matty 810 Posted January 6, 2013 To do what? Never underestimate the Patriot Act. Remember the last guy to do this was a Democratic too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tom catman 0 Posted January 6, 2013 the proposed one trillion dollar coin would have his face on it.....immediately reminded me of the coins circulated by the roman emperors.......except this one scares me of how worthless our financial system has become . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Metalflames 0 Posted January 6, 2013 To do what? FDR had a 3rd term and a 4th Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matty 810 Posted January 6, 2013 Was constitutional at the time, as you know, I'm sure FDR had a 3rd term and a 4th Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shawnmoore81 623 Posted January 6, 2013 Trillion dollar coin? Hopefully we use that to pay china back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
woodentoe 14 Posted January 6, 2013 Please quote the section of The Patriot Act that gives the President the authority to susprnd elections. It doesn't, Griz. However the passage of the NDAA in 2007 expands the power of the executive to declare martial law superseding the approval of the state governments and seizing command of the state militia (NG) The conspiracy talk comes in the notion that NDAA was passed as an addendum to enhanced surveillance authority in the patriot act. Under martial law, election suspension is attainable. My point was not that elections would be suspended. But rather to point out that in 2008, there was similar blather about bush crowning himself king. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KpdPipes 388 Posted January 6, 2013 FDR had a 3rd term and a 4th At that time it was unwritten that the president could only serve two terms, a "Gentleman's Agreement" going back to Washington, that a president wouldn only serve two terms IIRC the Constitutional implimitation came BECAUSE of FDR Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GRIZ 3,369 Posted January 6, 2013 It doesn't, Griz. However the passage of the NDAA in 2007 expands the power of the executive to declare martial law superseding the approval of the state governments and seizing command of the state militia (NG) The conspiracy talk comes in the notion that NDAA was passed as an addendum to enhanced surveillance authority in the patriot act. Under martial law, election suspension is attainable. My point was not that elections would be suspended. But rather to point out that in 2008, there was similar blather about bush crowning himself king. If the President wants to send in Federal troops and put the National Guard under Federal control he can do it. Eisenhower did this in 1957 in Little Rock without the Patriot Act and without NDAA. Yes there was blather about Bush doing this in 2008 attempting to scare people. This was brought to you by the same left wing liberals that want to take your guns away now "for the children". You can't blame everything on NDAA (which is a much bigger encompassing piece of legislation than most realize) or the Patriot Act for everything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deadeye74 5 Posted January 7, 2013 Given the climate in this country right now, I do not honestly believe that the federal government will get unconditional support from the NG or the military. Not to go tinfoil hat here, but does anyone think that the majority of soldiers, LEO's, etc would go along with something like going door to door for a round up? I know the stories about Katrina, but were talking an entire country here, not a city that was easily kept isolated after a disaster. Keep in mind if things go completely bonkers here, there is a bigger issue with countries like China and Russia looking for the opportunity to head on over and spread their love. I Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,439 Posted January 7, 2013 Trillion dollar coin? Hopefully we use that to pay china back. Only if they own the soda machine in the lobby of the Federal Mint.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted January 7, 2013 Do you understand how the US constitution gets amended? The process pretty much guarantees it will not happen. Article V of the user manual explains the process. There are two ways of doing it: 1) 2/3ed of BOTH houses vote for it to be brought up 2) 2/3ed of the States vote for it to be brought up. THEN 3/4th of the states have to ratify it. That's the reason they simply ignore it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Metalflames 0 Posted January 7, 2013 At that time it was unwritten that the president could only serve two terms, a "Gentleman's Agreement" going back to Washington, that a president wouldn only serve two terms IIRC the Constitutional implimitation came BECAUSE of FDR I know this does not change the fact that the last guy to do this was a "Progressive Democrat". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites