This, of course, requires 2/3 of the states to pass, and is light years away from happening, but they're trying.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Bringing Crazy Rumors to Life Since... Now
They really are trying to repeal the 22nd amendment and eliminate term limits for the Presidency.
H/T 90Ninety Miles From Tyranny and Govtrack.us.
This, of course, requires 2/3 of the states to pass, and is light years away from happening, but they're trying.
This, of course, requires 2/3 of the states to pass, and is light years away from happening, but they're trying.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yeah, I don't see it happening either, but it's chilling.
ReplyDelete0bummer will just write another "Executive Order" saying he's president for life.....
ReplyDeleteThree-fourths of the states, actually.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Democrats tried this with Clinton, too. It's so rare that a Dem president wins two terms that it makes them a little giddy.
Yeah - I vaguely remember the talk about trying to repeal the 22nd for Clinton.
DeleteAlso - remember the Equal Rights Amendment? 70s, I think. That got all the way through congress and the required number of states never voted for it.
So it's really going to be an uphill battle.
Presidents have always had a term limit (4 years) after which they should be voted out of office by any reasonable electorate.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, set term limits are antidemocratic and discriminatory. Why should someone be automatically disqualified for an office simply because he's served twice and the people are stupid enough to reelect him?
When I did vote (years ago), I made it a practice never EVER to vote for the incumbent.
Fortunately, Steve, we never were a democracy, which the Founders told us was anathema to a free people. A democracy does not protect the rights of the individual, whereas a Constitutional Republic is designed to do just that. Our Republic is foundering, true enough, but we don't need to help it along by allowing the Left to trick us into believing this is a democracy.
ReplyDeleteCalling term limits "discriminatory" is another trick of the Left. Applying a pejorative term like that to anything you don't like is one of their favorite tools. Why not go all out, and call it "racist"?
Our government was founded on the principle that citizen-representatives would get together and conduct the necessary business of a limited government, then go back home to their real lives and real jobs. This whole "elect me for life" nonsense - along with the obscenity of voting themselves a full salary for life after serving one term - was created by politicians who have perverted the system for their own gain.
The office of the President was limited in term because it became apparent that most Presidents did not possess the honor of George Washington, who refused to be made King of America. FDR would willingly have remained in office forever, had he not died. I'm embarrassed to admit I don't recall if the 22nd was passed before or after he died, but FDR would gladly have found a way, had he the chance to do so.
Try not to buy into that bullshit, OK?
IIRC, the 22nd was pounced on like Oprah on a baked ham, as soon as FDR was gone. No one wanted to go through that again.
DeleteThe guys at Ranger Up! have a Tee shirt that reads "Congress was supposed to be service, not a profession". Hey, it's on sale (no connection, own one shirt I bought from them, yada yada)
Nice shirt! I 'knew' that 22A was post fdr but double checked to be sure - it was.
DeleteThis is not the first attempt to abolish it and probably won't be the last - unless barry does crown himself as emperor/protector for life...........;-(
Absolutely correct! In plain words, we do not elect folks to do our bidding. If that were the case, we could elect 6th graders and tell them what to do. We elect them to do what they think is right for our country. That's why it's so darned important to look at a candidates character and record when voting. Voting them out of office is the only leverage we have.
Delete