House Bill to Repeal the 22nd Amendment - H.J.RES.24

[catscradle]

Have you guys seen this? I heard about it today through a passing reference someone made on a newsgroup.

From the Library of Congress: Introduced: Feb 17, 2005 - Congressmen James Sensenbrenner (WI-R), Steny Hoyer (MD-D), Howard Berman (CA-D), and Martin Sabo (MN-D) sponsered a bill for the repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.

In 1947, the 22nd Ammendment was ratified after WWII to limit the number of terms the President can hold after FDR won four consecutive elections (you don't change horses in mid stream after all). It states: Section 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.

Now the chatter I've found on this is blasting Republicans, despite the fact that three of the four sponsors are Democrats. Granted, I'm one of those that believes there are no differences in the parties, but the fact no one bothered to check out anyone but Republican Sensenbrenner is very disturbing. What's more disturbing is that Hoyer is the Democratic whip and NO ONE KNEW! It's kind of embarrassing when your Repubican "cabal" is full of Democrats. Uh... liberals? Research maybe? I get that Sensenbrenner's name just sparks abject anger and fear, but ballistic activism leads to crap like this. Stop it.

All that aside, what are the Democrats fucking thinking? I mean, didn't it seem a little suspicious to them that Sensenbrenner - the man that pounded his gavel to quiet the witnesses testifying about Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, the man that denied the Democrats a meeting room for a hearing on the Downing Street Memo - this guy says "hey, I'd like to join you" and, what? The more the merrier?

Now Clinton was in favor of amending the amendment to allow for former Presidents to run for the office again after a period of time passed. And probably these guys are jumping on that line of thinking - maybe hoping they can get Clinton back in office as the only electable Democrat left. But this bill doesn't seek to alter the amendment, it wants to repeal it. This would mean that a President could serve endless consecutive terms until he or she died, provided they're elected. And that's all well and good until the other side starts a winning streak. Like, say, Bush. But do you really want anyone in there that long? Strom Thurmond anyone?

It needs a 2/3rds majority to win in both houses, but considering it's sponsered by both Dems and Reps, it makes me a little more than nervous. There's a strong push now to make the Patriot Act a stronger, permenant fixture. Is no one a little concerned that under the Partriot Act something like HJ RES 24 couldn't come into law under an executive order should another crisis like 9-11 occur? Congress already illustrated it's willingness to hand over power when things get a little scary. Want a pre-emptive war, Mr. President? Sure. We all know Bush is a slime, but just remember that Congress voted in favor of giving the slime the inch of power he needed.

So I'll be calling my Congresswoman to find out what her stand is on this and what the Democrat position is regarding this bill. If anyone has more info, I'd love to hear about it.

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/_darlingnicky_/]

I called Degette. The problem with getting ANY answer for ANYTHING right now is that the session ended several weeks ago. Technically while not in session they're supposed to be among their people to find out how best to represent them. But mostly they head to the Aspen Film Festival or something. But as this involved the repeal of an amendment they said they're calling Washington to get some answers. We'll see.