22nd amendment to be repealed?

[Akira 0]

HJ Res 11\

Dictatorship on it way? What purpose would this serve? None other than an ongoing ruling Executive Branch possibly.

EDIT: Good thing is it has been stuck in the House Judiciary Committee since Jan. 7th.

[edc 0]

I'd hardly call that dictatorhip when the people would still have to elect the person.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (edc @ April 12 2003,00:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'd hardly call that dictatorhip when the people would still have to elect the person.<span id='postcolor'>

The introduction of unlimited terms brings into being the chance for dynasty's. First the "Patriot" Act and now this sudden unannounced introduction of unlimited terms? Remember Congress granting Bush powers almost akin to war powers? I think this country has gone off the deep end, at least the politicians.

I wouldn't put too much faith in your vote. Remember Florida? States even in this last election are still fugged up. Texas here had a number of "Floridian" county troubles. If they really wanted to results could be fixed easy especially with all the computerization.

[Longinius 1]

"I'd hardly call that dictatorhip when the people would still have to elect the person."

Well, since the guy with the most money and best campaign staff usually wins. I'd consider it a potential danger.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (edc @ April 12 2003,00:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'd hardly call that dictatorhip when the people would still have to elect the person.<span id='postcolor'>

I think that the last election is an example of how the voting process can be derailed to steer an election the way that a party wants it to.  Give a three or four term president enough time, and the laws of the land can slowly be changed without anyone noticing or caring.

Before the public paranoia after Sept 11th, 2001, can you even remotely imagine the US public accepting the reather draconian parts of the Patriot Act?  But they begged for them.

What this sets up is the ability to have a 'President for Life' situation, or even a hereditary president. Usually, when it comes to politicians, imagine the worst, and you probably arent far from what hides in their hearts.

[Blaegis 0]

This is not a joke, right? This is an actual law (ok, dismissal of a law) to be put out to vote?

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ April 12 2003,01:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is not a joke, right? This is an actual law (ok, dismissal of a law)  to be put out to vote?<span id='postcolor'>

That's exactly what it is.

Something tells me that it wont happen in any case, as 75% of the State legislatures would need to vote for the 22nd ammendment to be repealed, within seven years. All it would take is 13 states refusing to sanction the motion to repeal, and it's dead in the water.

[Akira 0]

Yes this is an actual Joint Resolution that can be brought up to vote that would alter the Constitution. The only good thing is it has been in Committtee for 3 months.

[Dumbing Down]

Has anyone else seen the parallels between Star Wars and the current situation in America? Increased powers to the ruling body under the threat of terrorism, particularly to one man. The deception and wars under false pretenses. The growth of the military. And just when you think you know who the bad guy is, here comes Rumsfieldtine and seizes power (or insert sinister politician.

[/Dumbing Down]

[Jinef 2]

Well in theory this is still democracy but remeber you didn't vote for George now did you, Al Gore is a twat but he did have the majority of valid votes.

[FallenPaladin 0]

I liek the TBA

I already can see Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Bush knocking on my door singing: "All your base are belong to us!"

[FallenPaladin 0]

But I`ll sleep a little better now (here it`s 2am) knowing that there are patriotic americans (bonzais ) over there who are still watching and discussing what the TBA is doing. Got another impression the last days...

[bn880 5]

I see the American freedom is about to mature to bigger and better things.

[Major Fubar 0]

Welcome to the New World Order. All hail emperor Bush!

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ April 12 2003,04:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Welcome to the New World Order. All hail emperor Bush!  <span id='postcolor'>

America is starting to look like a Mel Brooks comedy

[FSPilot 0]

As long as a republican is in power I'm happy.

But seriously that's pretty bad.  I also heard that some other democrats are trying to reduce the number of votes they need to pass something in the senate.  why is it that the democrats seem to not like democracy?

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ April 12 2003,01:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[Dumbing Down]

Has anyone else seen the parallels between Star Wars and the current situation in America? Increased powers to the ruling body under the threat of terrorism, particularly to one man. The deception and wars under false pretenses. The growth of the military. And just when you think you know who the bad guy is, here comes Rumsfieldtine and seizes power (or insert sinister politician.

[/Dumbing Down]<span id='postcolor'>

so who are the Jedis and where are light sabres? Will Yoda show that great action in real life?        

my stance about this issue is this: Our founding father George Washington refused to run for the 3rd term. What makes George Bush greater than Gen. Washington?

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ April 12 2003,04:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I also heard that some other democrats are trying to reduce the number of votes they need to pass something in the senate.  why is it that the democrats seem to not like democracy?<span id='postcolor'>

well, it's still the vote by ppl, so it is democracy. "demo" comes from Greek meaning "mass" or "people" and "cracy" meaning "rule of". so democracy is where ppl rule not a dictator. this doesn't say how it will be implemented as long as people can hold politician's fate.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 12 2003,05:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ April 12 2003,01:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[Dumbing Down]

Has anyone else seen the parallels between Star Wars and the current situation in America? Increased powers to the ruling body under the threat of terrorism, particularly to one man. The deception and wars under false pretenses. The growth of the military. And just when you think you know who the bad guy is, here comes Rumsfieldtine and seizes power (or insert sinister politician.

[/Dumbing Down]<span id='postcolor'>

so who are the Jedis and where are light sabres? Will Yoday show that great action in real life?        

my stance about this issue is this: Our founding father George Washington refused to run for the 3rd term. What makes George Bush greater than Gen. Washington?<span id='postcolor'>

Washington did that for the very reason that the 22nd was brought in. To avoid dynasty's and long running political empires. Only one President has flouted the "Washington precedent," and that was Roosevelt for a total of 4 terms. And before you say he only did that for the war...remember he was starting his third term in '41. After his death the 22nd was brought in.

"I've met George Washington. And you, sir, are no George Washington."

hehe...

Well...the Sith is easy to figure out which shouldn't be the case

[Tex -USMC- 0]

No term limits is bad, mmkay.

Although I think maybe the Republicans are jumping the gun a bit with these visions of a Bush dynasty. Bush Sr. was only a year out from a successfully concluded war in the 92 election, but since he was completely innefectual in the domestic role, he lost the election. And don't count the Dems out yet- in the 92 Democratic primaries, the running joke was that it was the race to see who would get to lose to Bush Sr., and look how that turned out. I'd be careful about repealing term limits if I was a Republican, because swords cut both ways.

[Winters 1]

Not Gonna Happen.

Reagan Tried it and no dice, and he was a MUCH more popular, influential, and charismatic president than BOTH the bushes combined.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Winters @ April 12 2003,10:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">my stance about this issue is this: Our founding father George Washington refused to run for the 3rd term. What makes George Bush greater than Gen. Washington?<span id='postcolor'>

The person suggesting this amendment isn't affiliated with George Bush at all. I've got no idea why he wants to do this, he's not even in the same political party.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well, it's still the vote by ppl, so it is democracy. "demo" comes from Greek meaning "mass" or "people" and "cracy" meaning "rule of". so democracy is where ppl rule not a dictator. this doesn't say how it will be implemented as long as people can hold politician's fate.<span id='postcolor'>

Which they're trying to get rid of as much as they can by trying to reduce the number of votes needed to pass something.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Reagan Tried it and no dice, and he was a MUCH more popular, influential, and charismatic president than BOTH the bushes combined.<span id='postcolor'>

Didn't Reagan resign after watergate. And after someone attempted to assassinate him? j/k

[hellfish6 7]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 11 2003,22:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ April 12 2003,04:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I also heard that some other democrats are trying to reduce the number of votes they need to pass something in the senate.  why is it that the democrats seem to not like democracy?<span id='postcolor'>

well, it's still the vote by ppl, so it is democracy. "demo" comes from Greek meaning "mass" or "people" and "cracy" meaning "rule of". so democracy is where ppl rule not a dictator. this doesn't say how it will be implemented as long as people can hold politician's fate.<span id='postcolor'>

The USA is not a democracy - it is a republic. A truly democratic system would mean that each and every eligible voter would create and enact the laws of the land. This is not what happens in America. The people vote for representatives to create and enact laws for them.

In straight-up political theory, there are two types of representatives.

1 - the representative who acts exactly in accordance with the majority opinion of his/her constituency.

2 - the representative who acts according to his or her own beliefs, doing this based on the logic that he or she was elected based on his or her own moral values and wisdom, even if it does not always coincide with the views, beliefs and morals of the body politic.

As you may know, the 2nd type of representative is what the vast, vast, vast majority of American politicians are at every level, from local to national.

And as for Democrats and Republicans, the names are quite misleading. Democrats don't necessarily favor democracy and Republicans don't necessarily favor a republic - they're just patriotic names for political organizations. "Democracy" and "Republic" are very treasured words to Americans, even if they don't know what they mean. They are just very old buzz words. You could call them the Pink and Purple parties and they would be no different.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ April 12 2003,07:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Winters @ April 12 2003,10:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">my stance about this issue is this: Our founding father George Washington refused to run for the 3rd term. What makes George Bush greater than Gen. Washington?<span id='postcolor'>

The person suggesting this amendment isn't affiliated with George Bush at all.  I've got no idea why he wants to do this, he's not even in the same political party.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ above)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The USA is not a democracy - it is a republic. A truly democratic system would mean that each and every eligible voter would create and enact the laws of the land. This is not what happens in America. The people vote for representatives to create and enact laws for them.

<span id='postcolor'>

thank you for clarifying the point. although it is my personal belief that republic system was product to remedy deficiency of pure democratic system. i.e. republic system is based on democratic system.

it is really hard to find pure democracy, except maybe on small levels(local levels).<span id='postcolor'>

well, for the first time you are saying something correct. i knew this omission of mine would bite me and you did it.

making moderators look stupid = insta perm ban

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well, it's still the vote by ppl, so it is democracy. "demo" comes from Greek meaning "mass" or "people" and "cracy" meaning "rule of". so democracy is where ppl rule not a dictator. this doesn't say how it will be implemented as long as people can hold politician's fate.<span id='postcolor'>

Which they're trying to get rid of as much as they can by trying to reduce the number of votes needed to pass something.<span id='postcolor'>

has hellfish6 said above, we are Republic, not Democratic gov't. but that technicality aside, here's an interesting point to tell you.

does voting limit reduction cause demise of democracy? note that democracy is having ppl rule the gov't. so as long as ppl can direct gov't's path with their vote, while preserving their rights, democracy is preserved.

so what is the effect of lowering the bar? definitely not the demise of the democracy. by lowering the limit, more ppl can get their agenda passed compared to before. since the bar to get it passed is lower, a bill that would not have passed since it only got 49 votes of support in a system where 51 votes would be needed, can be passed, if voting limit falls to 33 votes or more.

the question is, is that good for regular ppl or special interest groups. it will undoubtly affect both groups. it might be easier for some ppl to push their agenda, when they could not have done it before, while some might find it that special interest groups would have eaiser time pushing there agenda.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ April 12 2003,04:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As long as a republican is in power I'm happy.

But seriously that's pretty bad.  I also heard that some other democrats are trying to reduce the number of votes they need to pass something in the senate.  why is it that the democrats seem to not like democracy?<span id='postcolor'>

It'll never happen, you need 2/3 of both houses to pass the resolution and 3/4 of the States to ratify it.  Plus, whenever a new Amendment process is started, it isn't limited to only the Amendment proposed.  Once you open the door, any Amendment can be proposed including duh duh da! Campaign Finance Reform!  The pols wouldn't dare try it.  Its part of the reason why the ERA failed.

Oh, reducing the number of votes needed to pass a resolution can't happen without an Amendment either. Its in the Constitution, to change that you would need to change the Constitution. Congress cannot supercede the Constitution with ordinary legislation because of the Supremacy Clause. The Supreme Court has struck down all attempts to do so without fail.

And, I hate to be a stickler for detail, but the U.S. is neither a true democracy, nor a true republic. It is a representative democracy, a hybrid. Though calling it a republic is closer to the truth than calling it a democracy. Read Robert Dahl's famous book, "How Democratic is the American Constitution?" for more on this. It's required reading in a lot of Universities for Political Science majors.

[hellfish6 7]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 12 2003,00:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">does voting limit reduction cause demise of democracy? note that democracy is having ppl rule the gov't. so as long as ppl can direct gov't's path with their vote, while preserving their rights, democracy is preserved.<span id='postcolor'>

That's republicanism, not democracy. And do you mean "voting term limit reduction" or a limit on who can vote?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so what is the effect of lowering the bar? definitely not the demise of the democracy. by lowering the limit, more ppl can get their agenda passed compared to before. since the bar to get it passed is lower, a bill that would not have passed since it only got 49 votes of support in a system where 51 votes would be needed, can be passed, if voting limit falls to 33 votes or more.<span id='postcolor'>

The Senate was originally designed to temper the tyranny of the masses. The House of Representatives was designed to put the tyranny of the masses into law. That's the way the framers designed it. If you ever read the Articles of Confederation or the Federalist Papers, you'd notice that Madison and the other framers of the Constitution were very aware that a majority of people could be very, very wrong and that it was the duty of the Senate to prevent the majority from making unfair laws and, failing that, the Supreme Court could strike down a law themselves.

By lowering the requirements to pass a law in the Senate to 49 votes would mean that we would not be subject to the tyranny of the majority, but rather the tyranny of the minority. It's just as bad and capable of as much evil, if not more.

Imagine if we had this law in the 1920's, when much of America supported the KKK. Suppose the Senate, acting in the interests of racial superiority, won passage of a bill that allowed Blacks to be legally lynched or returned into slavery. If 51 Senators voted against that, but it got the 49 votes required to pass, that would mean a minority interest won.

Part of the design of having majority rule is that in nearly all cases, you must have a consensus among different groups and people to pass a bill. This means you must negotiate. Laws will not be as harsh or as lax as they might have been. If there was no need for majority rule or consensus, then a minority of Senators could pass this repeal of the 22nd Amendment right now, no stopping them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the question is, is that good for regular ppl or special interest groups. it will undoubtly affect both groups. it might be easier for some ppl to push their agenda, when they could not have done it before, while some might find it that special interest groups would have eaiser time pushing there agenda.<span id='postcolor'>

I must confess something - I do not belive that my vote counts. Don't get me wrong, I do indeed vote, but I don't think it matters in the end. Better candidates do not win office - better financed candidates win.

That said, I vote with my money. I influence government through the groups I support. I am currently a member of Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, the ACLU, Chicago Public Radio and the Chicago Zoological Society. I give these organizations money.

They spend that money wining and dining polticians and beauraucrats that make the decisions. I trust these organizations to work in my interests, and that is why I support them. It is not enough for me to vote. I will never know enough about a candidate to feel 100% comfortable with him or her.

By giving money to these groups, I am ensuring that my voice is heard and that my interests are being accounted for. I wish it wasn't like this, but this is American Politics©. Politicians need money, and interest groups give it to them. It's not fair, but that's how it is.