Clinton Term Limits And HR17

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Well. Just when we thought Y2K would be the main battle, David Bresnahan writes his latest piece: "My Meeting With Bill Clinton". I would suggest reading every single word of this. It will give the conspiracy buffs something to load in their cannon - for certain!

Question: Surely, he wouldn't seize the opportunity to use Y2K to his advantage? Would he? (Tongue deeply in cheek.)

Answer: "Yes he would, and don't call me Shirley."

No further comment from me. The article speaks for itself.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_insightsspot/19990201_xcins_my_meeting.shtml

BW

-- Bob Walton (waltonb@kdsi.net), February 01, 1999

Answers

What we may learn (too late) is that we as a country have sold our soul for the sake of a good economy. What price will we have to pay to get it back.....

-- abcdGoldfish (mnoGoldfish@osar.com), February 01, 1999.

Christopher Shays (R) from Conneticut is a co-sponsor. Might be time to let your feelings be known.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), February 01, 1999.


I can't get the link to the article about House Joint Resolution 17 to work.

If this is true, I just 'got it' about Clinton. I've hated his guts for years, but I have never bought into the conspiracy theories. Now I get it. He wants to be dictator-for-life.

I feel like throwing up.

-- Ned (entaylor@cloudnet.com), February 01, 1999.


Ray, what in God's name are Republicans doing sponsoring this? I'm lost.

-- Ned (entaylor@cloudnet.com), February 01, 1999.

Someone needs to "do the right thing" about Clinton. Like about 67 (or more) US Senators!

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 01, 1999.


Ned, Christopher Shays was one of the few so called Republicans that voted against all 4 articles of impeachment in the house.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), February 01, 1999.


Ray,

Thanks for the Sen. Bennett post, "Ready or Not, Y2K Is Coming". We're going to get it published in our local newspaper to help build public awareness.

BW

-- Bob Walton (waltonb@kdsi.net), February 01, 1999.


Ray,

Do you (or anyone) know of a wake-up-and-smell-the-coffee web site on Clinton and his shenanigans? Something that isn't so outragously paranoid that people would immediately laugh it off? Reason: I run a popular web site (a free personals page) and could get it a lot of exposure.

-- Ned (entaylor@cloudnet.com), February 01, 1999.


Bob, I think that Senator Bennett took the next step so to speak in this article. It definitely went further in sounding the alarm than any of his previous discussions.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), February 01, 1999.


Ned, one thing I ponder lately is what GI candidate would WANT the job of president post-Y2K? Here in Austin, George Dubbya's wife Laura gave some misgivings about his running because she fears the personal scrutiny a run would entail. He then kinda sorta indicated that he'd go with whatever she decided.

That is a PERFECTLY understandable - to the masses - excuse to drop out.

Now, what Bush that you've ever heard of, with practically a sure shot at the presidency, would ever act like that, if Y2K weren't a factor?

-- Lisa (.@work.here), February 01, 1999.



Relax! I despise Clinton as much as anybody, but a *LEGAL* method for him to stay in office is almost impossible.

In order for a constitution amendment to get passed, it has to be passed by both House & Senate with supermajorities (66% or 75% I'm not sure which).

THEN, it has to be introduced, debated, and PASSED by 75% of the states within 7 years.

With clear majorities of opposition Republicans (such as they are) in both House & Senate. THIS ISN'T GOING TO GET OFF THE GROUND.

I doubt that it will even make it out of committee.

It has to pass in 34 states in 18 months? I don't think so.

So, I sincerely doubt we have to worry about a LEGAL repeal of the 22nd amendment.

As for other scenarios. I'm more concerned about those.

Just a thought.

Jolly

-- Jollyprez (Jolly@prez.com), February 01, 1999.


Just to throw a little gasoline on the fire here -- and to ask a pertinent question -- what is the law on a president serving two terms, staying out of office a term, and then running again? Or how about this scenario -- Gore declines to run or, halfway through the primaries or even at the convention itself, throws his support to a dark-horse candidate -- Hillary Clinton.

-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), February 01, 1999.

In addition to the info from Jolly about the issue, under the Constitution, the sitting president cannot benefit from such a change. This thing could be voted on, approved by every state and made the law of the land, but the first president who could use it is the first one sworn in after it becomes an Amendment. Not that I think it could ever pass anyway.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), February 01, 1999.


I think most of us know there is no way legislation of this far reaching magnitude stands a snowballs chance of passing both houses AT THIS POINT IN TIME, but the article certainly is an insightful look into the Clintons and their spin tactics. Don't forget, he's the watch that never quits ticking. For Bill there is always tomorrow and politicians are fickle fickle fellows.

Agree?

BW

-- Bob Walton (waltonb@kdsi.net), February 01, 1999.


Hardliner,

I don't think Bill should be impeached for the poorly-argued charges of "perjury" and "obstruction." This circus serves only to obscure the deeper crimes of his administration, mainly drugs, and SELLING MISSLE AND SATTELLITE TECHNOLOGY TO THE COMMUNIST CHINESE (via their mafia), AND GIVING THEM UNFETTERED ACCESS TO TOP-SECRET INFORMATION (see "Year of the Rat"). Why do you think Bush is chiming in, in (an albeit lukewarm) defense of Clinton? As they say, "It's the (narco-) economy, stupid!" All this is coming out in the wash - it's an avalanche, a bursting boil on the ass of the Republic, and they can't stop it. Republicans are just as much involved as democrats. They (most of the 'pubs) are both working for globalist interests, which are non-ideological, using socialism/environmentalism because it works for them. Ultimately, they want America to give up it's sovereignty, and they've clearly cut some extremely shady deals with the Chinese slave-state. Clinton is a puppet for globalist interests, part of a larger long-term project that has been amply documented in "Year of the Rat," "And the Truth Shall Set You Free" and many others.

I told my barber, "All this Monica stuff is just a smokescreen." And he immediately came back with "You mean for Mena?" very blase. Then he started talking about Vince Foster, made a joke about Starbucks that wasn't very funny... Thanks to talk radio and the internet, every housewife, pastor and cop on the beat knows about this stuff by now, and if there's any anti-constitutional exploitation of the Y2k "emergency," (prolongation of curfew, random searches, gun seizures, etc., in the name of "fighting terrorism") the nationwide paranoia will only intensify.

What I'm saying is that convicting him for an arguably trumped-up sex-related charge is going to obscure the facts about widespread activities of the government/mafia that are propelling America in a downward, toilet-like vortex of deep, dark corruption. It will all come out in the wash, but by the time it does, these bastards are likely to have sold the washtub from under us, and we'll all be wearing identical gray coveralls over our subcutaneous microchips and doing our compulsory UN-mandated exercizes under a 500-foot portrait of some Rockfeller or other.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 01, 1999.



Wana know who the puppeteers are? Biderberg ring a bell anyone? You may start your investigation here....http://www.parascope.com/mx/articles/bilderberg.htm

Mike

-- flierdude (mkessler0101@sprynet.com), February 01, 1999.


Thanks, flierdude.

David Icke's "And the Truth Shall Set You Free" Gives a pretty good rundown, too. He has some kooky new-age beliefs, but he's an ex-BBC reporter, and he is very thorough. Lots of info for your dollar. Covers the bogus anti-semetic "jewish banking conspiracy" smokescreen as a ploy for making ANY investigation of international banking a taboo subject, associated with nazism. Another key intro to Conspiracy 101 is the booklet "The Occult Technology of Power."

I really have to say that the more I examine their techniques of controlling institutions, playing off warring factions against eachother to achieve strategic cultural and political ends, the more I admire their deep understanding of mass psychology. They're on top for a reason. To quote Maxwell Smart: "if only they'd used their genius for niceness, instead of evil..."

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 01, 1999.


E.,

I agree in principle with you but in practice, I really don't care what specific charges would result in his conviction in the Senate. There is only one penalty; removal from office and forfeiture of the right to ever hold an office of trust again.

As for Democrats and Republicans, I'm already on record here as holding them to be simply two different horns on the head of the same beast.

The exposure of his misdeeds is, as you say, getting to be common knowledge but the nightmare of trying to get any of it through our legal system against a well heeled and well supported defendant doesn't strike me as a very viable option.

I am aware that his removal wouldn't change bigger plans, and would only result in the placement of another marionette, but this one is particularly loathsome and I'd dearly love to see it stripped of its power and perks quite apart from all the rest of it.

Actually, I'm hoping that when he's outlived his usefulness to "Her Royal Hilaryness" that she'll dispose of him in some appropriate fashion. Simple fantasy, but one of my favorite stories is of Hilary's visit to the fortune teller who told her that "Slick" would be murdered. Her response was the question, "Will I be convicted?"

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 01, 1999.


Well, if it'll make you feel better, sure. Trouble is, most people will think "justice has been done," or, alternately, "injustice has been done" and won't realize there's been some heavy plea bargaining behind the reality curtain. If pro-clinton people can point to a flimsy charge, an apparent injustice, that serves to perpetuate conflict, to divide and subdivide the nation and hence weaken nationalism - which is the globalist game.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 01, 1999.


E.,

If by some chance Y2K "fizzles", then I'll be concerned, but as far as I can see, it's not likely to matter much for a long, long time, if ever again.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 01, 1999.


Hardliner:

I certainly hope you're correct.......I'm not looking forward to Y2K, but if it will dissolve the corrupted mess we have in DC, and give us a chance to rebuild something decent with freedom again, it will be worth it........just hope I live long enough to see it happen.....

Sandy

-- Paul & Sandy Stambaugh (patches96@worldnet.att.net), February 01, 1999.


To all who have posted earlier in this thread:

Did any of you take the trouble to learn that there has been at least one bill proposing a constitutional amendment to repeal the twenty-second amendment introduced in seven out of the last eight Congresses? Or that both Republicans and Democrats have sponsored these bills?

I found this out by research at http://thomas.loc.gov/ and you can too.

Those of you who know that this has nothing to do with a Clinton power grab should be ashamed of yourselves for leading on the others.

- - - - - - -

Bob Walton,

First, a technical note: House Joint Resolution 17 is abbreviated as "H.J.Res. 17", not as "HR17" which is the abbreviation for an entirely different bill.

>I think most of us know there is no way legislation of this far reaching magnitude stands a snowballs chance of passing both houses AT THIS POINT IN TIME, but the article certainly is an insightful look into the Clintons and their spin tactics.

I think this thread offers a look at the spin tactics of Clinton-attackers. See my comments on other's postings.

>Don't forget, he's the watch that never quits ticking.

Don't forget to check the facts when contemplating the writings of Clinton-attackers.

- - - - - - -

abcdGoldfish,

Who's selling the country's soul? Every year, some people want to repeal the two-term limit on the Presidency. You didn't fall for this particular Clinton-power-grab fable, did you?

- - - - - - -

Ray,

So how do you feel about the proposals to repeal the twenty-second amendment that were introduced in the 99th Congress (1985-1986 = Reagan administration) [H.J.Res. 690], 100th Contress (1987-1988 = Reagan administration) [H.J.Res. 156], 101st Congress (1989-1990 = Bush administration)[S.J.Res. 36, H.R. 404, H.J.Res. 84, H.J.Res. 264], and 102nd Congress (1991-1992 = Bush administration) [H.J.Res 61, H.J.Res. 101]? Should we have let our feelings be known about those, too?

(Note: I'm listing only the proposals for amendments which would only repeal the twenty-second amendment. There have been several more complicated proposals involving something in addition to that repeal.)

- - - - - - -

Ned,

>I can't get the link to the article about House Joint Resolution 17 to work.

Go to http://thomas.loc.gov/

Under the heading "Legislation" and subheading "Bill Text", click on "106th" (= the current Congress).

On the resulting page, after "SEARCH:", click on "Word/Phrase".

In the space for entering search word/phrase, enter "repeal twenty-second amendment" (if you want to get exactly the same search results I did) or something similar, then click "Search".

To look for similar bills in earlier Congresses, go back to the http://thomas.loc.gov/ page, and under the heading "Legislation" and subheading "Bill Text", click on "Previous" instead of "106th". Then choose a Congress and proceed with the search as above.

>If this is true, I just 'got it' about Clinton. I've hated his guts for years, but I have never bought into the conspiracy theories. Now I get it. He wants to be dictator-for-life.

... and so did Bush and Reagan, right? Since the same proposal to repeal the 22nd amendment was introduced during _their_ administrations, I guess you'll apply the same logic to them as you just have to clinton, won't you?

Reagan wanted to be dictator-for-life, right, according to your logic?

Bush wanted to be dictator-for-life, right, according to your logic?

Or do you let your hate for Clinton interfere with your logical thinking?

By the way, as far as I can tell from using the Thomas site, the only recent Congress in which _no_ bill to repeal the 22nd amendment was introduced was the 103rd Congress (1993-1994 = Clinton administration). Maybe that conflicts with your Clinton-hate, but ... that's just tough. You won't let facts interfere with your Clinton-hate, will you?

>I feel like throwing up.

As I've written in another context recently, "It's less scary when you have more information."

>what in God's name are Republicans doing sponsoring this?

Oh ... the same as they've been doing sponsoring similar bills in the past. Did you complain then, or do you have a double standard?

By the way, during both the 104th (1995-1996) and 105th (1997-1998) Congresses, Representative Hyde co-sponsored bills introduced to repeal the 22nd amendment. You know, Henry Hyde? Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee?

Henry Hyde isn't exactly a Clinton apologist, is he? I seem to recall that he has played a fairly active role in calling for Clinton's impeachment and conviction.

So how do you feel about _Hyde_'s co-sponsorship of bills (H.J.Res 81 in the 104th Congress, H.J.Res. 88 in the 105th Congress -- look them up if you don't believe me) to repeal the twenty-second amendment limiting the presidential terms? Do you think _he_'s part of the conspiracy to make Clinton a dictator-for-life?

(I think there's at least one other Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee on the list of co-sponsors of some of those bills, too. If you explain away Hyde, what do you say about other Republican co-sponsors of repealing the 22nd amendment? Are they ALL part of the conspiracy, Ned?)

>Do you (or anyone) know of a wake-up-and-smell-the-coffee web site on Clinton and his shenanigans? Something that isn't so outragously paranoid that people would immediately laugh it off? Reason: I run a popular web site (a free personals page) and could get it a lot of exposure.

Okay, Ned, but remember: If you don't do your homework and check out the facts before plastering your Clinton-hating fables on your popular web site, chances are that someone is going to come along and use the scissors of fact to cut your paper fables into little bitty shreds.

- - - - - - -

Jollyprez,

>it has to be introduced, debated, and PASSED by 75% of the states within 7 years.

A technical note: there is no seven year time limit on ratification of amendments in general (in fact, the 27th amendment was recently ratified almost two hundred years after being passed by Congress and submitted to the states for ratification). However, it has become popular in recent decades to include a seven-year limit in either the amendment itself or in the legislation proposing the amendment. If neither the proposed amendment nor its proposing legislation sets a time limit, there isn't any limit.

>With clear majorities of opposition Republicans (such as they are) in both House & Senate. THIS ISN'T GOING TO GET OFF THE GROUND.

Why not? By the time it's ratified, the President may well be Republican. And if the repealing amendment passed by Congress doesn't have any special provision about the then-current officeholder, then that officeholder will not be subject to the two-term limit once the repealing amendment is ratified.

>It has to pass in 34 states

38 states. The required fraction is three-fourths.

And if a 51st state (e.g. Puerto Rico) were admitted before 38 states have ratified, that would raise the ratification requirement to 39.

- - - - - - -

Cash,

>what is the law on a president serving two terms, staying out of office a term, and then running again?

After two full terms (or one term plus more than half of a term to which another person was elected), a person is not eligible to be elected to another term. He could run again, but any political party stupid enough to nominate him would be taking themselves out of the election because he simply could not be elected again -- any electoral votes cast for him would be null and void when the House certified the electoral vote.

>Gore declines to run or, halfway through the primaries or even at the convention itself, throws his support to a dark-horse candidate -- Hillary Clinton.

Hillary is as eligible to be elected to two terms as anyone else who has not already been elected to any term (or served more than half of a term to which another person was elected). So is Gore.

- - - - - - -

Wildweasel,

>In addition to the info from Jolly about the issue,

... plus technical corrections noted above ...

>under the Constitution, the sitting president cannot benefit from such a change.

Not true unless the amendment repealing the 22nd amendment says so. If all the new amendment says is that the 22nd amendment is repealed, then the then-current (at time of ratification of the new amendment) president is immediately no longer restricted to two terms.

(It should be noted that in addition to the proposals of amendments to simply repeal the twenty-second amendment, there have been several more complicated proposed amendments that included repealing the twenty-second. In at least one case I saw, there was an explicit clause saying that the two-term limit would still apply to the current [at the time of ratification of the repealing amendment] officeholder. But the majority of proposals I've seen do not include such a clause.)

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), February 01, 1999.


Hey, Spam,

Go with the flow. Nobody said you don't know your thing. We feel the thing is getting out of control. Get real.

BW

-- Bob Walton (waltonb@kdsi.net), February 02, 1999.


To those who would accuse us of simply being Clinton haters...

I consider myself a conservative. That does NOT mean that I support everything that Reagan, Bush, or any other Republican has done. I would imagine that most of us posting on this forum see the danger in extending or ending term limits for the President of the United States. I don't care who proposes the bill, it immediately sends up a red flag.

The reason that most of us are concerned, to say the least, is because this "person" is at the right place and time in history to pull off some incredibly bad things. The man has already tried to socialize one of the largest industries in the country. Do you really think he would have stopped with that?

I'm scared out of my mind knowing that Clinton will be in office when Y2K hits. This "man" is only concerned about power. Given a chance I have no doubt that he will attempt to seize as much as he can. Y2K, even if it is a "bump in the road" will give him the opportunity.

All of us have experienced the unwillingness of the general public to even look at a problem that may threaten their lives. No one is paying attention to anything but their pocket books. This is the worst time in recent history for a power hungry socialist to be in office. If any of the conspiracy theories are correct, now is the time when "they" will play their hand.

Please, Liberals, pull the veil away from your eyes. This is NOT about Republicans and Democrats. This is about a very real threat to our Democracy.

-- d (d@dgi.com), February 02, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ