Forget about the Govenator: it can be GW B*sh in 08

[ChicanoPwr]

That is currect folks, anybody think they can last another 4 years, think again. In the House of Represenatitives proposed joint resolution, which happens to be in the Committee on the Judiciary.

H. J. RES. 25 Sponsor: Rep Hoyer, Steny H.
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.

You will like this one also.

I guess our good old friend Give'em Hell Zell wanted to give us a good kick in the balls before he left.

S. J. RES. 35 (That too is in Committee)
To repeal the seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Constitutional Amendment - Repeals the 17th amendment to the U.S. Constitution (election of Senators). Requires a State legislature to make appointments to the Senate (currently, the people of such State elect the Senators).

Provides that if vacancies happen by resignation or otherwise, during the recess of any State legislature, the State executive may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies.
---------------------------------------------
Let's hope it stays there.

[trotsky]

1. I seriously doubt it would get ratified by '08.

Ratification of all but the most necessary amendments has taken several years. Plus there are enough state legislatures still controlled by Democrats that HOPEFULLY they would see it for the ruse it is and refuse to pass it.

[ChicanoPwr]

3. We would hope so

My fear is, if GW does get away with it again, the RW neo-cons could spin it as it is another message from God.

[HeilChimp]

19. chimp doesn't even NEED a constiutional amendment to run in '08

Since chimp was SELECTED by the Repug supreme court in December 2000, his people can argue the constitution doesn't apply to him because it says Presidents can be ELECTED to no more than two terms. Chimp will use his theft in 2000 to justify running in 2008.

You can't underestimate the greed of the repug fascists in their lust for power.

[donhakman]

29. reminds me of my old toon

[Yupster]

30. Assume you're joking heilchimp

The president is not elected by the people. He is elected by electors.

The electors voted for Bush in 2000 and wll again in 2004.

That's his two times.

[leftinbluestate]

47. he stole once

He stole twice...you think he won't make a hat-trick of it?

[serryjw]

35. WECOME TO DU!

I like the way you think. I had said the same thing many times in the last 2 years....We just maybe right

[leftinbluestate]

46. He will be running in '08

Count on it!

He will run again and again, and is there anything we can do to stop it?

Holy shit, he could pick Jeb as his fucking runningmate---then what do we do??

[Lone Pawn]

50. Constitutionally, he was elected.

"Election" specifically refers not to the popular election, or even the Florida election, but the final Electoral College vote as certified by Congress. He was elected twice.

[newyawker99]

64. Hi HeilChimp!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[chicagiana]

44. If it just concerns 2 terms ...

If it only concerened 2 terms, I'd be for it.

I'll be happy to have Clinton (Bill) run against Shrub.

[SweetLeftFoot]

55. Good point

Methinks Bill vs Dubya in 2008 would be a real game breaker.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

2. repealing the 17th amendment

WOULD take us back to the original intent of the founders. The Senate was meant to be appointed by the various state legislatures. This was designed to give the STATES representation...not the people thereof. The House was for the people the Senate was for the States....I know it is splitting hairs, but it is still the original intent.

theProdigal

[eleny]

4. Isn't this Scalia's position?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

12. it is the Constitution's position...

read it...Section Three should help...pretty plain

theProdigal

[nolabels]

6. What a bunch of Maroons

Can't wait till they repeal the Declaration of Independence :evilgrin:

[ProdigalJunkMail]

14. you think we are independent??? :-)

we are more intertwined today than ever...but the 17th amendment essentially REPEALED the intent of Section Three, Clause One

theProdigal

[nolabels]

18. I prepared for when we are going to be

Perhaps you fail to see simularities of then and now. I am no fan of Ronald Reagan (he was just a shill and cardboard cutout), but perhaps I could be so blunt paraphrase 'Government is the problem'.

Read up a little

(snip)
Declaration of Independence
(snip)
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
(snip)
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

[ProdigalJunkMail]

20. well, as the declaration of indenpendence is not 'law'

it cannot be repealed, per se...but YES, the government is doing, has done, and will continue to do all of these things because, in part, the states have no means for governing themselves as was the intent. I know I keep harping on INTENT, but a federal government with the powers that it has here in the U.S. is dangerous...and without any balancing force will run amok until it collapses.

theProdigal

[nolabels]

25. To overcome a foe one must become........................

(trying to understand strategic concepts here) Larger and or more powerful (England couldn't mount up a large enough force to overwhelm the colonies) or ungovernable (Gandhi and non-violent resistance)or too small to be a target or different combinations of many things.

The foe would like to become larger, but is now being mostly froze out in many parts across the globe in many ways. The foe gets dialectic when this happens, but our strength is to embrace the diversity. Their idea is to isolate and divide. Ours should be to form even more groups, alliances, connections, support networks etc. I myself can live and work with religious people as long as they can respect my right to be different and even if they can't, I can keep it to myself when around than them. This is not trickery, just ones own privacy which is given regrardless if it's given or not. Mostly we could all get along, but there is a few that cant or don't want the rest of us to.

Them that don't want to get along should be the odd ones out, and this might be if we work from our Humanity rather than this 1% insanity. Some see government as tool to be honed and used against other people. Mostly one could pick them out easily into days social order or climate.

The Constitution seems to me just a piece of paper that says we will agree to get along regardless. A way to have a reciprocal circular charge of authority. A few have figured out ways to use that papers nuances to get away from it's real intent. So in any case it still holds true, that we must all disagree before can agree and vis-a-versa.


Individually we know little, collectively we know a lot

[Johnyawl]

7. If we're going back to "the original intent of the founders"...

...we're also going to have to repeal the 13th amendment, as legalized slavery WAS the original intent of the founders; also the 19th as it was obviously never the intent of the founders to have women vote.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

15. the 17th amendment was a powergrab by the federal government

to reduce the power of the states...sneaky sneaky

[ChicanoPwr]

16. Yeah I know

The States' right yada yada yada

I the system is better this way. Go back to the other, the neo-con will only have to focus on taking care of the Governors race. Forget the House of Reps, look at TX, just a like redistricting, BAM - more repukes. So the only state wide elections would be is Governor. So if you control the State, better hope they are fair when it come to spreading wealth.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

17. well, it IS the legislature of the states that were to choose

the Senators not the Governor unless there was a vacancy created during a recess of the state legislature. And whether we like it or not, the INTENT was to create a loose conferderation of states...not a huge federal government with all the power in D.C. . We are not what we were meant to be...but in today's world, it might be better this way.

theProdigal

[Yupster]

31. Don't know if I'd want to go back to pre-17th Amendment senate,

but I agree that the Seventeenth Amendment was a critically important amendment and changed the country dramatically. It's way overlooked.

With the Civil War and then 17th Amendment, the states lost most of their influence. I question whether there's even a point to having them anymore.

[serryjw]

37. I don't want them.......

We are the United States of America and I wnat a strong federal governemnt. Every important issue s/b the same in Iowa as it is in CA. Anything other is Bushit

[ProdigalJunkMail]

54. I agree with you

with the structure that is now in place for election of senators rather than the selection by the state legislatures, the states essentially have zero power. For all intents and purposes the states could be dissolved. The ONLY influence the states have now is in the Electoral College...and even there they are pretty much at the will of the populace of their state.

I think power SHOULD be returned to the states by repealing the 17th amendment and by stripping the federal government of most of the powers it has claimed for itself that were expressly given to the states or implicilty left to the people. This would give states the power and the RIGHT to provide services on their own and would eliminate the federal welfare that props up some of these state who would otherwise be failing. I know some people here will jump on the racial/religious bigotry bandwagon and claim that a return to state-based power structures would cause rampant segregation and things of the like...but the fact of the matter is that the constitution DOES grant the Feds the power to deal with those sorts of issues under the civil rights rules that apply to ALL citizens.

I know nothing is going to be a perfect solution, but by reducing the power of the federal government, we could great increase our local governance and improve the ability of people of a particular state to live in a system that they approve of or change it. With the federal government, as it is currently structured and empowered, there is no chance of really making a change...

theProdigal

[serryjw]

36. True enough, True enough

what would the implications of this happening?

[ChicanoPwr]

39. It would mean more control by the repugs

If we go back to pre-17th then the neo-cons will only have to focus on taking care of the Governors race. Forget the House of Reps, look at TX, neo-cons will just redistrict the state, BAM - more repukes in the state government and the House of Reps. So the only state wide elections the Repugs will have to focus on is Governor.

[serryjw]

40. They have figured it all out.....

why aren't we that smart. We had control of the congress for decades

[ChicanoPwr]

41. We are

but nobody in the higher up will listen to us. The Dem leadership, at least here in TX, has this thing about waiting your turn and not realize they could improve the party.

In TX, there were a lot of young Dems who the Repugs went and recruited, like our Gov. Shoot I was even recruited, I could not sell my soul.

[serryjw]

42. WE are not the problem.......

leadership(LOL!) is....

[ChicanoPwr]

43. LOL

[ProdigalJunkMail]

53. I am not sure why you keep talking about governors

as they would not be selecting the Senators. This power was granted to state LEGISLATURES...not governors. The only time the governor would select a senator would be if there was a vacancy in the senate during a recess of the state legislature. That is vastly different that what you are saying (and have said further up in this thread).

theProdigal

[tx_dem41]

5. Please cite source....Steny Hoyer, a Dem leader in the House...

would NOT be sponsoring this.

[tx_dem41]

8. SOURCE found.

Go to thomas.gov, House side.

Its interesting to note that this was first proposed when Clinton was President. Must be a principle thing for the Dems sponsoring it now.

[ChicanoPwr]

10. Maybe Bill Clinton v Bush in 08

[pa28]

13. Just what I was thinking.

Bring on Clinton.

[serryjw]

38. How do you propose this to happen......

even if he wouldn't want it...he's too wealthy now

[Bucky]

22. Shit. Now I understand Jeb saying he won't run in '08

Goddammnit why couldn't this be a rumor? Asswipes.

[ChicanoPwr]

9. I would love to say I made a mistake.

http://thomas.loc.gov/ search HJ Res 25

Full sponsors are from thomas "Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. HYDE, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SABO, and Mr. PALLONE)"

[tx_dem41]

11. Yes...I found it too....

It was initially proposed when Clinton was President. Not sure (other than principle...imagine that), why the Dems are still sponsoring.

[Xithras]

21. Oooh...GW Bush Vs. Bill Clinton

Bush would get STOMPED.

[Bucky]

23. Correction: BBV+Bush vs Clinton

Now place your bets, ladies and gents.

[ChicanoPwr]

24. Let the Hacker wars begin

[SweetLeftFoot]

56. Bets

Touch wood, let's just hope that Bill stays off the cheeseburgers and is in a suitable position to be around in 2008.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

33. with BBV, clinton would get his as shanded to him

he'd probably know better than to run in the first place

until BBV is addressed, the GOP will hold the white house

[ComerPerro]

26. This may not pass, but... face it. Bush will be President forever

Until he steps down or dies in office.

[ChicanoPwr]

27. Reminds me

Kind of like J Edgar Hoover

[Eric J in MN]

34. No he won't. Bush is out on Jan. 20, 2009 (NT)

NT

[leftinbluestate]

48. you have alot more faith

Than I do. You REALLY think that junior will actually step down?

Anyone that crosses him will be run off the road like Sumner nearly was in Ohio.

WE are ALL in DANGER here----we have to be ready to do SOMETHING.

[tx_dem41]

60. No....just less paranoia...

and less willingness to make my enemies into superheroes.

[genieroze]

28. If it passes, does that mean the Clinton could run again too.? eom

[Guarionex]

32. guys...chil..

these type of resolutions are always placed before the House...it will get killed.

VERY FEW people in the country want a return to multiple terms for President (more than 2), and NO progressive in this country is gonna accept a change in the Constitution to have Bush for more than 4 more years...

Chill with the freaking out...inform people YES...but chill with the freaking out.

[Nikepallas]

45. If in fact this up coming congress gets its way it will be BUSH

as President for life.

[T Bone]

49. Here is the GOP Strategery on this - Bu$h in 2012 and ever after

I think they count on Bu$h leaving in 2008, no way this could be RATIFIED by the states until after that. I think they are counting on barely holding things together economically and foreign relations wise during this next four years. Then Bush goes. A Dem or a non-Bush Republican comes in. Of course EVERYTHING falls apart thanks to all the time-bombs the Bu$hies have planted and all the shadow men they will have in place, and thanks to the Reichian media, it all gets played up that things were never THIS bad under Bu$h, and all the reich-wing propaganda in the media actually serves to get the amendment finally ratified by a few hold out states. Putting the amendment over the top. Remember it takes 36 or 37 states' LEGISLATURES to ratify the amendment, which explains why that little thing of having the LEGISLATURES pick the Senators is in the SMAE amendment. Get it now? The media keeps hammering how bad things are and IF ONLY we could have GW back in charge, and of course he RELUCTANTLY agrees since the LEGISLATURES have finally had the good sense to ratify this amendment which ALLOWS him to SERVE.

I admit, I am starting to think too much like these fuckers.

[ChicanoPwr]

52. That is a very good point there

IMO, i think we need to think like them and then find the way to counter it. It is antidote to Rove and Rove wanna-be. We all know Rove is a big historian and all this is history. So if you are thinking like him that is good, now how do we counter it.

[GreenArrow]

51. "See, God told me he wants me to stay on as president"

.

[ProfessorGAC]

57. Never Gonna Happen

Not to worry. The mobilization AGAINST this repeal would maximize if it ever even got close. It's not on the radar screen now because it's a light year from reality.

It will never fly. Ammendments to the Constitution are a VERY difficult, and protracted event to accomplish. As it should be. This is a non-issue now, and should anyone get too serious about it, the movement will be quashed through hyperactivism.
The Professor

[ChicanoPwr]

63. That is true but....

why not be proactive about it now. Considering the Repugs are making the most of this remaining light year why take chances. IMO, I would like to defeat something now before it becomes a issue.

[elehhhhna]

58. The text of Amend 22 says "no dice, George":

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***.

There you go. Bush, whether he was or was not elected, has served 2 years of a term when some OTHER person (Gore) was elected. He's toast in '08.

[TahitiNut]

59. "... to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies..."

It's amazing. These people take this oath and then proceed to make war on the Constitution itself. :puke: :puke: :puke:
The sheer volume of proposed amendments designed to deprive citizens of their political enfranchisement is overwhelming ... without even mentioning the abuses of Federal power that're obscenely unconstitutional!

[tx_dem41]

61. Note that several of those people "making war on the Constitution"...

..are Democrats (Steny Hoyer and Barney Frank to name two). BTW, although I don't like the proposal, proposing an amendment to the Constitution can't really be called "making a war against it". Since unlimited terms were part of the original Constitution, some (not me) might say that the 22nd Amendment was a "war against the Constitution".

[spanone]

62. Then the Dems could run the Big Dog again. Bill would wup his ass.