View Full Version : Qestion for some of you Constitutional scholars
Caveat: I don't buy into this conspiracy horseshit but it's a chance to educate myself (hopefully) with FACTS for a counter-argument.
A couple of friends and I were talking yesterday, bitching about the way things are and such as guys often do. One of them mentioned something about martial law under the guise of a national emergency and Obama cancelling the 2016 elections and remaining in power. Now, I always roll my eyes when this type of thing comes up and did so yesterday. My buddy looks at me and says "You think I'm joking?" I replied that the Constitutionally granted term in office ends for Shitstain on Jan. 20, 2017. He could not remain in office past that and a coup would likely remove him from power if he tried. My friends disagreed, saying the military has to support the Constitutional leader, and that martial law would mean he was indeed the legal POTUS.
I found myself wanting soooo much to show them that they were wrong about this (never mind the fact that it's so farfetched as to be ridiculous). I maintain that there is nothing in the Constitution regarding martial law and it being the conduit by which someone remains in office indefinitely. I've never heard of the Constitution addressing martial law, so I guess that the lack of it means one cannot remain in power in such a way. My friends maintained that a national emergency being declared would be legal coverage for a power grab.
Some of you more scholarly law types care to chime in? Is there a mechanism by which someone can remain in power beyond their Constitutionally mandated term? If so, please cite said clause.
sevenhelmet
03-30-15, 14:24
Your post got me reading. Since I don't want to shamelessly quote Wikipedia, here is an interesting read on martial law in the United States (you may need to scroll down to the US section):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law#United_States
I don't think the scenario you outlined is terribly likely, since a crisis sufficient for a martial law declaration would be terrible indeed (remember 9/11? Martial law wasn't declared.) In addition, declaration of Martial Law doesn't negate the Constitution. I think even emperor barry would have a significant uphill battle if he tried this.
Inkslinger
03-30-15, 14:27
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_emergency
I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed so take it for what it's worth. I was also under the impression that FEMA also had the ability to suspend the Constitution in a state of emergency as well.
So from reading the links provided I see nowhere that a POTUS can unilaterally declare anything of the sort without agreement from Congress. Habeus Corpus was suspended by Lincoln but not the entire Constitution. A state of national emergency does not grant carte blanche power.
like he listens or obeys anything congress says now ?
and the fact over and over he shows no regard for the law or the constitution
but I could see him trying to ? sadly the republicans have no back bone to do anything and sure half of them would go along with it
He has a pen, and he has a phone, but even those will only get you so far when trying to usurp authority. Ultimately you need many men with guns willing to say "yes."
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-30-15, 15:41
Barry is tired of being president. It's too much like having a real job, which came as a shock since he has never had a real job. BHO wants to get back to running campaigns and making speeches. There is no way that he will go away quietly like either Bush did, and I expect him to make Bill Clinton look like a recluse.
Inkslinger
03-30-15, 15:46
Executive Order 13603. This is from a quick google search. Again, things can be interpreted different ways by different people. Will it happen? I hope not. Can it happen? I hope not.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowell/2012/04/29/obamas-plan-to-seize-control-of-our-economy-and-our-lives/
He has a pen, and he has a phone, but even those will only get you so far when trying to usurp authority. Ultimately you need many men with guns willing to say "yes."
There are many men with guns willing to say yes in order to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads.
There are many men with guns willing to say yes in order to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads.
Always has and always will be. As is the nature of things.
Averageman
03-30-15, 16:59
Executive Order 13603. This is from a quick google search. Again, things can be interpreted different ways by different people. Will it happen? I hope not. Can it happen? I hope not.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowell/2012/04/29/obamas-plan-to-seize-control-of-our-economy-and-our-lives/
Great Article, some really telling quotes from it.
Many presidents have pushed to expand their power beyond constitutional limits, particularly during crises. Issuing executive orders is the easiest way to do it. A president doesn’t have to propose an executive order, debate the issues, endure hearings or solicit votes. An executive order can be issued in a few minutes — behind closed doors and away from bright lights.
And
What about the Constitution? It describes presidential power broadly. There isn’t anything in the Constitution that authorizes an executive order or limits what a president can do with it.
Executive orders arise from “implied constitutional and statutory authority,” the Congressional Research Service reported. “If issued under a valid claim of authority and published in the Federal Register, executive orders may have the force and effect of law.”
To no small degree this is what is killing us with the two party system.
Now I will agree this is going way tight with the tin foil hat, but; if the Dem's still held control of the Legislative branch, who would there be to stop him? What could cause such an emergency? An exchange of nuke and chem weaqpons in the Middle East? A Terrorist Strike on the Homeland?
Unlikely, but it would make a hell of a book, wouldn't it?
Guys I don't think it will happen and as I stated before it is so farfetched as to be ridiculous.
That said, I was looking to have an educated discussion on the aspect of CAN it be done, not that it's even remotely likely. Some of the links provided are interesting indeed. Did not know, for instance, that executive orders are found nowhere in the Constitution. If you look at what Lincoln did during what can arguably be the greatest crisis to ever face this country (and surely qualifying as a "national emergency") it is eye-opening. When you have an administration that doesn't let "a crisis go to waste" it brings this subject into the modern era.
One other thing to keep in mind is that a POTUS (whoever, not necessarily Shitstain) can try anything they want. Sure, it may eventually be negated by the courts later but what about the here-and-now? i.e. what occurs during the interim? For example Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus in 1861 and it wasn't until 1866----five years later!----that the SCOTUS ruled the move unconstitutional as the courts were still functioning during that time. So consider a similarly unconstitutional act by a POTUS and what damage could be done (and never be undone) until things were "sorted out" later on.
Averageman
03-30-15, 17:30
One other thing to keep in mind is that a POTUS (whoever, not necessarily Shitstain) can try anything they want. Sure, it may eventually be negated by the courts later but what about the here-and-now? i.e. what occurs during the interim? For example Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus in 1861 and it wasn't until 1866----five years later!----that the SCOTUS ruled the move unconstitutional as the courts were still functioning during that time. So consider a similarly unconstitutional act by a POTUS and what damage could be done (and never be undone) until things were "straightened out".
First more than anything I hope my thread didn't go off of the rails for you.
Yes they can (with control of the legislative branch and by delaying review of the judical) run this gambit, to the best of my knowledge, as long as possible. After all, who would object?
Outlander Systems
03-30-15, 17:38
I'd like to say no, but the Goobers haven't exactly been pro-4A lately, either.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
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.
Show me your best surprised face:
"ever since 1985, when Ronald Reagan was serving in his second term as president, there have been repeated attempts to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which limits each president to two terms."[6] In addition, several congressmen, including Democrats Rep. Barney Frank, Rep. José Serrano,[7] Rep. Howard Berman, and Sen. Harry Reid,[8] and Republicans Rep. Guy Vander Jagt,[9] Rep. David Dreier[10] and Sen. Mitch McConnell[11] have introduced legislation to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment, but each resolution died before making it out of its respective committee.
Averageman
03-30-15, 17:56
So what happens when the Country you love betrays everything you believe?
Inkslinger
03-30-15, 17:57
If your question is as simple as, "does the Constitution specifically give the president the the power to declare martial law, suspend the Constitution, and stay in power after his term expires?" the answer is no. But.....if there is one thing I think we can agree on is there is nothing simple when it comes to government. More from Wikipedia.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_of_the_President_of_the_United_States
Pay specific attention to the sections, Emergency Power, Executive Privilege, and Constraints on Presidential Power.
The idea of a situation where this could occur seems ridiculous to you. That's fine. Since Lincoln was used as a reference, do you think most Americans prior to the Civil War believed something like that would happen? Prior to 9/11 did most Americans believe something like that could happen? What if there were coordinated terrorist attacks in major cities across the U.S.? What if the race baiting liberal media finally fans the flames of a race war to the point of the Watts or Rodney King riots all over the country. What if the anti gun crowd succeeds and you're asked to hand in your guns? Everything seems far fetched until it happens.
Outlander Systems
03-30-15, 18:32
Ô
If your question is as simple as, "does the Constitution specifically give the president the the power to declare martial law, suspend the Constitution, and stay in power after his term expires?" the answer is no. But.....if there is one thing I think we can agree on is there is nothing simple when it comes to government. More from Wikipedia.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_of_the_President_of_the_United_States
Pay specific attention to the sections, Emergency Power, Executive Privilege, and Constraints on Presidential Power.
The idea of a situation where this could occur seems ridiculous to you. That's fine. Since Lincoln was used as a reference, do you think most Americans prior to the Civil War believed something like that would happen? Prior to 9/11 did most Americans believe something like that could happen? What if there were coordinated terrorist attacks in major cities across the U.S.? What if the race baiting liberal media finally fans the flames of a race war to the point of the Watts or Rodney King riots all over the country. What if the anti gun crowd succeeds and you're asked to hand in your guns? Everything seems far fetched until it happens.
Things go on as usual...until they don't.
Outlander Systems
03-30-15, 18:37
Well worth a minute-and-some-change of your time:
http://youtu.be/lNhFiWF3qlw
The answer, if you can read between the lines, is, "Yes, Mr. Brooks. And there's nothing any of you can do about it."
I never thought we would have a iranian lady running the white house with a muslim as the puppet who has done so much to damage this country and drive it so much further into debt and done so many illegal things with his elected justice dept and other depts like IRS to target his enemies and it just keeps going.....
I do think as others think he wants to somehow be part of the NWO soros and others are wanting to push most likely using the UN and in that meantime till that is somehow pushed into authority he will be part of the UN of course if he had it his way he would be the spokesperson and face of the UN but cant see that happening as he is not a leader he is only a puppet and the people pulling the strings dont care about him and will switch puppets as needed
I think those who say no way have to remember quite a few on the left and some on the so called right dont like this country and are more globalist types and we should not have borders and we should follow a world law and that is the big goal of many in the WH today any way they can chip away and then take your rights they will
democrats have a history of starting wars and using power to control our country and the people in it
look at WWII and putting our American citizens into camps based on race alone so bad things have happened before
even in our country having our military being used against its own has happened with the bonus army after WWI
in some ways I can almost see them try it just to see if they could get away with it and to break down and learn how to do it better(permanent) next time they are in power
I am issuing an executive decision. Tomorrow all M4C members must log off the website and may not post for 12 hours.
Now everyone wait to see if I can actually enforce it.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Four terms in office, President from March 4, 1933 – April 12, 1945.
You realize of course, the constitution was changed afterwards. See Twenty Second Amendment.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Four terms in office, President from March 4, 1933 – April 12, 1945.
You realize of course, the constitution was changed afterwards. See Twenty Second Amendment.
Yes, I also realized Constitutions can be changed or completely disregarded. See SCOTUS ruling regarding Eminent Domain for "private use."
My friends disagreed, saying the military has to support the Constitutional leader, and that martial law would mean he was indeed the legal POTUS.
The constitutional leader? My oath of office was/is to the Constitution of the United States itself, not to any individual person.
One of the most important features of our constitution and the system of government that it requires is the separation of powers with checks and balances. As someone mentioned earlier, Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus and it wasn't until 5 years later that SCOTUS ruled on his unconstitutional actions, but don't miss the fact that they did rule. So our system of governing was forced to act slowly and deliberately due to the separations delineated by law, and eventually there was a redress of a grievance. It is one of the exceptional aspects of our constitution. It was designed to be a bulwark against knee jerk grabs at consolidating power, but it does not and will not stop those attempts. However it can correct them.
Uh, no. I don't think it takes much imagination to think what would happen if Barry tried to stay in office.
Yes, I also realized Constitutions can be changed or completely disregarded. See SCOTUS ruling regarding Eminent Domain for "private use."
Uh, no. I don't think it takes much imagination to think what would happen if Barry tried to stay in office.
To use a clichéd term, IG points out the other aspect of American Exceptionalism. That being the willingness of the people to enforce rule of law over their government. Republics have generally collapsed throughout history and degenerated into autocratic rule. As of now, the United States is an exception. The bullseye was nailed when Benjamin Franklin asserted that our system of government is "A republic if you can keep it." It lands on your lap, and my lap, to "keep it."
I would contend that the POTUS would himself be attempting the coup, and certainly not the people fighting to reinstate the rule of law. Ultimately it is speculation on what this POTUS may or may not do outside the rule of law, and not within it.
I replied that the Constitutionally granted term in office ends for Shitstain on Jan. 20, 2017. He could not remain in office past that and a coup would likely remove him from power if he tried.
One of the most important features of our constitution and the system of government that it requires is the separation of powers with checks and balances. As someone mentioned earlier, Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus and it wasn't until 5 years later that SCOTUS ruled on his unconstitutional actions, but don't miss the fact that they did rule. So our system of governing was forced to act slowly and deliberately due to the separations delineated by law, and eventually there was a redress of a grievance. It is one of the exceptional aspects of our constitution. It was designed to be a bulwark against knee jerk grabs at consolidating power, but it does not and will not stop those attempts. However it can correct them.
You can certainly imagine what mayhem can ensue in a five year period. Redress is great but five years is a long time! To have something "unconstitutional" occurring for that length of time is mind-boggling to say the least. Lives lost, lives destroyed, etc., and can't be undone. I would hope redress of grievances (the correction of the problem) would occur MUCH more quickly than five years.
I would contend that the POTUS would himself be attempting the coup, and certainly not the people fighting to reinstate the rule of law. Ultimately it is speculation on what this POTUS may or may not do outside the rule of law, and not within it.
That is also a valid way to look at it. If elections were suspended as part of the national emergency then POTUS and VPOTUS would both be done on the date the new swearing-in should have taken place and the Speaker of the House would occupy the White House until elections were held and a winner sworn in. (given that the SoH is third in line for the presidency that is how I came to that conclusion)
I would also prefer that the executive in Lincoln's day and our own could be held accountable with greater expediency than five years. I can't help but wonder if that lengthy time of five years was due in part to the environment brewing during the civil war era.
This link examines Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus and its constitutionality:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/813646/posts
Maybe it is why he wants Iran to have the bomb so bad..... Who knows.
Very interesting rulings on the nature of Martial Law:
http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-2/14-martial-law.html
He can try, I guess...but I don't think he's last very long....
One of them mentioned something about martial law under the guise of a national emergency and Obama cancelling the 2016 elections and remaining in power.
Idiots were saying the same crap about George W. Bush. Now idiots are saying the same crap about Barack Obama. Your friends are idiots.
sevenhelmet
03-31-15, 11:36
Idiots were saying the same crap about George W. Bush. Now idiots are saying the same crap about Barack Obama. Your friends are idiots.
I think they were discussing hypotheticals, rather than actually thinking Barry would try this. Read the OP again- he admits it is far fetched.
I think they were discussing hypotheticals, rather than actually thinking Barry would try this. Read the OP again- he admits it is far fetched.
Not what I gathered. I got the impression that the OP himself didn't take it seriously. Friends were another matter.
My buddy looks at me and says "You think I'm joking?"
I stand by my previous statement.
Uh, no. I don't think it takes much imagination to think what would happen if Barry tried to stay in office.
Anyone who complains will be called a racist?
I see a Hillary / Obama ticket and Hillary gets to meet Vince Foster early in the first term and Obama assumes of the office.
:sarcastic:
Not what I gathered. I got the impression that the OP himself didn't take it seriously. Friends were another matter.
I stand by my previous statement.
Let's just say they see it as more possible (not likely) than I do. They wouldn't put it past Obama, I don't think even he's that stupid.
I think its more the idea of thinking I bet obummer would try to do this with everything he has done than he really will or something like that :)
Let's just say they see it as more possible (not likely) than I do. They wouldn't put it past Obama, I don't think even he's that stupid.
Honestly, I think everyone should be far more concerned with Hillary running in 2016 and the middle of the road, Milquetoast useless RINO that will run against her and secure her Presidency than the specter of Obama securing a third term.
I don't even think Obama wants a third term. He's a player in the Democratic Party, he's done his two terms and put in place the things he put into place. It's the next person's job to put the next things in place, doesn't matter who actually does it. This is one areas where the Democrats shine, they pretty much all agree on stated goals and how to implement them. It really doesn't matter "which" Democrat is in office, only that a Democrat who is part of the plan is in office.
The Republicans will never get their shit together on such a cohesive level. There is too much factionism among those who call themselves conservatives and too many divergent agendas. More importantly, the stated values of traditional conservative voters translate to smaller government with less direct power over it's citizens and that is contradictory to the desires of government itself, even when run by Republicans.
It's a lot like asking a bank President to devote himself to banks earning less money and passing the savings on to bank customers.
Let's just say they see it as more possible (not likely) than I do. They wouldn't put it past Obama, I don't think even he's that stupid.
Fair enough.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.