Amendment XIV

Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

My Opinion: Being one of the reconstruction amendments there are many different parts in this Amendment but they are all equally important. Some of the major points I picked out include: This amendment provides a definition of a citizen of this country. This amendment provides that all states will provide equal protection to everyone within their jurisdiction. It provides due process under the law and equally provides all constitutional rights to all citizens of this country, regardless of race, sex, religious beliefs and creed.

Redefining the 14th Amendment and Third World Immigration

Birthright citizenship is based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was originally enacted to ensure ONLY the civil rights for the newly freed slaves after the Civil War. Fleeced again?

A Texas lawmaker is introducing a bill in February that would battle the 14th amendment, which grants citizenship to children born on American soil — including those born to illegal immigrants.

Lawmaker Leo Berman believes that immigrants are committing a crime against the U.S., from the time they're in the hospital — but we grant their children citizenship anyway. "They're violating our sovereignty and we're granting them citizenship," he said.

Democratic Texas lawmaker, Joaquin Castro says Berman is trying to interpret the Constitution to fit his agenda and create a name for himself. "It's a low blow against children," he said.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

A serious and scholarly debate has been on-going for years about whether illegal aliens (and temporary visitors) are, in fact, "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Some scholars insist that the phrase has no real meaning of its own, but rather is essentially another way of saying "born in the United States." They believe the Fourteenth Amendment requires that any child born on U.S. soil be granted U.S. citizenship. Other scholars look to the legal traditions observed by most courts, including the presumption that all words used in a legislation are intended to have meaning (i.e., not simply be restatements) and that, if the meaning of a word or phrase is unclear or ambiguous, the congressional debate over the legislation may indicate the authors' intent. These scholars therefore presume that "subject to the jurisdiction" means something different from "born in the United States," so they have looked to the original Senate debate over the Fourteenth Amendment to determine its meaning. They conclude that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment did NOT want to grant citizenship to every person who happened to be born on U.S. soil.

My Opinion: After reading this article, I realized that I never even would of thought of this. This article makes a good point by saying that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment did NOT want to grant citizenship to every person who happened to be born on the U.S. soil. We have such a problem with boarder control and it is not helping when anyone who is born in the United States is granted citizenship. I'm curious to see if this argument passes.

The 14th Amendment Cases: Brown vs. Board of Education

My Opinion: This video highlights the most famous supreme cases that deals with the 14th Amendment. The most influential case is Brown vs. Board of Education. Government made the ruling that segregation is not equal in any states. By them realizing that children will not succeed in life if they are denied the opportunity of education. The main point of this video is that separate but equal is inherently unequal. This changed the lives of millions of people getting the opportunity of equal education.

Amendment XXVII

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

My Opinion: This amendment is a checks and balances for Senators and Representatives. It prevents members of Congress from granting themselves pay raises during the course of a session. Without this, more and more of our money would be going to something it obviously doesn't need to. This was not ratified until 1992 which I thought was ironic. Did this actually happen in order for this Amendment to be put in place?

Twenty-Seventh Amendment

The Twenty-seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

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

The long history of the Twenty-seventh Amendment is curious and unprecedented. The amendment was first drafted by james madison in 1789 and proposed by the First Congress in 1789 as part of the original bill of rights. The proposed amendment did not fare well, as only six states ratified it during the period in which the first ten amendments were ratified by the requisite three-fourths of the states. The amendment was largely neglected for the next two centuries; Ohio was the only state to approve the amendment in that period, ratifying it in 1873.

In 1982 Gregory Watson, a twenty-year-old student at the University of Texas, wrote a term paper arguing for ratification of the amendment. Watson received a 'C' grade for the paper and then embarked on a one-man campaign for the amendment's ratification. From his home in Austin, Texas, Watson wrote letters to state legislators across the country on an electric typewriter. During the 1980s, as state legislatures passed pay raises, public debate over the raises reached a fever pitch and state legislatures began to pass the measure, mostly as a symbolic gesture to appease voters. Few observers believed that the amendment would ever be ratified by the required thirty-eight states, but the tally of ratifying states began to mount. On May 7, 1992, Michigan became the thirty-eighth state to ratify the amendment, causing it to become part of the U.S. Constitution.

The effect of the Twenty-seventh Amendment is to prevent salary increases for federal legislators from taking effect until after an intervening election of members of the House of Representatives. The amendment is an expression of the concern that members of Congress, if left to their own devices, may choose to act in their own interests rather than the public interest. Because the amendment postpones salary increases until after an election, members of Congress may not immediately raise their own salaries. All Representatives must endure an election before a pay raise takes effect because Representatives are elected once every two years; Senators need not necessarily succeed in an election before a pay raise takes effect unless the pay raise is approved within two years of the Senator's next re-election effort.

The ratification process of the Twenty-seventh Amendment was by far the longest-running amendment effort in the history of the United States. Before the Twenty-seventh Amendment was ratified, the longest it had taken to ratify an amendment was four years. That measure, the twenty-second amendment limiting the president to two terms in office, was ratified in 1951. The proposed equal rights amendment, which would have become the Twenty-seventh Amendment had it passed, failed to win ratification by the required thirty-eight states during the ten-year period Congress had allowed for its consideration by the states.

The gradual manner in which the Twenty-seventh Amendment was passed has raised questions about its validity, with concerns centering on the wisdom of allowing changes to the Constitution without reference to the passage of time. In Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368, 41 S. Ct. 510, 65 L. Ed. 994 (1921), the U.S. Supreme Court stated a requirement that ratification of amendments be contemporaneous with their proposal, but in Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 59 S. Ct. 972, 83 L. Ed. 1385 (1939), the High Court left it for Congress to decide whether a ratification was contemporaneous with its proposal. InBoehner v. Anderson, 809 F.Supp. 138 (D.D.C. 1992), aff'd, 30 F.3d 156, 308 U.S.App.D.C. 94 (1994), the District Court for the District of Columbia rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of pay raises in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, Pub. L. 101-194, 103 Stat 1716 (1989). The court observed that the pay raises complied with the Twenty-seventh Amendment because they took effect after an election had intervened.

My Opinion: I did not realize that this was the longest amendment to be ratified. This article describes the long and challenging process from the beginning of the the amendment being mentioned. It is weird to think that this was proposed so many years ago but did not get ratified until recently. That makes you think what other items have been proposed years ago but has not been passed. Is this going to always be the last amendment?

Killing all the Rich Monsters

My Opinion: This is a silly video that points out the problems America is faced and in a way is sill facing. "Rich Monsters" is a adequate name for the people they are referring to in Congress. I can't help but think if America would be in as much debt if this Amendment was ratified earlier than 1992. What if it had ben ratified when it was first thought of?

Amendment XXVI

Section 1

The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 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.

My Opinion: I am glad that this amendment was put in the Constitution. Just turning 18 last year, I now know what it feels like to be a part of history. With citizens being able to go to war at the age of 18, I feel that they should have the right to have a say in who is the leader of our country sending them to war.

26th Amendment

The Twenty-sixth Amendment was proposed on March 23, 1971, and ratified on July 1, 1971. The ratification period of 107 days was the shortest in U.S. history. The amendment, which lowered the voting age from twenty-one to eighteen, was passed quickly to avert potential problems in the 1972 elections.

The drive for lowering the voting age began with young people who had been drawn into the political arena by the Vietnam War. Proponents argued that if eighteen-year-olds were old enough to be drafted into military service and sent into combat, they were also old enough to vote. This line of argument was not new. It had persuaded Georgia and Kentucky to lower the minimum voting age to eighteen during World War II. The one flaw in the argument was that women were not drafted and were not allowed to serve in combat units if they enlisted in the armed forces.

Nevertheless, the drive for lowering the voting age gained momentum. In 1970 Congress passed a measure that lowered the voting age from twenty-one to eighteen in both federal and state elections (84 Stat. 314).

The U.S. Supreme Court, however, declared part of this measure unconstitutional in Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 91 S. Ct. 260, 27 L. Ed. 2d 272 (1970). The decision was closely divided. Four justices believed Congress had the constitutional authority to lower the voting age in all elections, four justices believed the opposite, and one justice, Hugo L. Black, concluded that Congress could lower the voting age by statute only in federal elections, not in state elections.

The Court's decision allowed eighteen-year olds to vote in the 1972 presidential and congressional elections but left the states to decide if they wished to lower the voting age in their state elections. The potential for chaos was clear. Congress responded by proposing the Twenty-sixth Amendment, which required the states as well as the federal government to lower the voting age to eighteen.

My Opinion: By lowering the voting age, in my opinion brings more people out to elections. Younger generations can make or break a election much like it did this previous election with Barack Obama and John McCain. I am also glad that this was not just at a federal level but a state level as well. As many people as possible should have a say in who leads them.

Student Age- Voting/Apathy

My Opinion: I do think that this video makes a good point that if the voting age is lowered, these people should be able to use it. People need to make an educated vote and I'm sure that the argument is if a 16 year old is mature enough? The thing about that is that some are and some are not even close. Many arguments are made in this video and each side is heard which is important to an issue. But personally I do not think that the voting age should be lowered due solely on maturity.

Amendment XXV

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.

My Opinion: This is a very important Amendment to have in my opinion. By having a back up plan for our country in time of a crises is important and we have had to use it before and know it works. I feel confident that it will continue to work. People just need to remember when they elect a President, remember that the Vice President could in turn be the President as well.

Praise for the 25th Amendment

The point has been made several times in recent months that Nancy Pelosi is third in line to become president. If something should happen to both President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, Mrs. Pelosi would become president, a prospect some find dismaying, not to mention the end of civilization as we know it.

The worriers need not head for the hills. The 25th Amendment almost guarantees that Mrs. Pelosi will never make it to the White House as chief tenant.

The Constitution states that if the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, "the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law, provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Disability, both of the President and Vice President ..." But, despite several close calls down the years, including two protracted cases of severe presidential disability, Congress was laggard in filling in the details.

James Madison, fourth president, was the first to have a vice president die in office. In fact, Mr. Madison had two vice presidents die on his watch. George Clinton died during the first Madison term, and Elbridge Gerry during the second. That has happened to no other president. Mr. Madison served almost half his eight years in office without a vice president. Had he died in office, Congress would have had to fill the vacancy. It might have been a contentious business.

The first president to die in office was old William Henry Harrison in 1841, only a few weeks after his inauguration. He was succeeded by John Tyler, who immediately got into a controversy about whether he was actually president or merely an acting president. The Constitution is not clear on the point, but Mr. Tyler insisted that he was president, no ifs, ands or buts, and so things have stood ever since. He finished out the term without a vice president.

In fact the country has sometimes functioned for years without a vice president. James Madison, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson all had to serve without vice presidents after they succeeded men who had died in office. So, briefly, did Ulysses Grant, after Henry Wilson died at his desk toward the end of Mr. Grant's second term.

My Opinion: Not knowing enough about politics, I cannot form an opinion on whether or not Nancy Pelosi would be a good President if it ever came down to that happening. But by the sounds of the background of this Amendment, Congress has had no problems in filling the vacancy or dealing with the vacancy open.

Lyndon B. Johnson Swearing-in Nov. 22, 1963

My Opinion: This was one of those instances where a horrible tragedy happened to the President of the United States and the Vice President has to take his place. When John F. Kennedy was assassinated, not very long after that, Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn into oath on the flight back to Washington D.C. America cannot go without a leader for that long having our guard down.

Amendment XXIV

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 reasons of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2

The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

My Opinion: I think this was a needed Amendment for our country. By prohibiting poll tax, this gave people more chance to vote. If I had to pay a tax to vote, I would think twice before going and casting my vote.

Bank Overdraft Fees 'just like the poll tax'

SNP Lothians MSP Shirley-Anne Somerville has claimed HBOS' plans to introduce a flat fee for overdrafts are the bank's equivalent of the poll tax.

HBOS has announced it will stop charging interest on arranged overdrafts and replace it with a daily GBP 1 charge on overdrafts up to GBP 2,500 and GBP 2 on overdrafts of more than GBP 2,500.

Ms Somerville said: "HBOS must reconsider these flawed plans which offer a poor deal to their customers."

She said the flat fee meant a GBP 100 overdraft involves the equivalent of 365 per cent APR.

"This is unacceptable. HBOS claim this new system of charging a flat fee is simpler - they said the same thing about the poll tax," she said.

My Opinion: I do think this is unacceptable as well. This is very similar to poll tax in the way of the flat fee is simpler. Hopefully the bank will not resort to this and can find another way to go about this overdraft fee.

The New Poll Tax

My Opinion: This is amazing that people had to wait this long to cast their vote. This is a good comparison to poll tax for the present day. When there was poll tax, that eliminated the poor people from voting. So isn't this the same thing? If you are physically not able to stand in line for more then two hours then aren't you the poor people of the era before? I never would of thought of this being from a small town. It takes a maximum of 25 minutes to go vote in my town, so thinking of it from this aspect is shocking.

Amendment XXIII

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 twelfth article of amendment.

Section 2

The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

My Opinion: By giving Washington D.C. the power to have electors is an achievement on their part. Even they are not a state, they seem to be treated like one. That means they need to have most things that a regular state would including electors.

The Capitol: The 23rd Amendment

Thanks to a succession of oversights by the Founding Fathers and early Congresses, the residents of the District of Columbia have never enjoyed one particular constitutional right cherished by all other Americans: the privilege of voting. There was no reasoning attending the oversights; it was just plain neglect.† Last week Rhode Island cast the 36th affirmative vote for the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution, giving 746,000 Washingtonians the right to vote in presidential elections — and three electoral votes. Ohio and Kansas are expected to ratify the amendment this week, making the necessary two-thirds majority for official adoption (only one legislature—Arkansas—rejected the amendment outright, on the ground that 54% of the District's citizens are Negroes).

But after 161 years, Washingtonians will be limited to voting for the President and Vice President. They will continue to have no representative in Congress, no voice in their municipal government.

My Opinion: After reading this article, I feel that I know a little more about this Amendment. I did not know that Washington D.C. would still only be limited for voting for the President and Vice President and still has no representative in Congress. I guess this is just a step for them and maybe for tells the future that they will get more rights when it comes to elections.

D.C. Voting Measure Clears The Senate

The gun amendment complicates the D.C. vote bill's passage into law, because the legislation will have to be reconciled with a companion bill in the House with no gun provisions that is expected to be approved next week. Some D.C. officials said it was ironic that the Senate bill granted the city full representation in the House while also overruling the District's decisions on a key local issue.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), the city's nonvoting House delegate, said she was overjoyed at the passage of the voting-rights bill. She has fought an uphill battle for years for District residents to have a greater voice in Congress.

"I stand in the shoes of residents of the city who have lived without the vote and died without the vote," she said after emerging from the Senate floor, where she anxiously watched the vote. The bill squeaked past the 60-vote threshold it needed to pass, under a bipartisan agreement that sped up the process. Six Republicans voted "aye" to produce a 61 to 37 result.

Norton predicted that the bill would clear the House easily, setting up a closed-door meeting between negotiators from both chambers who will have to decide what to do about the gun language.

The Maryland and Virginia senators voted for the measure.

Norton and D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) were tight-lipped about potential problems raised by the gun issue, apparently seeking to avoid antagonizing senators over an amendment that won wide support.

Proponents of the bill differed on how much of an obstacle the gun amendment would be.

"I personally believe that's not going to be an overwhelming issue," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), a co-sponsor of the bill. But Ilir Zherka, executive director of DC Vote, an advocacy group, said, "It's going to cause problems."

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), another co-sponsor who is expected to be involved in the negotiations over the bill's outcome, said it was too early to know how the issue would play out.

The D.C. vote bill is a political compromise that would permanently expand the House by two seats. One would be for the overwhelmingly Democratic District, while the other would go in the short term to Republican-leaning Utah. After 2011, that seat would go to whichever state is next in line to pick up a representative based on the Census.

The gun amendment cast a cloud of uncertainty over what voting-rights supporters had hoped would be a major triumph. A similar bill had died two years ago after falling three votes short in the Senate

While mindful of the obstacles ahead, Fenty was optimistic. "This day represents great momentum toward full voting rights," he said.

The gun amendment is similar to a sweeping measure approved by the House last year that was fought by the D.C. government. It would remove the city's gun-registration requirements, limit its authority to restrict firearms and repeal the District's ban on semiautomatic guns.

"The Senate action is of huge concern," said Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), chairman of the D.C. Council's Public Safety Commission. He and council Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D) sent letters to Lieberman and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) yesterday opposing any gun amendments. "It strips our authority. The irony here is that on one hand they vote to give us voting representation, but on the other hand they strip any local representation in regards to our gun laws."

On the Senate floor, lawmakers passionately debated the gun measure. "It's reckless; it's irresponsible; it will lead to more violence," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

The sponsor of the amendment, Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), said his goal was "to remove the tremendous barriers and burdens on law-abiding citizens" in the District who were seeking to "protect themselves in their own homes."

He pointed to a chart showing the D.C. homicide rate over the years. "We want the law-abiding citizens to have the arms, not just the criminals," he said. Ensign said the D.C. government hadn't gone far enough in reforming its gun laws since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the city's handgun ban last year.

Ensign's measure may signal that he is the new go-to senator for gun rights groups such as the National Rifle Association. For years, their champion was Larry Craig, who retired last month.

First elected to Congress in the GOP's revolutionary wave of 1994, Ensign comes from a family that ran casinos in Las Vegas. He won the seat of a retiring Senate Democrat in 2000 and has climbed the ladder of lower-level Republican leadership in recent years.

Ensign's amendment passed 62 to 36, drawing the support of almost all Republicans and several Democrats from pro-gun states -- including Virginia's Mark Warner and Jim Webb. Maryland Sens. Barbara A. Mikulski and Benjamin L. Cardin, both Democrats, voted against the measure.

The voting-rights bill was the first such measure to pass the Senate since 1978, when Congress approved a constitutional amendment that would have given the District a House representative and two senators. That amendment failed to win enough support from the states.

Opponents of the current bill said it violated the constitutional provision that House representatives should be chosen by the "people of the several states." Since the District is not a state, its inhabitants don't qualify for representation, they said.

"The Constitution is short because its authors wanted it to be clear," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.). He added: "It could not have been more so" on the issue of House representation.

Supporters argue that Congress had the power to give the District a House seat under the Constitution's "District clause," which gives it broad authority over the city. They noted that the District is frequently treated as a state for such matters as taxation and interstate commerce.

Norton paced at the back of the Senate floor as the votes trickled in yesterday. As voting was ending, she still had not spotted a key Republican backer of the bill, Sen. George V. Voinovich (Ohio). "I wanted to know, is he here today? . . . You can never tell what happenstance will occur," she said.

"I was concerned because you always want to be over (60 votes). . . . and the fact we hit 61 is extraordinary, when you consider where we were last time."

My Opinion: It is a shame to think that they were so close then this gun amendment clouded everyone's views on the important issue. I give props to Eleanor Holmes Norton for not giving up over all those years for the right for The District of Columbia to be heard in Congress. It takes someone like her for things like this to happen. If no one stands up and says anything, then nothing will ever get accomplished.

Amendment XXII

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 the 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.

My Opinion: I cannot decide if I like this Amendment or not. If we have an amazing president who the public likes that much, why should he be limited to two terms in office. Obviously he wouldn't be in office if he wasn't liked and if he is doing something right, why punish him.

Obama Wants to Repeal the 22nd Amendment

My Opinion: Even though he doesn't come out and straight say he is planning on repealing the 22nd Amendment, you can tell he wants to. By him saying that was no mistake on his part, I believe he fully meant to say that and wanted to see who all caught it. If he does everything he says he will, it will take more then just two terms.

Repeal the 22nd Amendment

Mr. R. REAGAN has several times recorded his opposition to the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits a President from running for a third term. He has made it clear that even assuming the Amendment were repealed yesterday, or that it had never been enacted, he would not himself run for a third term. He says this plausibly because of his age. If he were the age Theodore Roosevelt was when he left office, having served almost a full two terms (McKinley was shot six months after his inauguration), one would greet the disavowal of ambition skeptically.

No, Reagan believes it. He will tell you that the American people have the right to vote as many times as they like not only for a senator or representative, but also for a President. "I intend to campaign when I get out of here on the subject." Reminded that tradition can achieve the same prestige as law, he replies that the tradition was set by George Washington "at a time when people were afraid of the restoration of the monarchy."

When Franklin Roosevelt decided to run for a third term he flouted the tradition, and during the campaign of 1940 much was made of FDR's narcissism. By the time the fourth term came up, Roosevelt was confirmed in the imperial manner, sometimes acting in such a way as to betray what Karl Wittfogel has called the megalomania of the aging despot. Mr. Reagan is quick to acknowledge that no man should run for the Presidency whose health is flagging. At the time Roosevelt ran in 1944, his doctors had privately confided to him that he was not fit to spend more than three hours a day at work. (If he had spent four hours a day, we'd have lost Western Europe also.)

My Opinion: This is a prime example of a president that if was physically capable would be perfect for this Amendment to be repealed. If the President is that popular and overall is a great leader why get rid of him?