It doesn't make any difference. Even if the repeal were to be passed and ratified while Obama is still in office, the repeal would not apply to him. Constitutional changes that affect the eligibility of federal elected officials to serve do not apply to incubents. The body of the 22nd spells this out explicitly:

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 suc...

It doesn't make any difference. Even if the repeal were to be passed and ratified while Obama is still in office, the repeal would not apply to him. Constitutional changes that affect the eligibility of federal elected officials to serve do not apply to incubents. The body of the 22nd spells this out explicitly:

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.

.

Thus, although the 22nd was ratified in 1951, the first president it applied to was Eisenhower; Truman, who was the sitting president at the time of ratification, could, hypothetically, have been legally re-elected indefinitely until he died in 1972 (he died on 26 December, which would have been a little less than a month shy of his inauguration for his eighth term).

Your point?

His point, illhelm, is that Serrano has introduced the same proposal under other presidents, so it's absurd to construe his action as specifically aimed at Obama. The title of this clip was written by someone who displays complete ignorance of constitutional processes, whose validity has been challenged by a couple of rational points and been supported by nothing more than a mindless rant and a vacuous pair of non-questions.

Altogether, in the last twenty years, twenty-two resolutions to repeal the 22nd have been introduced by Republican and Democratic legislators during terms of presidents from both parties. They've never even passed committee, much less gotten to the floor for a vote.

What about the 2003 Hatch Amendment:

Section 1. A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has
been for 20 years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise
eligible to the Office of President, is not ineligible to that Office
by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.

This has been called the "Arnold Amendment" since its introduction has been tied to the notion of running Arnold Schwarzenegger for the White House. Of course the birthers would have had a field day with this one if it had ever gotten out of committee and was currently maki...

What about the 2003 Hatch Amendment:

Section 1. A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has
been for 20 years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise
eligible to the Office of President, is not ineligible to that Office
by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.

This has been called the "Arnold Amendment" since its introduction has been tied to the notion of running Arnold Schwarzenegger for the White House. Of course the birthers would have had a field day with this one if it had ever gotten out of committee and was currently making the rounds of the states for ratification.