was a Democrat in our Congress I could trust, but I haven't found any, so I wont be.
there's a lot of things posted here, stick around and get a feel for things........welcome:thumb:

[red states rule]

What are you looking for from a board? I have never portrayed myself to be non-Partisan and everyone here knows it. I would try to be non-Partisan if I thought there was a Democrat in our Congress I could trust, but I haven't found any, so I wont be.
there's a lot of things posted here, stick around and get a feel for things........welcome:thumb:

When have Dems ever been non partisan?

I for one am sick of trying to make nce to Dems. When Repubicans took over Congress, it was Newt who came up with the "power sharing" program

Just a few days ago, Nancy Pelosi changed those rules that make it nearly impossible for the monority Republicans to say a word without permission

Dems now run things - fine. Now they have to actually have to accomplsih some things - the exact opposite of what they have done the previous 2 years

I hope they approve this bill Steph. I want Dems to go mad with power and show the voters what the hell they voted for

[Kathianne]

Related. Will be interesting to see if this changes within the 10 years?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24888800-2703,00.html


All the presidents: men go to lunch
Font Size:DecreaseIncreasePrint Page:Print
January 09, 2009

Article from: The Australian
WASHINGTON: The four surviving US presidents, three former and one current, broke bread at the White House yesterday with the man who will soon take up the office, Barack Obama, imparting advice and posing for photos with the incoming Democratic leader.

Mr Obama had lunch with the President he's replacing and three former White House tenants, a show of support that provided "advice, good counsel and fellowship"....

New York's Daily News reported that Mr Bush would be the first president not to be given lifelong Secret Service protection after leaving office, due to a law stating any president elected after January 1, 1997 and/or his or her spouse would have Secret Service protection for only 10 years.

[DannyR]

What are you looking for from a board? I have never portrayed myself to be non-Partisan and everyone here knows it.

I have no problem with partisans. I've got strong opinions myself about the way things should be.

I'm just looking for a board where I can actually have a discussion about political issues, not just read the latest talking points I see everywhere else. Will wait and see how things turn out.

[red states rule]

I have no problem with partisans. I've got strong opinions myself about the way things should be.

I'm just looking for a board where I can actually have a discussion about political issues, not just read the latest talking points I see everywhere else. Will wait and see how things turn out.

Well discuss away.

If you do not see a thread you like - start your own

[DragonStryk72]

Ain't gonna happen.

In fact, I think they need to extend the idea of term limits to all federal level elected positions. We need to get rid of the idea of career politicians if we as a nation want to survive.

Immie

I'd go even further, and go back to the citizen politician days, when you weren't really paid for your time in the Congress, but instead had to actually live in the world, and make your own way. Too many of our politicians are good at only that. You can always spot the guys who have run their own businesses outside of Congress.

[DragonStryk72]

Are you implying you'd rather be wrong so long as you get a good slam into the other party? Just trying to get a feel for what this board is about. Are most of the members here just cheer leaders for each party, repeating the latest talking points without any thought?

no, but yes, we do have those folks, every board out there has them, whether it is a slant toward left or right. I tend to see both sides, with only the occasional bout of being stiffly for or against. The thing is, what are you bringing to this place that would be different? RSR's right in this case (That always just creeps me out when I say that), if you don't see the thread you want, then create it.

[DannyR]

Don't mean to offend anyone out of the box, just wondered at jennifer's reply when I simply corrected her wrong assumption about the bill.

As I said, will give it time and participate a bit.

[Kathianne]

no, but yes, we do have those folks, every board out there has them, whether it is a slant toward left or right. I tend to see both sides, with only the occasional bout of being stiffly for or against. The thing is, what are you bringing to this place that would be different? RSR's right in this case (That always just creeps me out when I say that), if you don't see the thread you want, then create it.

Got to agree with that. Most know I'm a 'top of the board' poster for the most part. I love discussions, would be good to have more that would join in, not just throw a line or dis at anything. So Danny, I hope you are going to bring some stuff here, whatever your view of things are.

Others certainly have the right and exercise it daily, to post how and what they like. If it's something worth a 'discussion', I'll join in, if not I move along.

[stephanie]

Don't mean to offend anyone out of the box, just wondered at jennifer's reply when I simply corrected her wrong assumption about the bill.

As I said, will give it time and participate a bit.

as you will see, that jennifer can be a pain in the ass...:coffee:

[red states rule]

as you will see, that jennifer can be a pain in the ass...:coffee:

only if you are a liberal :laugh2:

Otherwise she is a pussy cat

[stephanie]

only if you are a liberal :laugh2:

Otherwise she is a pussy cat

meow..:laugh2:

[Kathianne]

Who the hell is Jennifer? :eek:

[red states rule]

Who the hell is Jennifer? :eek:

He is talking about Stephanie

Don't worry, in time he will never forgwet her name :laugh2:

[Kathianne]

He is talking about Stephanie

Don't worry, in time he will never forgwet her name :laugh2:

I get so confused!

[stephanie]

Who the hell is Jennifer? :eek:

It's my other personally, I just inherited her last week..:laugh2:

[red states rule]

It's my other personally, I just inherited her last week..:laugh2:

Like Virgil / Retired Man?

[Kathianne]

It's my other personally, I just inherited her last week..:laugh2:

Oh geez, now we must deal with multiple personalities and names! :smoke:

[DannyR]

I'm like Bush, I give pet names to everyone. Stephanie is now jennifer.

Red state guy will probably be Bubba. ;-)

[Kathianne]

I'm like Bush, I give pet names to everyone. Stephanie is now jennifer.

Red state guy will probably be Bubba. ;-)

I had some hopes for you, unjustified?

[stephanie]

I'm like Bush, I give pet names to everyone. Stephanie is now jennifer.

Red state guy will probably be Bubba. ;-)

OK, but don't get offended if we come up with a few for you..and I promise they will all be sweet ones..

love jennifer:laugh2:

[DannyR]

I had some hopes for you, unjustified?

I live in one of the reddest of red states. Bubba is an honored name here. ;)

[Immanuel]

I have no problem with partisans. I've got strong opinions myself about the way things should be.

I'm just looking for a board where I can actually have a discussion about political issues, not just read the latest talking points I see everywhere else. Will wait and see how things turn out.

I would have to say there are some good people on this board of both persuasions. I don't know that you have found the utopia of boards that you are looking for because you will find plenty of people who are really good at reciting talking points, but you will also find others who are pretty good at thinking for themselves. Weed out the T.P. and I think this is a pretty good board.

I hope you'll stick around a bit and give it a shot.

Immie