Are We In Revolutionary Times?

[unregistered]

 

[RoryN]

Thanks for quoting RubDownSow.

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=40452577&highlight=nigger#post40452577

nigger nigger nigger

...and vette finds yet another racist to cosy up to.

 

[Ishmael]

I wonder what Presidential power Romney might dream up when he's sworn in? Let's talk about some new powers that Romney might dream up. Which laws can he all of a sudden decide to suspend and not enforce.



Are We in Revolutionary Times?

By Victor Davis Hanson
June 15, 2012 6:51 P.M

Legally, President Obama has reiterated the principle that he can pick and choose which U.S. laws he wishes to enforce (see his decision to reverse the order of the Chrysler creditors, his decision not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, and his administration’s contempt for national-security confidentiality and Senate and House subpoenas to the attorney general). If one individual can decide to exempt nearly a million residents from the law — when he most certainly could not get the law amended or repealed through proper legislative or judicial action — then what can he not do? Obama is turning out to be the most subversive chief executive in terms of eroding U.S. law since Richard Nixon.

More here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/303037/are-we-revolutionary-times-victor-davis-hanson

Actually you might start with Andrew Jackson who, in contempt of the SCOTUS, put the Cherokee on the "Trail of Tears" and in violation of the intent of congress did away with the national bank. We can argue the merits of either decision, but the fact remains that that is where presidential over-reach started.

Until such time as the congress impeaches presidents, serially, for not adhering to the law we are stuck with an ever increasingly powerful executive branch that necessarily will result in an absolute dictatorship.

Further, we, the people, are just as guilty for electing members of congress that cleave to the notion of a welfare state, be that corporate or individual, instead of those that adhere to the constitution.

Romney, should he be elected, will be no different than any other president in that he will not only hold on to the power bequeathed him by his predecessors, but will attempt to layer on more power of his own devise.

This is the nature of government.

Ishmael

 

[RobDownSouth]

Thanks for quoting RobDownSouth. He's a better man than I'll ever be, but heck everyone knows that. Hold me, Koalabear!

Read and decide for yourself, folks.

 

[unregistered]

 

[bra_man69]

I don't know that Romney has dishonored himself, do you?

Is he not a politician

 

[coachdb18]

This is true, though I might have suggested Jefferson's going to war without a declaration even earlier than Jackson.

I've posted in the past that high crimes and misdemeanors are anything the House will Impeach and the Senate sustains, there is no appeal.

You're right about the political aspects of the erosion of constitutional restraints. Proving that we too have civic duties in the preservation of constitutional integrity.

To the extent we fail to punish government transgressions against constitutional restraints, we are doing it to ourselves and in the end will have nobody but ourselves to blame for the consequences.

The changes we need to make were obvious to the Founders, who feared the power of government. They originally established a weak central government under the Articles of Confederation, suservient to the states. The inabilities of that arrangement led to the Federal system we now have, where the states are being crushed and bullied by the dictatorial Federal government. We must wrest power back, and hybridize this beast. I think the only way to do that effectively, is to let the Feds make any laws and regulations they desire, but strip them of the ability to fund anything, making them subservient to the states to fund their endless wants. If they cannot get the funding, oh well oh damn!

 

[Ishmael]

This is true, though I might have suggested Jefferson's going to war without a declaration even earlier than Jackson.

I've posted in the past that high crimes and misdemeanors are anything the House will Impeach and the Senate sustains, there is no appeal.

You're right about the political aspects of the erosion of constitutional restraints. Proving that we too have civic duties in the preservation of constitutional integrity.

To the extent we fail to punish government transgressions against constitutional restraints, we are doing it to ourselves and in the end will have nobody but ourselves to blame for the consequences.

That is a point for discussion, although I consider his actions no differently than that of a 'police' action. The Barbary crew were little more than the terrorists of the time acting with state sanction "safe harbor." It was out and out extortion and kidnapping when you get down to the facts. I suppose that's one of the reasons that they were referred to as the "Barbary Pirates" as opposed to the 'Moroccan Pirates," or the "Algerian Pirates."

Ishmael

 

[Wrong Element]

Has it ever occurred to you geniuses with your dictatorship/Hitler talk that if Obama really was this huge tyrant, we wouldn't be having an election in November at all?

The level of insanity in this thread is frightening.

 

[bra_man69]

The changes we need to make were obvious to the Founders, who feared the power of government. They originally established a weak central government under the Articles of Confederation, suservient to the states. The inabilities of that arrangement led to the Federal system we now have, where the states are being crushed and bullied by the dictatorial Federal government. We must wrest power back, and hybridize this beast. I think the only way to do that effectively, is to let the Feds make any laws and regulations they desire, but strip them of the ability to fund anything, making them subservient to the states to fund their endless wants. If they cannot get the funding, oh well oh damn!

Why that sounds good the federal government can do one thing we can't use of force.

 

[Ishmael]

Has it ever occurred to you geniuses with your dictatorship/Hitler talk that if Obama really was this huge tyrant, we wouldn't be having an election in November at all?

The level of insanity in this thread is frightening.

Not even talking about Barry, idiot.

Ishmael

 

[coachdb18]

Has it ever occurred to you geniuses with your dictatorship/Hitler talk that if Obama really was this huge tyrant, we wouldn't be having an election in November at all?

The level of insanity in this thread is frightening.

He's already crossed that Rubicon, he's brought up the possibility of 'suspending the election', and he has already signed the documents for Martial Law Here is the official White House document.

- - - - - - -
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release January 11, 2010
EXECUTIVE ORDER
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS
By the authority vested in me as President by the
Constitution and the laws of the United States of America,
including section 1822 of the National Defense Authorization
Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-181), and in order to strengthen
further the partnership between the Federal Government and State
governments to protect our Nation and its people and property,
it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Council of Governors.
(a) There is established a Council of Governors (Council).
The Council shall consist of 10 State Governors appointed by
the President (Members), of whom no more than five shall be of
the same political party. The term of service for each Member
appointed to serve on the Council shall be 2 years, but a Member
may be reappointed for additional terms.
(b) The President shall designate two Members, who
shall not be members of the same political party, to serve as
Co-Chairs of the Council.
Sec. 2. Functions. The Council shall meet at the call
of the Secretary of Defense or the Co-Chairs of the Council to
exchange views, information, or advice with the Secretary of
Defense; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Assistant to
the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; the
Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and
Public Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs; the Commander,
United States Northern Command; the Chief, National Guard
Bureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and other appropriate
officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the
Department of Defense, and appropriate officials of other
executive departments or agencies as may be designated by the
Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Such views, information, or advice shall concern:
(a) matters involving the National Guard of the various
States;
(b) homeland defense;
(c) civil support;
more
(OVER)
2
(d) synchronization and integration of State and Federal
military activities in the United States; and
(e) other matters of mutual interest pertaining to
National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.
Sec. 3. Administration.
(a) The Secretary of Defense shall designate an Executive
Director to coordinate the work of the Council.
(b) Members shall serve without compensation for their
work on the Council. However, Members shall be allowed travel
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as
authorized by law.
(c) Upon the joint request of the Co-Chairs of
the Council, the Secretary of Defense shall, to the
extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of
appropriations, provide the Council with administrative support,
assignment or detail of personnel, and information as may be
necessary for the performance of the Council's functions.
(d) The Council may establish subcommittees of the
Council. These subcommittees shall consist exclusively of
Members of the Council and any designated employees of a Member
with authority to act on the Member's behalf, as appropriate to
aid the Council in carrying out its functions under this order.
(e) The Council may establish a charter that is consistent
with the terms of this order to refine further its purpose,
scope, and objectives and to allocate duties, as appropriate,
among members.
Sec. 4. Definitions. As used in this order:
(a) the term "State" has the meaning provided in
paragraph (15) of section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(6 U.S.C. 101(15)); and
(b) the term "Governor" has the meaning provided in
paragraph (5) of section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(5)).
Sec. 5. General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or
otherwise affect:
(1) the authority granted by law to a
department, agency, or the head thereof; or
(2) functions of the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget relating to budgetary,
administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent
with applicable law and subject to the availability of
appropriations.
more
3
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create
any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at
law or in equity by any party against the United States, its
departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or
agents, or any other person.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 11, 2010.
# # #

.. yes, he is the tyrant we believe him to be.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The changes we need to make were obvious to the Founders, who feared the power of government. They originally established a weak central government under the Articles of Confederation, suservient to the states. The inabilities of that arrangement led to the Federal system we now have, where the states are being crushed and bullied by the dictatorial Federal government. We must wrest power back, and hybridize this beast. I think the only way to do that effectively, is to let the Feds make any laws and regulations they desire, but strip them of the ability to fund anything, making them subservient to the states to fund their endless wants. If they cannot get the funding, oh well oh damn!

No "revolution" that accomplishes what you're describing is worth having; you are taking things in exactly the wrong direction.

 

[KingOrfeo]

He's already crossed that Rubicon, he's brought up the possibility of 'suspending the election',

Cite?

. . . and he has already signed the documents for Martial Law Here is the official White House document.



.. yes, he is the tyrant we believe him to be.

What does the Council of Governors have to do with "martial law"?

From the WH website:

Executive Order 13528-- Establishing Council of Governors

Executive Order will Strengthen Further Partnership Between the Federal and State and Local Governments to Better Protect Our Nation

The President today signed an Executive Order (attached) establishing a Council of Governors to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State Governments to protect our Nation against all types of hazards. When appointed, the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of the various States; homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.

The bipartisan Council will be composed of ten State Governors who will be selected by the President to serve two year terms. In selecting the Governors to the Council, the White House will solicit input from Governors and Governors’ associations. Once chosen, the Council will have no more than five members from the same party and represent the Nation as a whole.

Federal members of the Council include the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs, the U.S. Northern Command Commander, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. The Secretary of Defense will designate an Executive Director for the Council.

The Council of Governors will provide an invaluable Senior Administration forum for exchanging views with State and local officials on strengthening our National resilience and the homeland defense and civil support challenges facing our Nation today and in the future.

The formation of the Council of Governors was required by the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act which stated, “The President shall establish a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions.” (NDAA FY2008, Sec 1822)

Nothing about martial law. And the NDAA dates from the Bush Administration.

 

[coachdb18]

Cite?

Here's the Democrat's trial balloon, put forward by NC Gov Bev Perdue... be assured, she was not acting in isolation with so much "change"

http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/28/perdues-call-for-suspending-elections-may-be-a-national-liability-ahead-of-2012-critics-say/

 

[fair_warning]

First off I posted the article for it's news value knowing that idiots like you would be hiking up the wall in response. However, those who called the reporter a liar couldn't prove it when challenged to do so by me, and others. You couldn't prove it false either, and you can't now. You have no fucking clue whatsoever except that suspect tingling in your moobs.

It isn't written as a 'news' piece - he's clearly pushing an agenda.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Here's the Democrat's trial balloon, put forward by NC Gov Bev Perdue... be assured, she was not acting in isolation with so much "change"

http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/28/perdues-call-for-suspending-elections-may-be-a-national-liability-ahead-of-2012-critics-say/

Your assurances are worse than worthless. And that link (1) is to the Daily Caller, which should raise suspicions and hackles immediately, and (2) links to a newspaper article with the headline "Perdue jokes about suspending Congressional elections for two years." You're making a huge and insane leap from there to say Obama has "brought up the possibility" of suspending the November presidential election.

 

[coachdb18]

Cite?



What does the Council of Governors have to do with "martial law"?

From the WH website:



Nothing about martial law. And the NDAA dates from the Bush Administration.

Your assurances are worse than worthless. And that link (1) is to the Daily Caller, which should raise suspicions and hackles immediately, and (2) links to a newspaper article with the headline "Perdue jokes about suspending Congressional elections for two years." You're making a huge and insane leap from there to say Obama has "brought up the possibility" of suspending the November presidential election.

I didn't need the Daily Caller, she's local to me, and I heard her personally. She wasn't joking....

 

[KingOrfeo]

People are free to disagree, I have no problem with it. In this case the President is exercising unconstitutional authority. He is violating his oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution."

If you're talking about his new immigration policy, actually, Obama has the law on his side here; he is only exercising the discretion U.S. Code Title 8, specifically Section 1103 and 1154, grants the executive in deciding whom to deport or not deport. See Jay v. Boyd, 351 U.S. 345 (1956).

 

[KingOrfeo]

I didn't need the Daily Caller, she's local to me, and I heard her personally. She wasn't joking....

Your assurances are worse than worthless.

 

[coachdb18]

Your assurances are worse than worthless.

You can listen for yourself, doubt the words will find their way past your Kool-Aide addicted ears, but that's your problem...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-govx9CdOA

 

[koalabear]

My assurances are worse than worthless.

Plus your links suck.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You can listen for yourself, doubt the words will find their way past your Kool-Aide addicted ears, but that's your problem...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-govx9CdOA

I listened. She was joking. And, more importantly, she's not Obama. You lied.

 

[Licia]

The Patriot Act Being duly passed legislation endorsed by both parties and the courts, isn't the same thing as Obama stating unilaterally which laws he's going to enforce, when the Constitution requires him to enforce all law.

Ben Franklin disagrees.

Lil' sumthin' sumthin' 'bout giving up freedom for security. He thought out loud: they deserve neither freedom or security.

More of his stuff.

 

[coachdb18]

I listened. She was joking. And, more importantly, she's not Obama. You lied.

Need to tell Bloomberg, it's not the soft drinks, but that Kool-Aide is doing MASSIVE damage