27th Amendment

"No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened."

The last amendment to the constitution- up to this date. It seems important in connection with the lame duck legislation. People are greedy, that is clear. And why not raise your own compensation, when possible? All those bankers still get bonuses despite what happened just a couple of years ago. So this amendment at least makes it easier for the governing body to not be to money.oriented in their own sense.

"May 20, 2010

The 27th amendment’s long road to ratification

By Mike Yawn  The Huntsville Item Thu May 20, 2010, 07:45 AM CDT

HUNTSVILLE — This week marks the 18th anniversary of the passage of the 27th amendment.  This amendment, which prohibits any law “varying the compensation” of congressmen from taking effect until a congressional election has “intervened,” is a modest one.

It lacks the lofty language and broad familiarity of the first amendment which protects, among other things, the freedom of speech, press, and religious practice. The 27th amendment does not shield citizens from harassment as does the 4th amendment’s prohibition of “unreasonable searches and seizures.” It does not enjoy the pithy usage of “pleading the fifth,” nor does it possess the history-altering gravitas of the 13th amendment, which abolished slavery in the United States.  But the 27th amendment merits discussion because its path to ratification highlights the impact that one person can have in a democracy.

Following the ratification of the United States Constitution, members of Congress immediately began considering amendments that would guarantee the preservation of essential rights. From more than 200 proposals, the House approved seventeen, a dozen of which ended up being passed by the Senate.

Of these 12, 10 were ratified by the states within a few years, becoming the Bill of Rights. One, involving congressional apportionment, was delayed and was eventually superseded by statutory law.  The other was introduced by none other than James Madison, beginning a strange 203-year odyssey that culminated in the ratification of the 27th amendment.

The Constitution requires that, for a proposed amendment to “take effect,” 3/4ths of the states must ratify it.  The proposed amendment regarding congressional pay increases, however, failed to gain traction and was ratified by only seven of the states by 1792 – four fewer than needed at that time. 

Years passed.  Ohio ratified the amendment in 1873, in response to a sketchy effort by Congress to increase congressional salaries by fifty percent – applied retroactively, no less.

More years passed.  Wyoming approved the proposed amendment in 1978 in response to another congressional pay increase.  By this time, however, passage of the amendment required ratification by thirty-eight (3/4ths) of the states. 

Enter Gregory Watson, who was then an undergraduate at the University of Texas.  Writing a term paper for his political science class in 1982, he took up the cause. His paper consisted of two parts. One argued that the proposed amendment was – despite the elapsed 193 years – still viable.  The second part was a call to action, exhorting the remaining 41 states to ratify.

In an interview for this article, Watson pointed out that the push for the amendment was about more than just preventing members of Congress from voting to give themselves raises. His efforts, he hoped, would also demonstrate “just how out of date the constitutional amendment process is.”  Not only is it “wildly antiquated,” but it “also needlessly excludes the most important player in the American political system of democracy, i.e., the people themselves.” 

In short, Watson was not only advocating for the amendment, he was giving voice to his view of democracy.

He sent letters to the 41 states that had yet to ratify the amendment. Outside academia his voice fell on eager ears. 

Maine passed it in 1983.  Colorado passed it in 1984. 

Time passed.  Watson became a legislative assistant for the Texas State Legislature. Ralph Nader joined the cause. By 1989 a majority of the states had ratified the proposed amendment, and The Washington Post covered the story, giving Watson’s progress additional momentum. In the next three years, ten more states ratified, leaving Watson only one state shy.  In 1992, Alabama edged out Michigan and New Jersey, becoming the 38th state to ratify the amendment. 

Constitutional scholars argued, Senator Robert Byrd rumbled, and a disengaged nation yawned.  Meanwhile, on May 18, 1992, U.S. Archivist Don Wilson ratified the amendment. It was officially the 27th amendment to the U. S. Constitution.  Gregory Watson, who started this process as a 20-year-old undergraduate at the University of Texas, had passed a constitutional amendment.

Watson is a modern-day Mr. Smith, taking his cause not only to Washington, but also across the nation.  In so doing, he finished something that James Madison – the Father of the Constitution – did not.  Think about that for a second.

When asked what it was like to build a partnership across the ages with James Madison on a constitutional amendment, Watson said, “I feel honored.”

But what about the 1982 term paper that revivified Madison’s proposed amendment?  Watson made a C, because the “subject matter was not a hot enough topic.” Those damned political science professors."

 Source: http://itemonline.com/opinion/x334298972/The-27th-amendment-s-long-road-to-ratification 

A very entertaining article about the long journey of an amendment. It is good to know, that already the framers knew their own selves and therefore wanted to bar the raise of congressman's salaries approved by themsleves. And it is incredible to see that still today one single person can have such an impact on this nation if he/she has an important issue to address.



I did not know about this automatic raise of the salaries in congress. Still, to me this Fox video might just hit right there whre they want it to- the people who struggle in the crisis and who just look for scapegoats- which is undestandable. Still, look at those bankers that do not only get $5000, but multiples of those numbers. This is to me a more important issue. How can you be such a good manager that you still get a compensation when you loused it up.
Congressmen could just have stopped themselves from getting more money, that would have been better. But then they would have been attacked for only doing this to gain political points. So, there is a thin line to walk on.

26th Amendment

"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

And yet, another amendment that deals with the right to vote- now for young adults. I understand that people should be able to vote when they are able to set their life at stake for their country. Nevertheless, I do not undestand why they are then not considered as adults under the law, but as minors. I am not talking about alcohol here, but also about other things like for example trials or legal competencies.
But I do think it is very important that younf people educate themselves about the politics nin their country as they are the future and should be able to make educated decisions early on.

"Ann Coulter

Repeal the 26th Amendment!

Jimmy Carter was such an abominable president we got Ronald Reagan, tax cuts, a booming economy and the destruction of the Soviet Union.
Two years of Bill Clinton and a Democratic Congress got us the first Republican Congress in half a century, followed by tax cuts, welfare reform and a booming economy –- all of which Clinton now claims credit for.
Obama's disastrous presidency has already produced Republican senators from Massachusetts, Wisconsin and Illinois; New Jersey's wonder-governor Chris Christie; and the largest House majority for Republicans since 1946.
We deserve more. Clinton only threatened to wreck the health care system; Obama actually did it. We must repeal the 26th Amendment.
Adopted in 1971 at the tail end of the Worst Generation's anti-war protests, the argument for allowing children to vote was that 18-year-olds could drink and be conscripted into the military, so they ought to be allowed to vote.
But 18-year-olds aren't allowed to drink anymore. We no longer have a draft. In fact, while repealing the 26th Amendment, we ought to add a separate right to vote for members of the military, irrespective of age.
As we have learned from ObamaCare, young people are not considered adults until age 26, at which point they are finally forced to get off their parents' health care plans. The old motto was "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote." The new motto is: "Not old enough to buy your own health insurance, not old enough to vote."
Eighteen- to 26-year-olds don't have property, spouses, children or massive tax bills. Most of them don't even have jobs because the president they felt so good about themselves for supporting wrecked the economy.
The meager tax young people paid for vehicle licensing fees on their cars threw them into such a blind rage that in 2003 they uncharacteristically voted to recall the Democratic governor of California, Gray Davis. Wait until they start making real money and realize they share a joint-checking account arrangement with the government! Literally wait. Then we'll let them vote.
Having absolutely no idea what makes their precious cars run, by the way, young voters are the most likely to oppose offshore drilling.
How about 10-year-olds? Why not give them the vote?
Then we'd have politicians wooing voters with offers of free Justin Bieber tickets instead of offers of a "sustainable planet" or whatever hokum the youth have swallowed hook, line and sinker from their teachers, pop culture idols and other authority figures. (Along with their approved-by-the-authorities "Question Authority" bumper stickers.)
Like 18-year-olds, the 10-year-olds would be sublimely unaware that they're the ones who will be footing the bill for all these "free" goodies, paying and paying until they die of old age.
Brain research in the last five years at Dartmouth and elsewhere has shown that human brains are not fully developed until age 25 and are particularly deficient in their frontal lobes, which control decision-making, rational thinking, judgment, the ability to plan ahead and to resist impulses.
Unfortunately, we didn't know that in 1971. Those of you who have made it to age 26 without dying in a stupid drinking game -- and I think congratulations are in order, by the way -- understand how insane it is to allow young people to vote.
It would almost be tolerable if everyone under the age of 30 just admitted they voted for Obama because someone said to them, "C'mon, it's really cool! Everyone's doing it!"
We trusted them, and now we know it was a mistake.
True, Reagan tied with Carter for the youth vote in 1980 and stole younger voters from Mondale in 1984, but other than that, young voters have consistently embarrassed themselves. Of course, back when Reagan was running for president, young voters consisted of the one slice of the population completely uninfected by the Worst Generation. Today's youth are the infantilized, pampered, bicycle-helmeted children of the Worst Generation.
They foisted this jug-eared, European socialist on us and now they must be punished. Voters aged 18 to 29 years old comprised nearly a fifth of the voting population in 2008 and they voted overwhelmingly for Obama, 66 percent to 31 percent.
And it only took 12 to 14 years of North Korean-style brainwashing to make them do it! At least their teachers haven't brainwashed them into burning books or ratting out their parents to the Stasi yet. (Of course, before teaching them book-burning, at least their professors would be forced to teach them what a book is.)
It would make more sense to give public school teachers and college professors 20 votes apiece than to allow their impressionable students to vote.
The Re-Education Camp Effect can be seen in how these slackers living at home on their parents' health insurance voted in the middle of the Republican tidal wave this year. Youths aged 18-29 voted for the Democrats by 16 points. But the kids aged 18-24 -- having just received an A in Professor Ward Churchill's college class on American Oppression -- voted for the Democrats by a whopping 19 points.
Young people voted for Obama as a fashion statement. One daughter of a friend of a friend of mine spent her whole college summer in 2008 working at a restaurant and then, with teary eyes, sent everything she made to the Obama campaign.
Luckily, she doesn't have to worry about paying for tuition, rent or food. Or property taxes, electric bills, plumbers and electricians. After being exploited by the left, she'll end up paying for it for the rest of her life, with interest.
Liberals fight tooth-and-nail to create an electorate disposed to vote Democratic by, for example, demanding that felons and illegal aliens be given the vote. But it's at least possible that illegal aliens and criminals pay taxes or have fully functioning frontal lobes.
Republicans ought to fight for their own electorate, which at a minimum ought to mean voters with fully functioning brains and the possibility of a tax bill. Not old enough to buy your own health insurance, not old enough to vote."

Source: http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2010/11/10/repeal_the_26th_amendment!/page/full/

A very interesting article to me, but I cannot follow the srguments of the author. She says, that "children" (are people with 18 years of ages still children?) do not have the experience to vote. Well, do they when they are 21? If we take this argument, why not set the age to vote up to 60, since you gain more life experience the older you get.
The author point out that 18-26 years olds do not have for example spouses or kids. Well, I have seen many more students in College here who have children and might be married that ever in Germany. So they really start earlier here and I would guess the majority in this country is married and does have kids before they hit 26.
To me, the author just denies any intellectual capacities to young people. They can still think about consequences of their behavior or votes- even if they do not have as much experience as others. And they might be good for a country as their thought might be more flexible and going in different directions, not as many older people who are deadlocked in their position [irony!].



The video shows it all- young people need to get interested in politics and take action! That is what I think as they are the future of any country and therefore have to help shape their own future. It is their life and they can impact what happens from their 18th birthday on.

25th Amendment

"Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office."

This is an important amendment as it lines out the order of succession if something happens to the president. There can always be an incident, an attack, an accident or an illness even. Therefore it is important to know who will take over and to ensure the citizens that the country still is in good hands so no panic or anarchical circumstances can develop.

"Should the 25th amendment be invoked to remove Obama from office?

November 14th, 2010 3:23 pm ET

A Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in Texas this year created a stir in the political world by insisting during the campaign that the 25 Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should be invoked to remove Obama from office.

Yes, the candidate was a Democrat.  And yes, the candidate was a female African-American by the name of Kesha Rogers.  Yet she made it a centerpiece of her campaign to call for the removal of Obama from office, not by impeachment, which would involve a lengthy process in Congress, but by invoking the 25th, which specifies how a sitting President can be removed immediately based upon the opinion of the Vice-President and Cabinet that he is unable to fulfill the duties of office.

A person may become unfit to serve even if that person is not aware of it.  Emotional illness or emotional breakdown sometimes involves the complete lack of insight into one's own illness.  Thus, there are times when it is entirely possible--and legal--for the VP and a majority of Cabinet members to write the President Pro-Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House stating that the President is unfit to serve and that the Vice-President will become Acting President until such time as the President becomes able to serve once again, or until the next election. 

Rogers is convinced that Obama is unfit to serve and must be removed.  And a growing chorus of top-level Democrats appears to be in agreement.

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough stated on a recent 'Morning Joe' segment on the network that he had personally spoken to SEVEN (7) top Democrats in the Senate who are now convinced that 'Obama doesn't know what he's doing.'

In addition, if the information being fed to the journalist known as 'Ulsterman' by a White House insider turns out to be true, then it is clear Obama is exhibiting at the very least signs of gross incompetence at best and at worst a marked detachment from reality and a total disinterest in fulfilling the day-to-day duties of President--all signs of severe emotional distress. 

So severe is the crisis at the White House, according to the insider, that top level Democrats are now scrambling to try to save the Party when the walls come crashing down on Obama.  Unless such a strategy is in place, says the insider, then Obama will take the entire Democratic Party down with him.

But that's not all.

A top Democratic strategist who has the respect of a broad spectum of Democrats is now publicly calling for Obama to announce, immediately, that he will not seek a second term in 2012.  A consensus is building among Democratic operatives that Obama has become such a liability to the Party that in order to prevent a knock-out blow by Republicans in 2012, which would complete the Party's demise that was started on Nov. 2 of this year, Obama must announce very soon that he will not seek reelection.  This would give the Democrats enough time to choose a candidate who could potentially minimize the further damage that is sure to come unless there is a miraculous economic boom.

In short, none of this is good news for Obama and his inner circle of Leftwing extremists.  But it would be good news for the Democrats if they wish to roll back another Republican tsunami in 2012 to a much smaller rip current of losses.

Even that, however, may not be enough to prevent another major shellacking in 2012.  Many of the major players in the Senate who contributed to the current mess in which the country finds itself were not up for reelection this year.  They will most certainly face the music from the voters in 2012."

Source:  http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/should-the-25th-amendment-be-invoked-to-remove-obama-from-office

Ok, this article is just too absurd. Remove the president because he is insane? Sorry, but this idea is insane. This man just tries to save this country whether one likes the methods or not. He has been elected legally by the people of this country.
Of course, Mister Obama is probably in a lot of emotional distress. The country is still in the crisis, the two wars still go on, Guantanamo Bay is not closed yet and the last elections were a mere smack in the face. Still, this does not make a person incapable of exercise his office. Maybe he will come back stronger than before?

A very funny video which makes some funny digs at some politicians. I remember that hunting accident of Mr. Cheney, which happened I think in Minnesota. So in this video he would have accidently shot his successor, pretty black humor here, as well as with Governors of California which points to Mr. Schwarzenegger.

24th Amendment

"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

This is another amendment about voting. It seems to be a critical issues in this country as there are 3 amendments that are connected to the right to vote. This one protects the poor people as they might not be able to pay poll taxes and therefore are held back from voting. This is to me a kind of patronage politics as to keep people who would vote differently away from the ballots.

"Speaking of the Constitution

January 23, 2008 in tdih | by ari

The 24th Amendment was ratified on this date in 1964, making poll taxes illegal in federal elections.
Poll taxes were one way that the states of the former Confederacy circumvented the 15th Amendment. These taxes became common at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries. Many states included grandfather clauses in their version of the poll tax, allowing people whose parents or grandparents had voted to do so as well. In this way, the taxes disfranchised African-Americans while allowing whites, with some exceptions, to vote.
The House of Representatives passed five bills banning the poll tax in the 1940s. But each time the measure failed to get through the Senate, where Southerners blocked the legislation. Finally, in 1962, the Senate approved the 24th Amendment. It took two more years for ratification. And when the 24th Amendment went into effect, five Southern states — Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia — still had poll taxes on the books. Only in 1966, in the case of Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, did the Supreme Court rule that all poll taxes were unconstitutional."

 Source: http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2008/01/23/speaking-of-the-constitution/

The article shows how it still was able to keep poor black citizens away from voting even after the 15th amendment. In the former slave states this seemed to be a common practice and I hope that it will cease from existence sooner or later to allow everybody not depending on their money to vote.

 

  The New Poll Tax

Ok, there is something in Economics that is called "opportunity costs". This means the costs (not only evaluated in money) that emerge while doing something else. So this report has some kind of thuth in it. Still, it is exagerated.
Nevertheless, it points out that there has to be organizational changes to be made to make voting go faster. Maybe making sunday the voting day- it is in Germany. Many people do not have to work on sundays so there could this pressure be taken away. And maybe one can set up more voting stations, so the rush can be divided up and so kept down to a lower level.

23rd Amendment

"Section 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelth article of amendment.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

It is good that Washington DC has now some representation in the Congress. Still, since they do not have the status of a state they are not really represented, only in the election of the president. Therefore, they still have no say in any political issue addressed in the congress.
I personally do not understand why one sets up a city as the capitol of a country (which became it therefore not historically) and not have it part of a state or a state itself?

"The 23rd Amendment

Posted: Aug 04, 2010 5:04 PM Updated: Aug 06, 2010 9:57 AM

By Tim Guidera
SAVANNAH, GA (WTOC) – Washington D.C. is the site and seat of most American governmental activity.
But the nation's capitol did not even have a say in who occupied the White House until the 23rd Amendment was passed.
Unlike the 50 states, the District of Columbia does not have members of the House of Representatives or the Senate. And before 1961, its residents were not able to participate in presidential elections. But the 23rd Amendment provided that vote, while including Washington D.C. in the electoral college but only as the equivalent of the country's smallest actual state.
"It's interesting that its population is actually larger than at least one state,'' said Georgia Southern University Political Science professor Patrick Novotny. "And one of the studies done not too long ago said that Washington D.C. Residents are 19th or 20th in the nation in terms of taxes that they pay. So, they certainly pay a good share as so many Americans do. So at least for presidential elections, the Distric of Columbia can weigh in with their three electoral votes.''
It was simply an oversight by the founding fathers that deprived Washington D.C. residents the right to participate in presidential elections. They voted for the first time in 1964, the 45th presidential election in America's history."

Source: http://www.wtoc.com/global/story.asp?s=12927299

This article shows, that Washington DC does not have equal representation even in the presidential elections. Why can't it be determined how many electors DC has with the same method as with the other states- population. If I would be an American citizen working in Washington DC, I would, if it is possible, live in a surrounding state to actually have the chance to vote for the federal representation.



Katie Couric id right in poiting out that DC people pay taxes and do not receive the right to vote. To me, the most important part of thsi video is the citation about defending democrcy elsewhere in the world, whereas it is not fully developped in the own country. This, to me, shows that this issue has to be addressed to actually be authentic in those so-called wars for freedom.

22nd Amendment

"Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress."

Term limits on the presidents term are to me a very good improvement. In this country as you have a bipartisan system there are not many choices and one candidate might receive the majority of votes several times consecutively. In Germany this happened with Helmut Kohl who has been the chancelor for 16 years. Nevertheless, two of those elections have been in times of a big change in the 1990s. So to me, to advance and to improve competition amongst parties it is very good to have term limits.

"King Obama: House Considers Repealing 22nd Amendment

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
January 19, 2009

Earlier this month, Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y. introduced H. J. Res. 5, a bill that would repeal the Constitution’s 22nd Amendment prohibiting a president from being elected to more than two terms in office, thus potentially paving the way to make Barack Obama president for life. Not surprisingly, the corporate media — currently caught up in Obama mania — has not covered this story.
“Will George W. Bush end up being the last true US President?” asked Sher Zieve, writing for the Canadian Free Press on January 14. “As I warned you on multiple times prior to the 2008 General Election, ‘once Obama is elected, we won’t be able to get rid of him.’ Tragically, this warning is now being realized. Not only has Obama established his election-fraud organization — ACORN — nationwide, his adherents have now begun the process to repeal the US Constitution’s 22nd Amendment.” In addition to the ACORN election-fraud organization, Obama’s behind the scenes handlers have reinvigorated his “grass roots” election organization, calling it “Obama 2.0,” essentially a classical fascist mass movement designed to keep Obama mania alive and as well go up against those opposed to the bankster policies Obama and the elite plan to shove down the throat of the American people.
“The Amendment limits presidents to a maximum of eight years in office – or, under unusual circumstances, such as succession following the death of a president, a maximum of ten years in office. Should Rep. Serrano succeed in repealing the Amendment, Obama would be cleared to run for an unlimited number of terms, restricted only by the vote of the electorate,” writes Drew Zahn for WorldNetDaily.
As the election campaign of Obama revealed, it is relatively easy to whip up irrational frenzy over a candidate, thus ensuring his re-election indefinitely if the 22nd Amendment is indeed repealed.
The United States is no longer the country it once was. “Prior to Franklin Roosevelt, presidents honored the precedent established by George Washington, who – though widely popular – refused to run for a third term of office,” notes Zahn.
Thomas Jefferson followed Washington’s example and foresaw the eventual passage of the 22nd Amendment. “General Washington set the example of voluntary retirement after eight years,” Jefferson wrote in an 1805 letter to John Taylor. “I shall follow it, and a few more precedents will oppose the obstacle of habit to anyone after a while who shall endeavor to extend his term. Perhaps it may beget a disposition to establish it by an amendment of the Constitution.”
Jefferson’s immediate successors, James Madison and James Monroe, also adhered to the two-term principle.
During Franklin D. Roosevelt’s second term, supporters cited the bankster engineered war in Europe as a reason for breaking with precedent. In the 1944 election, during World War II, Roosevelt won a fourth term, but died in office the following year. The 22nd Amendment was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 26, 1951.
Following the potential repeal of the 22nd Amendment, Obama’s handlers will exploit the bankster engineered economic crisis to push for a third term. As Gerald Celente, the CEO of Trends Research Institute, and others have predicted, by 2012 America will be wracked by civil strife, “marked by food riots, squatter rebellions, tax revolts and job marches,” writes Paul Joseph Watson.
“In order to achieve repeal of the 22nd Amendment, Serrano’s proposal must be approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and ratified by three-quarters of the states’ legislatures,” notes Zahn.
If Celente’s prediction occurs, this approval will not prove to be much of a hurdle. In fact, as Rockefeller minion Henry Kissinger noted well over a decade ago, under such conditions the American people will beg for a dictator to led them out of the wilderness.
Of course, King Obama will not lead the American people out of the wilderness. He will usher in a New World Order with its high-tech control grid and a horrific race to the bottom."

Source: http://www.infowars.com/king-obama-house-considers-repealing-22nd-amendment/

This article is just a mess to me. It compares Obama's followers to facists that want to keep him as their leader. This kind of does not go in line with calling Obama a communist as those two are in two ends of the political spectrum.
If something like the repeal of the 22nd amendment would be considered by Mr. Obama I think there would be a great disapproval in the society and there would be measurements to not let this happen.
To me there is no clear evidence that Obama wants this and therefore it is just wrong to imply something like this.



I do not know if this is a fake video, but it has a good point at the end. Nevertheless, the author misses that George W. Bush couldn't have run for presidency for another term anyway as hid/her title implies.

21st Amendment

"Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress. Effect of Repeal."

The repeal of prohibition has just been a case of time. It has not brought any good to the citizens and to take it back after just a few years has shown, that people understood they have made a mistake to make alcohol illegal.
  

"The 21st Amendment Repeals the 18th

Happy Days are Here Again, Rare Amendment Ends Prohibition

Nov 13, 2009 David J. Shestokas

The Eighteenth Amendment had been the product of 178 years of efforts to ban alcohol in the United States that started with a ban in Georgia in 1742. The ban of the Eighteenth Amendment went into effect Jan, 16, 1920. It lasted a mere thirteen years.

21st Amendment Passed in 288 Days, Ending Prohibition

The stories of Prohibition, including the likes of Al Capone and the Untouchables are well known. In light of the atmosphere created by Prohibition, a political movement to elect “wet” legislators grew and on Feb. 20, 1933 Congress sent the following proposal to the States:
Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
With the ratifications of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Utah on Dec. 5, 1933, the 21st Amendment became effective and Prohibition was ended.

Four Rare Elements of the 21st Amendment

The 21st Amendment, although only in three sections, contained four elements unusual to the Constitution. Three are unique and the fourth is rare:

1. first and only amendment to repeal another amendment
2. only Amendment Ratified by State Conventions
3. only Amendment to Grant Specific Authority to the States.
4. one of only two Amendments to prohibit private conduct.

21st Amendment Repeals the 18th

By 1933, the Constitution had been amended 20 times. Never before had any amendment been repealed. Some amendments had modified prior amendments or extended their reach. The Fourteenth Amendment for example, extended elements of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth to the States. In repealing the Eighteenth Amendment, the Twenty-First became the only Amendment to repeal another.

21st Only Amendment Ratified by State Conventions

The Constitution provides for two methods for ratifying amendments submitted to the States by Congress. One is by the votes of the state legislatures. For all of the other 26 amendments this has been the method of ratification. The other method is by conventions held in each state with convention members chosen for the single purpose of considering the proposed amendment.
The 21st Amendment’s Section 3 required that state conventions consider the proposed amendment. There was congressional concern that the normally elected legislators were either beholden to the temperance lobby or sympathetic to it. Electing special conventions was the solution to this potential political problem.

21st Only Amendment to Grant Specific Authority to the States

While the Tenth Amendment provides for the undefined reservation of authority to the States, there is no amendment but the 21st that specifically grants the States a power. Section 2 gives the States broad authority to regulate the delivery or use of intoxicating liquors. In many instances this has been found to override the authority granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause.
The extent of that authority regarding many aspects of the Constitution remains a matter of contention to the present day as demonstrated by the mail order wine case of Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005).

21st One of Only Two to Regulate Private Conduct

The Thirteenth Amendment prohibits an individual from enslaving another. The Twenty-First prohibits someone from bringing alcohol into a State while disobeying its liquor laws. These are the only two constitutional provisions to regulate private conduct.
As constitutional scholar Lawrence Tribe has put it: "there are two ways, and only two ways, in which an ordinary private citizen ... can violate the United States Constitution. One is to enslave someone, a suitably hellish act. The other is to bring a bottle of beer, wine, or bourbon into a State in violation of its beverage control laws—an act that might have been thought juvenile, and perhaps even lawless, but unconstitutional?""

Source: http://www.suite101.com/content/the-21st-amendment-repeals-the-18th-a169425

This amendment repealed another one to straigthen out a mistake that has been made. But it is also the only one up to now that has been ratified in State Conventions. This shows how close to the heart this matter has been to the American people. They have seen the bad and the ugly that has come out of the 18th amendment and wanted apparently desperatly a change.

This obviously fake video of the 30s still gives an insight into opinions of the people back then and how they felt about prohibition with a lot of stereotypes incorporated. Still, most of them wanted it to be gone anyway.