The Winter of a Country

April 18, 2003 9:59 AM

H.J. RES. 25. Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.
posted by four panels (24 comments total)

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier...just as long as I'm the dictator..."

-- George W. Bush, Washington, DC, Dec 18, 2000, during his first trip to Washington as President-Elect
posted by four panels at 9:59 AM on April 18, 2003

This makes no sense. Why would the GOP want Clinton to get elected again?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:01 AM on April 18, 2003

This was introduced by democrats, right? Do they want Clinton back again?
posted by mathowie at 10:02 AM on April 18, 2003

Yeah, Matt, I seem to recall reading somewhere the other day that was the idea.
posted by Cyrano at 10:07 AM on April 18, 2003

'Course, Bush can already get three terms, since he wasn't actually elected the first time around.

/troll.
posted by kaibutsu at 10:07 AM on April 18, 2003

I always thought Congresspeople should have term limits, too, but it looks like they're going in the other direction.

I've seen this passed around the net for about a week; doubt it'll go anywhere, anyway.
posted by gramcracker at 10:08 AM on April 18, 2003

Or maybe they just want the idea of Clinton back. Who knows with those frickin' people anymore?
posted by Cyrano at 10:09 AM on April 18, 2003

As often as I have wished for it myself, I don't think Clinton would go for it. Why would he? He's got a nice comfortable lifestyle away from all the vitriol, and a multimillion dollar income to boot. Btw, how much does cbs pay him for making Bob Dole look like a jackass every week? Man, that's great work if you can get it.

As far as Bush goes, the way the economy has being going, since January of 2000, has much of a shot at a 2d term, let alone a third.
posted by psmealey at 10:09 AM on April 18, 2003

Oh, not so funny (didn't check out the sponsors).
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:09 AM on April 18, 2003

In every session of Congress, dozens of Constitutional Amendments are proposed. Almost never do any of them become actual Amendments. In fact, almost never do any of them even get out of committee.
posted by bitdamaged at 10:09 AM on April 18, 2003

Oh, great. Another King George.
posted by grabbingsand at 10:09 AM on April 18, 2003

This was introduced by a democrat, but also signed by a handful of republicans. Gramcracker's right: it'll never go anywhere. Still seems strange though.
posted by moses at 10:12 AM on April 18, 2003

Interesting video from the Cato Institute.
posted by the fire you left me at 10:23 AM on April 18, 2003

Maybe they actually want Reagan back?

He's tan and rested, but he doesn't remember if he's ready.
posted by vito90 at 10:26 AM on April 18, 2003

Time to write to one's congresspeople, people.
posted by nonreflectiveobject at 10:32 AM on April 18, 2003

Since it seems like someone always asks, here's a fairly reputable source for four panels' dictatorship quote.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:32 AM on April 18, 2003

From what I could find, there've been 41 amendments proposed so far in the 108th Congress. There were 77 in the 107th (none passed).
posted by MrMoonPie at 10:40 AM on April 18, 2003

From what I could find, there've been 41 amendments proposed so far in the 108th Congress. There were 77 in the 107th (none passed).

Great link, Moon. I particularly enjoyed HJ RES 15. :-)
posted by oissubke at 11:43 AM on April 18, 2003

The 22nd Amendment was, of course, introduced by Republicans fearful of another FDR four-term presidency. (In those days, and pretty much up through the 1980s, the Democrats had a very comfortable majority in the House and a manageable one in the Senate, and were perceived as the party to beat.) Eventually, of course, they had a president themselves they'd like to see become a four-termer.

The problem with the 22nd is twofold. First, it creates a lame duck presidency. The second term of a president is always a little more of a glad-handing round, the search for historical "legacy", and a period of increasing legislative leverage and decreasing presidential clout. Bold initiatives and constituency-battling reforms are not the thing of second terms. The other problem is that it is anti-democratic and anti-populist. It actually prevents people from voting for someone they would like to be President, and ironically, for someone who may have proven quite good at the job.

The experience of term-limits laws in individual states -- many overruled and others constitutionally questionable -- does not suggest they're very effective at doing what they were intended to. In fact, the national trend is in the other direction, suggesting that should this amendment be nominated to the states, several might easily ratify it.
posted by dhartung at 12:01 PM on April 18, 2003

Maybe they actually want Reagan back?

But, but ... I was reading CNN's site the other day and they said he was dead?!

Please tell me Congress has accomplished *something* this year besides:
a) altering their cafeteria's menu based on some moron's xenophobic whim, and
b) going along with the Admin's desire to start duhbya duhbya three.
posted by NorthernLite at 12:34 PM on April 18, 2003

I know, I know trollish idiocy, but what the fuck.


Oh, great. Another King George.

Madder, badder and definitely dangerous to know, rather like byron I should imagine.
posted by johnnyboy at 12:39 PM on April 18, 2003

It's interesting to go down the list of proposed amendments from this Congress and note how many have to do with flag desecration and the right to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

Jesse Jackson, Jr. has his name as the sponsor of quite a few amendments. I get the feeling he had to have presented all of them at the same time. Some try to change definition of American citizenship; right now almost anybody born in the U.S. is automatically a U.S. citizen, no matter who the parents are (I think children of diplomats are an exemption.) And the Equal Rights Amendment seems to have been proposed in both houses as well.
posted by meep at 12:56 PM on April 18, 2003

(According to the Congressional Record, page H1333 (pdf), with links, first names, and affiliations added by me:

Introduced by Mr. Steny H. HOYER (D-MD), for himself, Mr. Henry HYDE (R-IL), Mr. Barney FRANK (D-MA), Mr. James SENSENBRENNER (R-WI), Mr. Howard BERMAN (D-CA), Mr. Martin SABO (D-MN), and Mr. Frank PALLONE (D-NJ).


posted by hattifattener at 1:08 PM on April 18, 2003

I rather like the idea of an anti-FDR section of the Constitution. Leave it alone!
posted by thirteen at 2:58 PM on April 18, 2003