- This topic has 4 voices and 9 replies.
-
Posts
-
The Twenty Second Amendment states:"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was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."Do you think this should be repealed or amended in any way?
No, I like the two-term limit for president. Yeah, it stops good ones from staying in office but it also stops idiots from staying in office forever too.I would like to see the 16th Amendment repealed and the income tax eliminated though. That alon would fix many of the problems we have with government being so big and intrusive.
Would you be in favor of a one-term president? I saw it suggested that one term of five years would be better. Interesting idea….no need for POTUS to spend year #4 in campaigning mode. I'm not sure I agree with it but thought it an interesting idea.
I am not averse to the idea of limiting president's to one term. I still think eliminating the income tax would be a more productive and consequential thing to do though.
As it stands now, the president can declare martial law and suspend the constitution which will allow him to remain president indefinitely.
Doesn't a declaration of Martial Law require congressional assent after a given period of time? (I am not sure how long, I think 90 days) If I remember right it is in the War Powers Act, which every president since it's passage has held to be unconstitutional by the way.
Doesn't a declaration of Martial Law require congressional assent after a given period of time? (I am not sure how long, I think 90 days) If I remember right it is in the War Powers Act, which every president since it's passage has held to be unconstitutional by the way.
It's all been changed now. FEMA takes over via the continuity of government and the president will remain in office until FEMA relinquishes control and stands down. This could last as long as the FEMA director feels is necessary.
The administration can just go to DHS and declare whatever they want. That's how it's set up. DHS controls everything. Feel safe now?
AFter further research we have to define what we are talking about when we say Martial Law. I don't necessarily think we are all talking about the same thing. I get the sense that when many people talk about the “president” imposing Martial Law they are talking about the executive gathering all power unto itself and acting as judge, legislative, and executive. What I would call an absolute monarch, some might call it a tyranny. In the end I think people are talking about all authority coming from the office of president with the Courts and Congress being ignored or rendered impotent. Am I right in thinking this kind of thing is what you guys have in mind whe you talk about Martial Law? FEMA and DHS cops in jackboots rounding people up and throwing them in camps for using the wrong words or not donating to the right charities or even expressing unnaproved political opinions. I think you guys are envisioning some 1984 type scenario when FEMA takes over.I found an interesting discussion on what Martial Law is and is not here at US Constitution.net
Am I right in thinking this kind of thing is what you guys have in mind whe you talk about Martial Law? FEMA and DHS cops in jackboots rounding people up and throwing them in camps for using the wrong words or not donating to the right charities or even expressing unnaproved political opinions.
Can't speak for the others, but that's not what I'm saying. All I'm saying is DHS, thanks to the Patriot Act, have all authority to do whatever they want. They can declare a disaster area and then have FEMA takeover - that would include the control of food, water, movement, banking, etc.; they can take land or property if they deem it an emergency situation; they can stop all boating activity(the USCG is now under DHS); they can force the people of large cities (ahem Boston) to stay off the streets or risk getting arrested or enter homes without any type of warrant whatsoeverall without Congressional or Constitutional authority. Is tyranny here? No. But it ain't far away.
t you describe fits the bill as defined in Federalit #47. “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” The question then becomes what is the appropriate response to the gradual arrogation all power into the Executive that we have seen over the years and that has accelerated since 9/11 gave a convenient excuse to trample on civil liberties?
