Repeal the XXII Amendment.

[Big Fitz]

I'm hoping it is the will of "We, the People" to pass a term limit amendment for Congress.

FDR proved that a panicked people cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Congress proves an immoral and/or corrupt people will not do the right thing.

 

[BDBoop]

I'm hoping it is the will of "We, the People" to pass a term limit amendment for Congress.

FDR proved that a panicked people cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Congress proves an immoral and/or corrupt people will not do the right thing.

I tried to thank that, but apparently my last helping was too recent.

 

[Big Fitz]

Came through I see.

That's the main reason I believe in term limits. And right now we're a Panicked Immoral people when looking at the whole of the voting populace as say compared to our great grandparents and great great grandparents.

 

[jillian]

Before we repeal the XII Amendment, we should look at the repeal of the XVII amendment that allows for the popular election of the Senate. When the Constitution was set up the Senate was to represent the States and the House to represent the people. Therefore, both the States and the People had representation in the Federal Congress. With the adoption of the XVII Amendment the representation of the states was eliminated, therefore the States have no say in the decisions made in the Federal Congress.

Although I agree that the XXII Amendment needs to be repealed, it is of greater importance that the rights of the States be reinstuted first.

typical rightwingnut fear of the electorate voting. the state is not a separate entity. the state is its populous. you just want the house to vote for the senate because you'd get greater representation by tea freaks.

i don't need anyone voting for me. but thanks.

 

[konradv]

For those to lazy to look it up that is the Amendment that limits the President to two terms.

I'm too lazy to even vote in your dumb poll! But I will take the time to tell you what an you are for insulting people over something that's your responsibility in the first place.

 

[FA_Q2]

Before we repeal the XII Amendment, we should look at the repeal of the XVII amendment that allows for the popular election of the Senate. When the Constitution was set up the Senate was to represent the States and the House to represent the people. Therefore, both the States and the People had representation in the Federal Congress. With the adoption of the XVII Amendment the representation of the states was eliminated, therefore the States have no say in the decisions made in the Federal Congress.

Although I agree that the XXII Amendment needs to be repealed, it is of greater importance that the rights of the States be reinstuted first.

typical rightwingnut fear of the electorate voting. the state is not a separate entity. the state is its populous. you just want the house to vote for the senate because you'd get greater representation by tea freaks.

i don't need anyone voting for me. but thanks.

? – Did you bother to try and understand what the 17th and how it worked before it was enacted before letting this slip from your mouth?

Clearly, you do not know what they were getting at.

 

[traveler52]

Something tells me if Reagan was the one who was elected to four terms instead of FDR, some Conservatives wouldn't be bitching about the 22nd amendment.

If the Cons had their way, The Great Rectum God would have been crowned KING!!!

 

[Full-Auto]

Something tells me if Reagan was the one who was elected to four terms instead of FDR, some Conservatives wouldn't be bitching about the 22nd amendment.

If the Cons had their way, The Great Rectum God would have been crowned KING!!!

The Matthews trickle for 600

 

[CoolBreeze]

Some Conservatives:

Complain about the need for term limits with the 22nd amendment due to corrupt politicians.

Want to repeal a amendment that takes voting away from people and gives it back to a bunch of politicians.

Repealing the XVII Amendment does not take away any voting rights from the voter. What it did was take away the protections of the States in the Federal Congress. Until the XVII Amendment was inacted, the citizens had no right to vote for the Senators of their State, that is because the Senate was designed to protect the rights and solvernity of the individual State.

 

[konradv]

Some Conservatives:

Complain about the need for term limits with the 22nd amendment due to corrupt politicians.

Want to repeal a amendment that takes voting away from people and gives it back to a bunch of politicians.

Repealing the XVII Amendment does not take away any voting rights from the voter. What it did was take away the protections of the States in the Federal Congress. Until the XVII Amendment was inacted, the citizens had no right to vote for the Senators of their State, that is because the Senate was designed to protect the rights and solvernity of the individual State.

After the amendment Senators were still .from the state they represented and were allowed to vote no differently than before. How did that take away protections? It's not like they were beholden to the Feds for their jobs. They still served the same population.

 

[CoolBreeze]

Before we repeal the XII Amendment, we should look at the repeal of the XVII amendment that allows for the popular election of the Senate. When the Constitution was set up the Senate was to represent the States and the House to represent the people. Therefore, both the States and the People had representation in the Federal Congress. With the adoption of the XVII Amendment the representation of the states was eliminated, therefore the States have no say in the decisions made in the Federal Congress.

Although I agree that the XXII Amendment needs to be repealed, it is of greater importance that the rights of the States be reinstuted first.

typical rightwingnut fear of the electorate voting. the state is not a separate entity. the state is its populous. you just want the house to vote for the senate because you'd get greater representation by tea freaks.

i don't need anyone voting for me. but thanks.

Another leftie who opens their constantly running trap before they accually know what they are talking about. The Senate was never appointed by the house, the Senators were appointed by the individual State Legislatures, to protect the rights of the States in the Federal System.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Before we repeal the XII Amendment, we should look at the repeal of the XVII amendment that allows for the popular election of the Senate. When the Constitution was set up the Senate was to represent the States and the House to represent the people. Therefore, both the States and the People had representation in the Federal Congress. With the adoption of the XVII Amendment the representation of the states was eliminated, therefore the States have no say in the decisions made in the Federal Congress.

Although I agree that the XXII Amendment needs to be repealed, it is of greater importance that the rights of the States be reinstuted first.

typical rightwingnut fear of the electorate voting. the state is not a separate entity. the state is its populous. you just want the house to vote for the senate because you'd get greater representation by tea freaks.

i don't need anyone voting for me. but thanks.

? – Did you bother to try and understand what the 17th and how it worked before it was enacted before letting this slip from your mouth?

Clearly, you do not know what they were getting at.

Jillian's an idiot who's knowledge of the law would fit into a thimble.

 

[CoolBreeze]

Some Conservatives:

Complain about the need for term limits with the 22nd amendment due to corrupt politicians.

Want to repeal a amendment that takes voting away from people and gives it back to a bunch of politicians.

Repealing the XVII Amendment does not take away any voting rights from the voter. What it did was take away the protections of the States in the Federal Congress. Until the XVII Amendment was inacted, the citizens had no right to vote for the Senators of their State, that is because the Senate was designed to protect the rights and solvernity of the individual State.

After the amendment Senators were still .from the state they represented and were allowed to vote no differently than before. How did that take away protections? It's not like they were beholden to the Feds for their jobs. They still served the same population.

Before the XVII Amendment the Senate was not beholding to the voting public at large, but rather to the State Legislature. Now regardless of what is best for the State(s), the Senate votes the way of the people and not for the issues of the State(s). This leaves the State(s) unrepresenated in the Federal System.

 

[Common_Tater]

Term limits are necessary. The dummies kept voting Schwarzenegger in as governor of California and the state fell so deep in debt during his terms that another 4 years would have been devestating. But if he'd had the opportunity, the idiots in that state would have reelected him. We need term limits to prevent any one person from claiming too much power and causing irreperable damage.

LOL The dem legislature is completely blameless Im sure.

What a tool.

He had veto powers.