Working on this new server in php7...
imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
Features
latest news
best of news
syndication
commentary


KILLRADIO

VozMob

ABCF LA

A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List

LAAMN List




IMC Network:

Original Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles


View article without comments

HOUSE INTRODUCES BILL TO REPEAL PRESIDENTIAL TERM LIMITS

by fr3th0t Sunday, Apr. 13, 2003 at 1:58 PM

PRESIDENT (KING) FOR LIFE? What kind of America is this?

H. J. RES. 11 is a bill introduced in the House on January 7, 2003 by Congressman Jose Serrano (D-NY), calling for the repeal of the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution and the abolishment of Presidential Term Limits.

Forget just waiting it out till 2004 or 2008. This bill may make it possible for George Bush to be emperor forever, waging war without end, fulfilling the Administration's wildest Caesarian dreams, putting an end to 227 years of Constitutional rule in the United States.

Email this. Post this on every message board you visit. Inform anyone and everyone you can get your hands on and let them know about this deliberate undermining of American democracy and Constitutional authority.

WRITE YOUR REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS TO BLOCK THIS BILL.

INFORM OTHERS.

ORGANIZE AND RESIST THE IMPERIALIST AGENDA.

DO NOT ALLOW OUR COUNTRY TO BE HIJACKED!

--------

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 11
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 7, 2003
Mr. SERRANO 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.'.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


DON'T PANIC!

by Hitchhiker's Guide Sunday, Apr. 13, 2003 at 2:29 PM

Even if this travesty survives committee, it still has to be passed by a two-thirds majority in BOTH the House and Senate (the Rethugs don't have two-thirds of either) and THEN be ratified by three-fourths of the states within seven years.

Getting an amendment through is a difficult process- even more difficult if there's any controversy attached- remember the Equal Rights Amendment?

Also, more strategic thinkers among the Rethuglicans are unlikely to want to open up the possibility of a Democratic President serving more than two terms- the 22nd Amendment was created largely in response to FDR's unprecedented four terms.

Term limits actually serve the interests of both mainstream parties. Let the yahoos of the House waste the domestic air with panegyrics to their little tin god- there's little likelihood that anything will come of it.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


This legislation pet project of New York Democrat from the Bronx - Anyone know why?

by scratching my head Sunday, Apr. 13, 2003 at 6:23 PM

I was very concerned to read that there was legislation to repeal the 22nd ammendment. After researching the topic I am relieved (because there has not been congressional support) and confused (because the bill is sponsored by a left leaning congressperson). Can anyone provide a liberal and/or progressive argument for repealing this particular ammendment to help clear up my confusion?


Background:

Congressman Jose Serrano is the sponsor on this bill. He represents the 16th Congressional District of New York (Bronx).

website: http://www.house.gov/serrano/welcome.html

He has sponsored legislation to repeal the 22nd Ammendment in each of the past four sessions of Congress. The legislation has never made it out of the Subcommittee on the Constitution (House Committee on the Judiciary).

Rep. Serrano spoke out in October against the Iraq resolution ending his speech with the following sentence: "So I end this speech as I began it, with great sadness. I cannot agree with the course that our great nation is embarking on - one that brings the threat of war closer and the goal of peace further away."

According to the AFLCIO website he has a lifetime 95% pro working families voting record.

Following are the bill status for each of the attempts according to the Thomas database [from Thomas front page: "THOMAS will be unavailable Sunday, April 13 6:00 AM - 3:00 PM (at the latest)"]

108th Congress (2003):
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HJ00011:@@@X

107th Congress (2001):
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d107:3:./temp/~bdS6XG:@@@X

106th Congress (1999):
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d106:2:./temp/~bdUd6O:@@@X

105th Congress: (1997):
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d105:2:./temp/~bdmEmV:@@@X
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


addenda - cleaning up links

by scratching my head Sunday, Apr. 13, 2003 at 6:37 PM

Sorry all. Mixed up my query strings on the links.

[replace the last 6 lines of text with this]

107th Congress (2001) HJ Res 4
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:./HJ0004:@@@X

106th Congress (1999) HJ Res 16
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:./HJ0016:@@@X

105th Congress (1997) HJ Res 15
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:./HJ0015:@@@X

Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Co-Sponsors

by CloudHelmut Saturday, May. 31, 2003 at 3:01 PM

You refer to the republicans as behind this when the bill sponsor and the majority of the co-sponsors are Democrats. Also the only person that this law change would affect is a Democrat (Clinton, Reagan being medically unfit).

Term limits discriminate against incumbents good or bad. Is it impossible for you to imagine a person you would want on the job more than 8 years?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Just what we need...

by Diogenes Saturday, May. 31, 2003 at 3:56 PM

...a "President for Life".

If two terms was good enough for Washington then it is good enough for any holder of the highest Office in the Land.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Look at the rocks.

by Eric Saturday, May. 31, 2003 at 4:03 PM

Let me assure you all, this is not a Republican idea. Although we could all enjoy a few decades of GWB leading our great nation, our worst nightmare would be an eternity of Slick Willy Clinton.

This Bill was introduced by the Democraps. Once again, the show just how idiotic they can be. The only justice for such stupidity would be for it to pass, and GWB to remain king until his death.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


One thing I agree with...

by Diogenes Saturday, May. 31, 2003 at 4:07 PM

...is that Gee Duhbya is acting like a King not a President.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


And the Democraps

by Eric Saturday, May. 31, 2003 at 4:14 PM

want to ordain him. That's the point of this article. The Democrats are clueless. Where is all the pent-up "don't piss on my Constitution", Diogenes? Looks to me like that's exactly what the "people's party" is trying to do here. Agree or not?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Oh, I agree...

by Diogenes Saturday, May. 31, 2003 at 4:16 PM

...with your point - minus the jabs at the Demoncrats.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Well they're the one's sponsoring the Bill.

by Eric Saturday, May. 31, 2003 at 4:20 PM

Why are you defending them? Are you fronting for those roach droppings?

I wanna see you get angry. You know. Some of that "bitter foes until the end" stuff you used on me.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Don't...

by daveman Saturday, May. 31, 2003 at 4:28 PM

...confuse him, Eric.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


We have a full time crew

by Sheepdog Saturday, May. 31, 2003 at 6:26 PM

of front men here. And yes the democrats are filth
just like the republicans. So what's your point?
These overpaid, court jesters are nearly all self-serving spineless pigs.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Thanks...

by Diogenes Saturday, May. 31, 2003 at 7:40 PM

...you captured my viewpoint exactly. Both of the Major Parties are corrupt to the core.

To Eric: No point in getting too upset. Either they pass it or they don't - I'm fatalistic on the actions of Congress. My guess is that it is going nowhere. It could only be done as an Amendment - which I doubt will get out of committee. If it does it still has to go to the states. Fat Chance of their getting 3/4 of the States to sign on.

To Davie: Still upset over my jab a while back I perceive. Oh, well - can't win em' all I guess. Still Nasty after all these years. Hee, hee, hee.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Which jab was that, Dio?

by daveman Sunday, Jun. 01, 2003 at 4:31 AM

I don't recall any that actually landed.

How arrogant...and typical...of you.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


A classical case

by Dr. Payne Sunday, Jun. 01, 2003 at 4:36 AM

The numbness of being daveman.
Separation of brain from sensory system.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Physician...

by daveman Sunday, Jun. 01, 2003 at 4:46 AM

...heal thyself.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


The point is....

by Eric Sunday, Jun. 01, 2003 at 5:02 AM

It disgusts me that these Democraps would even suggest such a bill. Of course it would never pass. To think as much is ridiculous. If it did pass, I'd be one of the ones readying to take up arms against the tyrants.

But then those of you claiming that the so called "Bush Junta" have declared themselves kings and ultimate rulers here, are relatively silent over these Democraps trying to thwart the main element that keeps our country from becoming an authortarian third world state. That being Term Limits.

You should be as pissed as I am over the absurdity of these idiots to even propose such a thing. Congress should throw these morons out upon their arses. Their constituency should hog tie, tar, feather and burn them at the stake.

But then again, I feel that way about most liberals.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Well, indeed!

by Sheepdog Sunday, Jun. 01, 2003 at 5:16 AM

Of course I agree with your evaluation with a significant
caveat. These assholes have ceased to represent the public
years ago.
Once in office, they ignore the popular wishes as the passage of NAFTA, GATT and the granting to Bush Jr. the rights to wage war despite the overwhelming outcry of the
people not to allow this to occur. The switch boards were jammed with requests and pleadings and demands not to go to war.
And don't hand me these 'poles' that keep being touted by
the jackals because, I just don't believe them according to
the broad spectrum of folk I do business with. I haven't
seen this consensus shared.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


lets be frank

by Randall Williams Friday, Feb. 17, 2006 at 1:58 PM

Are you freaken retarded!? We have a checks and balance system for a reason. If you do not know what the system of checks and balances is, you need to go back to school. To believe that a president can become king is preposterous and STUPID! My 10 year old brother knows that this is false. This country will not be hijacked and to think so is absurd. Besides, only one man has only lasted more than 2 terms. That was Franklin Roosevelt. Do you know who that is? The people will not elect the same guy every 4 years and his popularity will decrease as time goes by. We are NOT going to become a dictatorship! You can support it or oppose it if you want but do not use another stupid and retarded statement like hijacking the country or having a president become king!
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy