Two proposed congressional bills are intended to repeal the twenty-second amendment of The U. S. Constitution. They are House Resolution 9, sponsored by Democrat Josï ¿ ½ E. Serrano of New York and House Resolution 24, sponsored by Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, also a Democrat.
The twenty-second amendment states:
"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. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress."
Hoyer's bill is bipartisan. Republican radical right wing congressman F. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin is co-sponsoring Resolution 24.
Serrano and Hoyer have been working on repealing the twenty-second amendment since the Presidency of Bill Clinton. It's plausible that they wanted to extend Clinton's presidency and now must "prove" that their intentions were nonpartisan.
In introducing HJ Res 24, Hoyer stated that "though I am not a supporter of the current President, I feel there are good public policy reasons for a repeal of this amendment. Under the Constitution as altered by the 22nd Amendment, this must be President George W. Bush's last term even if the American people should want him to continue in office. This is an undemocratic result."
Is the "undemocratic result" of which Hoyer speaks worth giving The Regime, possibly the least Democratic leadership this country has ever had, a legal route by which to cheat their way to a more terms? Changing the twenty-second amendment is far too dangerous.
The twenty-second amendment was passed in 1951 after FDR had been elected four times between 1933-1945. Roosevelt died shortly after his fourth term began.
Part of the reason Roosevelt was elected four times was to maintain consistency of leadership during World War II. That conflict had specific goals which, when met, would signal the end of the war.
Members of The Regime warn that the so called war on terrorism is a "different kind of war". The enemy can be anywhere at any time, doesn't represent a nation state and doesn't wear a uniform. The number of enemy "combatants" is unknown. Consequently, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to gauge when the "war on terrorism" is over.
If Resolution 9 or 24 succeed, The Regime could remain in power indefinitely citing the importance of seamless leadership during times of "war".
Following what happened on September 11, 2001, this country invaded Iraq. If the official narrative of the events of 9/11 is true, it constitutes a crime committed by 19 hijackers, none of them Iraqi, not a declaration of war.
The logical reaction to 9/11 would have been to hunt down and capture the remaining Al Qaeda criminals. Invading Iraq was the wrong response.
However, The Regime claims that the invasion of Iraq is part of the "war on terror", not a response to a crime. Therefore, a case could be made for "seamless leadership during war time". Repealing the twenty-second amendment could appear to "make sense".
If the amendment isn't repealed before November of 2008, there's another method The Regime could use to extend its term in office. It would involve the threat of a terrorist attack.
The twenty-second amendment states:
"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. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress."
Serrano and Hoyer have been working on repealing the twenty-second amendment since the Presidency of Bill Clinton. It's plausible that they wanted to extend Clinton's presidency and now must "prove" that their intentions were nonpartisan.
In introducing HJ Res 24, Hoyer stated that "though I am not a supporter of the current President, I feel there are good public policy reasons for a repeal of this amendment. Under the Constitution as altered by the 22nd Amendment, this must be President George W. Bush's last term even if the American people should want him to continue in office. This is an undemocratic result."
Is the "undemocratic result" of which Hoyer speaks worth giving The Regime, possibly the least Democratic leadership this country has ever had, a legal route by which to cheat their way to a more terms? Changing the twenty-second amendment is far too dangerous.
The twenty-second amendment was passed in 1951 after FDR had been elected four times between 1933-1945. Roosevelt died shortly after his fourth term began.
Part of the reason Roosevelt was elected four times was to maintain consistency of leadership during World War II. That conflict had specific goals which, when met, would signal the end of the war.
Members of The Regime warn that the so called war on terrorism is a "different kind of war". The enemy can be anywhere at any time, doesn't represent a nation state and doesn't wear a uniform. The number of enemy "combatants" is unknown. Consequently, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to gauge when the "war on terrorism" is over.
If Resolution 9 or 24 succeed, The Regime could remain in power indefinitely citing the importance of seamless leadership during times of "war".
Following what happened on September 11, 2001, this country invaded Iraq. If the official narrative of the events of 9/11 is true, it constitutes a crime committed by 19 hijackers, none of them Iraqi, not a declaration of war.
The logical reaction to 9/11 would have been to hunt down and capture the remaining Al Qaeda criminals. Invading Iraq was the wrong response.
However, The Regime claims that the invasion of Iraq is part of the "war on terror", not a response to a crime. Therefore, a case could be made for "seamless leadership during war time". Repealing the twenty-second amendment could appear to "make sense".
If the amendment isn't repealed before November of 2008, there's another method The Regime could use to extend its term in office. It would involve the threat of a terrorist attack.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
