Resolution (H. J. RES 17) to repeal the 22nd ammendment?

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

While we're worring, fretting, planning, preparing for y2k, other things are happening behind the scenes: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.J.RES.17

Now this is from the Thomas Register. Looks like Bill Clinton wants more time in the Oval Office?



-- Faze the Nation (dazed@confused.com), February 12, 1999

Answers

I got a blank screen :-(

-- Tim (pixmo@pixelquest.com), February 12, 1999.

It worked before...GRRRR!.. Here ya go. Maybe I'm over-reacting, but I think this is worth sharing.

------->% SNIP --------------

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual... (Introduced in the House)

HJ 17 IH

106th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 17

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 6, 1999

Mr. SERRANO (for himself and Mr. SHAYS) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

 

 

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article--

`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.'.

-------- >% END SNIP -------------

-- Faze the Nation (dazed@confuzed.com), February 12, 1999.

Bill was referred to the House Judiaciary Committee in early January. Here's the summary: OFFICIAL TITLE AS INTRODUCED: A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), February 12, 1999.

I'm as paranoid as the next guy, maybe more, but this is the Republican-led Judiciary committee that just impeached Bill. This isn't going anywhere.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 12, 1999.

It is my understanding that these attempts to repeal ammendements are frequent. I don't suggest that we ignore them; however, I am told that it takes more than an act of congress to repeal an ammendment to the constitution. I believe it is at least a five year process in which all of the states must agree to the change.

-- Reporter (foo@foo.bar), February 12, 1999.


Not the first itteration of the concept, hopefully not the last. (because as long as it doesn't pass, it won't be the last, Ollie).

cr

-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), February 12, 1999.


Faze:
You left out a colon at the end of the CGI call:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi- bin/query/z?c106:H.J.RES.17:



-- Tim (pixmo@pixelquest.com), February 12, 1999.


This is not something Clinton could benefit from Faze. Three-fourths of the states' (not all) legislatures would have to approve an amendment to the constitution, and that's after two-thirds of both houses of Congress. No... it's much easier to just declare martial law at some point between now and 1-1.

-- Vic (Roadrunner@compliant.com), February 12, 1999.

Never underestimate the power of the farce, BigDog.

-- yo!DUH! (pawn@gameoflife.com), February 12, 1999.

Thanks for civics brushup, Vic...I guess I was over-reacting on this. Yo!Duh: Be nice to the Big Dog.

-- Faze the Nation (dazed@confused.com), February 12, 1999.


H.J.Res. 17 was discussed in another thread recently. (The thread's title had the erroneous abbreviation "HR17" instead of "HJR17".) I think it was in this forum, but cannot find it now.

As I pointed out in that thread, six of the seven Congresses before the current 106th Congress have had bills introduced proposing a constitutional amendment that would repeal the 22nd Amendment. The 99th and 100th Congresses, during the Reagan administration, and the 101st and 102nd Congresses, during the Bush administration, each had at least one such bill.

During the Clinton administration, both Republicans and Democrats have sponsored such bills.

Rep. Henry Hyde has, during the Clinton administration, co-sponsored a bill proposing a constitutional amendment to repeal the 22nd Amendment. Yes, _that_ Henry Hyde, chair of the House Judiciary Committee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Reporter,

A constitutional amendment can be repealed only by another constitutional amendment, so Article V of the Constitution applies to this case. A proposed repealing amendment must be passed by two-thirds of both House and Senate (alternatively, Article V provides for a convention for proposing amendments if two-thirds of the states call for one -- this has never yet been done, but almost two-thirds of the states have called for a convention on some issue I can't remember right now), then ratified by three-fourths of the states (by state legislatures or state conventions).

>it is at least a five year process in which all of the states must agree to the change

There is no minimum or maximum time limit for the amending process specified in Article V. Only three-fourths of the states need ratify a proposed amendment.

Confusion about the time limit issue has arisen because although there is no such limit specified in Article V, some proposed amendments have included a specific time limit for ratification within themselves (e.g. the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd Amendments), and others not having a time limit within themselves have had a time limit in the _proposing legislation_ (e.g., the unratified Equal Rights Amendment). In the latter case, Congress could extend the time limit simply by amending the proposing legislation -- I think this was done once for the ERA.

But many proposed amendments have had no time limit on ratification at all. E.g. the 27th Amendment was proposed in 1789 but not ratified by three-fourths of the states until 1992, 203 years later. (Amendment numbering is obviously in order of ratification, not proposal.)

There's no minimum time limit either. The 26th Amendment, in contrast to the 27th, took only 100 days from proposal by Congress to ratification by three-fourths of the states.

- - - - - - - - - -

Vic,

>This is not something Clinton could benefit from

That depends on the wording of the repealing amendment. Some proposed amendments to repeal the 22nd Amendment have included a clause specifying that it would not affect the President in office at the time the repeal became effective.

Others, such as the one in HJR17, have no such clause. If one without a restrictive clause were ratified, the term limit repeal would immediately apply to the President holding office at the time of ratification.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), February 12, 1999.


Just Mr. Serrano and Mr. Shays's way of saying "Gee Mr. Bill, you're the greatest. We'd love to have you around forever. Please come to my state to campaign for me and remember to bring a few new interns with you when you come."

It's all political strategy and the new tactic to retaliate for the impeachment. Now Dem's will come out aggressively to support the Prez and attack the Rep's all in an attempt to win back congress in 2000.

-- David (David@BankPacman.com), February 12, 1999.


Be that as it may, NSP, I see very little chance of 38 states approving it in a time sufficient to benefit Clinton.

-- Vic (Roadrunner@compliant.com), February 12, 1999.

I don't quite follow the concern here on this thread.

Hell, we have *outstanding* extant examples of egregious disregard of other ammendments to the Constitution (say like numero 2 to name only one). What's the problem with just ignoring a few more?

-- Greybear

- Got rights? (If so you better go find somebody to thank)

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), February 12, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ