Repeal the 22nd Amendment!

http://www.end22.com/

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected President of the United States four times. FDR died early in his fourth term after serving three full, successful terms. It was his leadership that brought our great country out of Economic Crisis and War.
Congress passed the 22nd Amendment on March 21, 1947 to limit future Presidents to two terms and took the choice out of the hands of the American People, where it belongs.

Join the Grassroots Movement to Make Barack Obama's Third Term Possible!

This is the most terrible idea ever.

you realize the only reason you have barack in office now instead of george doubleyou bush is because the twenty-second was in effect.  because everyone obviously would've voted for him again if given the opportunity, because americans are stupid and gullible.

repeal the twenty-second and your dear mister obama would be voted out so fast and replaced by yet another ten terms of dubya.

Without the 22nd, Bush wouldn't have been in office in the first place, Clinton could have kept getting BJ's there.

It has basically been a unwritten tradition that Presidents not do more than two terms in office before the days of FDR (with the exception of Grover Cleavland of course). The Twenty Second Amendment basically made this unwritten rule mandatory.

I think it's better we leave that as the way it is. When the Amendment was proposed, the people who supported it though that the presidency would become more like a monarchical position.

Funny thing is, I'm against people proposing term limits on members of congress. It's not the congress that's the problem, it's the disgusting lobby that pressures politicians to enact bad laws. I'm not saying that politicians are angels, however, they'll be more likely to listen to lobbyists than their constituencies.

Is there a logical reason why a president cannot have more than 2 terms in office? What is his/her motivation to be a good president during their second term? What if they happen to be a really good president and everyone is better off if they have a 3rd term?

why do we have stupid stuff like this instead of petitions to get rid of the electorial college.

It was done to avoid having one person throughout their lifespan.

The 2 term law was put into place so that all people's needs would hopefully be met.
There are presidents who claim benefits for soldiers/other public services
there are presidents for art
presidents for math, science
presidents with religious ideals
(no president who is openly atheist)
its so that no group is overly represented

except christians.

>>9
So Americans shouldn't have the freedom to elect a president for more than 2 terms. Sounds like tyranny to me.

Since the president elect is pretty much guaranteed to be fronted by one of the two major political parties regardless, exactly what difference is there between a candidate being elected for four terms rather than the party having their own candidate be elected for four terms?  All the republicans or democrats have to do is put forth someone who follows the same general ideals as the prior elect.

Either the 22nd amendment should be modified to prevent the same PARTY from being in power for more than two terms, or it's so ridiculously redundant as to be ridiculous.  And redundant.

>>10
Actually quite the opposite. It could become tyranny if a very ambitious and power hungry President was allowed more than a set limit of terms.

>>11
That would be nice, but human nature.

>>11
Okay, now define "political party" for us in a manner that will pass legal muster.

Would you allow one President to continue serving forever if he switched parties every eight years, or declared himself an "independent candidate?"

>>12
Democracy could become tyranny if people vote in a non-democratic pro-tyranny party. Does that mean we should do away with democracy?

Denying people the freedom to vote for the same president 3 times in a row is one less freedom and one more step towards tyranny.

>>14
Democracy could become tyranny if people vote in a non-democratic pro-tyranny party. Does that mean we should do away with democracy?

That's fine, because the United States government is not a democracy in the first place, it never was.

Denying people the freedom to vote for the same president 3 times in a row

It was limitless before the ratification of the Twenty Second Amendment.

is one less freedom and one more step towards tyranny.

That would enable the President to act as more of a monarch rather than a temporary leader. I find that idea to be more tyrannical than having set limit terms. The president doesn't wield much power compared to congress, but can be a very influential individual and being able to stay in office longer than two set terms could lead to much abuse of power.

Plus, after Washington it became sort of an unwritten rule to not be in office for more than two terms (with the exception of Grover Cleavland and FDR). The Twenty Second Amendment basically made that rule official.

>>15
Whoops. I should have worded that better. I meant to say the President could influence congress/justices/other government departments/agencies greatly, and allowing him to run for unlimited terms could lead to much abuse by doing such.

>>15
>That would enable the President to act as more of a monarch rather than a temporary leader.
No it wouldn't, he could be voted out when running for the 4th term.

Unwritten rules are fine, if that's what voters want and political parties adopt that policy into their campaign strategy. I don't see what the big deal was with leaving it as an unwritten rule.

>>17
No it wouldn't, he could be voted out when running for the 4th term.

Not if the majority continue on voting for him. If you didn't know, this republic was founded on the idea of protecting the people against the "tyranny of the majority". The Twenty Second Amendment is a good amendment because it abides by this idea.

>>18
Because, what, the majority have no power if they have to choose a different candidate every eight years?  How does that even make sense?

>>19
I was implying that it could end up in widespread abuse. We already have government abuse, however repealing the amendment would open up to even further abuse over time.

Right now the Democrats have control of both the White House, and the Congress. If the Twenty Second Amendment is repealed, it grants the possibility of Obama being President for life, and if the majority is constantly convinced that what he's doing is good for them no matter what, it could lead to Presidential abuse of power via influencing a Democrat majority Congress, and limits what the Republicans/Independents can do.

I would say the exact same thing if the tables were turned and the Republicans were in control and the Democrats were the "underdog". I lean towards libertarianism and even if there were a libertarian President in office I still wouldn't want the Twenty Second Amendment repealed.

The United States was founded on a principal of being a republic without monarchy. The Founding Fathers saw how Britain (still quite a large empire at the time) being under such a system was tyrannical. Repeal the amendment, you run with the possibility that this or any other President becomes askin to being a king for life. It would be nice to have a man who had impenetrable integrity and a moral compass made of stone be President for an unlimited amount of terms. However, in reality, we don't.

If there are any amendments that are part of the Constitution that can be considered tyrannical, I'd say the Sixteenth. And perhaps maybe the Seventeenth as well. Certainly the Eighteenth was when it was in effect. So I say it should be left alone.

^* akin

NAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   cNAKED STRIPPING GIRLS ! http://twentyfirstcenturycoeds.comicgenesis.com   c

>>20
But the 22nd does absolutely nothing to prevent a democrat from being elected in the third term, it only prevents that particular candidate from holding more than two terms of office.

Although this may prevent a single person from being a 'monarch for life', it does nothing to prevent the ruling party gaining it's own persistent control with the same effective result.  Except that in this case, the people do not have the option to vote for a leader who they're actually happy with for more than eight years at a time.

>>23
Yes, you do have a point there. The two party system of Democrats and Republicans is an issue. And there have been Presidents one after another from the same party. Political party is another issue though, and I'm not going to get into that further as that's going off topic.

As for the individual person, there have been Presidents in the past who held philosophy a bit differently than the rest of their political party, which could be a good thing or a bad thing. I would love to think completely idealistically for a moment and truly believe that a person held a completely unmanipulative moral compass and would bring in smaller government and truly bring back the glory that the United States once was, however we would most likely end up with ten terms of someone similar to George Bush.

Someone like that would do everything in his power to remain in power. Whereas the Twenty Second prevents that possible abuse from happening. Which is why it should remain.

Have there ever been any proposals for a term limit on senators?  I've noticed that the ones who spend decades holding the same office seem to get far too comfortable in the position.  Especially ones like Byrd and Thurmond; they just have this "good ol' boys club" air to them.

>>25
I don't know about Senate, but definitely the House it's been proposed.

All these restrictions on term limits serve no purpose. If voters don't want them to run a 3rd term they won't vote for them, if they do then they will get angry at all this arbitrary bureaucracy and vote to change it.

How about instead of rolling around on the floor crying, shitting and pissing yourself and trying to force everyone to do what you want how about trying to change political culture through logical arguments?

>>27
If voters don't want them to run a 3rd term they won't vote for them,

In theory anyways

1 term. 6 years.

>>28
Not every voter agrees entirely with who they are voting for, if a 3rd term is such a big deal for a voter they won't vote for them.

jjjjkjkk

Repeal all amendments

Don't repeal all amendments

Only repeal some amendments. Starting with the Sixteenth and Seventeenth, first.

>>34
What do you propose to replace the seventeeth?

>>35
I propose to replace it with nothing. Same with Sixteenth.