Repealing the 22nd Ammendment

Frankly I'm quite surprised I haven't heard anything about this here on PRWE.

Here's a link.

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86324

Now the site I've linked to is not everyday reading here in casa de clembo as it were but I found it an interesting read actually.

There are so many ways to look at this subject actually.
What are your opinions?

 

If it were repealed, as soon as someone ran 3-4 terms, it would be brought back again.

 

Nothing new. The Repos tried that crap with Reagan, it wont happen. Flipping the constitution requires a SUPER majority, and I just cant see it. Not even with a Dem congress.

Call it Obama Mania, it will chill after a bit. The Bushies tried, the Clintonistas tried. It is a romantic thought, but not a practical one.

My moneys on a BIG NO.

 

Nothing new and nothing surprising. The more things change, the more things remain the same. There will always be people like Rep Jose Serrano who want a king...as long as it is their king. I don't think our country has fallen that far, yet, though. I don't see something like that passing.

 

Now we know the old man was going senile late in his presidency. Can you imagine him running in '92 and being president until he was 84 years old?

 

I know it's old hat guys and don't see it passing either.

I brought it up because of the mood here on PRWE BEFORE the election. This would have been beaten to death IMHO.

I did see tinges of "panic" at work the other day over this though. As always I remained silent - need the job but it does amaze me.

Even if it WAS repealed it would not just "open the door" for Obama it would "open the door" for anyone that could actually get elected more than two terms.

Hell, George Bush could run again!

 

And what might I ask would be wrong with GW running for a third term or even a 4th, then his Brother could run for it as well

 

I think GW is a prime example of why the 2 term rule works.

 

Look what just happened in Russia with the presidential term being extended from four to six years. Technically speaking that means that Dmitry Medvedev could step down and let Vlad the Impaler take over again.

In this day and age in Russia, even the media was iffy on it. Of course the mainstream media in Russia is controlled by the Kremlin, but the reporters are obviously reporting in a way that trends on ambiguity to play it safe, but still create an air of dissension.

 

As Goerge Washington said; ''Two years is enough.''. It was just a loop hole the first time.

 

Too bad nobody listens to those old farts anymore. They were some pretty smart fellers, even wrote a nice constitution that was very very forward for it's time. Unfortunately - people want to keep tinkering with it and take away our liberties whilst advancing their own.

 

You are right. And everyone uses it(or tries to)to thier advantage. When talking about the right to bear arms, the antis say they meant the militia. But if try to limit whats wriiten or reported(nasty stuff, or sexual stuff about someone), newspapers shout freedom of the press. They wrote what they wrote. They had great foresight on how a democracy should be run. Ammendments can come and go, but the Bill of Rights should never change.

 

Frankly I am one of the "If it ain't broke don't fix it" people with regards to the constitution.

Interpretation of constitutions and how they are used can be fascinating. For instance I have compared the 1977 USSR constitution vs. the 1787 USA constitution - really the guarantees granted Soviet citizens in their 1977 constitution were fairly liberal - but conservatively interpreted in favour of the state over individual liberty - though the constitution guaranteed freedom of worship, political affiliation, even the right to secede from the USSR.