1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Stepping over the Constitution AGAIN

Discussion in 'American Politics' started by SharonL, Apr 1, 2012.

  1. SharonL

    SharonL Senior Veteran

    Messages:
    9,627
    Likes Received:
    81
    Faith:
    Christian
    Dear Friend,
    With all that is going in Washington these days some
    things don’t make the news the way they should.
    Fourteen days ago President Obama issued an Executive
    Order that you should know about. This order gives
    an unprecedented level of authority to the President
    and the federal government to take over all the fundamental
    parts of our economy - in the name of national security -
    in times of national emergency.
    This means all of our water resources, construction services
    and materials (steel, concrete, etc.), our civil transportation
    system, food and health resources, our energy supplies including
    oil and natural gas – even farm equipment – can be taken over by
    the President and his cabinet secretaries. The Government can
    also draft U.S. citizens into the military and force U.S.
    citizens to fulfill "labor requirements" for the purposes of
    "national defense." There is not even any Congressional oversight,
    only briefings are required.
    By issuing this as an Executive Order the President puts the
    federal government above the law, which, in a democracy, is never
    supposed to happen.

    As President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, he has
    the Constitutional authority to issue executive orders. And
    while similar orders have been made before by presidents from
    Eisenhower and Reagan to Clinton and George Bush – it has never
    been done to this extent.

    It is still unclear why this order was signed now, and what the
    consequences are for our nation – especially during times of
    peace. This type of Martial Law imposes a government takeover
    on U.S. citizens that is typically reserved for national
    emergencies, not in a time of relative peace.

    I want you to know I am following this very closely. If you
    would like to read the order for yourself please click here.
    Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness | The White House
    Sincerely,
    Kay Granger
    Member of Congress
     
  2. SOAD

    SOAD Why do they always send the poor? (S.O.A.D.)

    Messages:
    6,288
    Likes Received:
    2
    Faith:
    Deist
    Good, we need a draft. Let's get some of those rich boys dying to make a war mean something instead of always sending the poor.
     
  3. IAmCatwoman

    IAmCatwoman Guest

    This doesn't overstep the Constitution. You just don't like it.

    Also, yes, Obama SINGLE HANDEDLY is going to take over the United States. Let's ignore the fact that to do that he's need the help of the entire military AND Congress and such things don't just come from being able to cut off resources (in fact you need those people BEFORE resources are cut off). This Congresswoman is clearly delusional. It's like the world has never seen a national takeover before and has no idea what it entails and so they're just assuming.

    Also, Andrew Jackson did FAR WORSE with his Executive Orders.
     
  4. Grizzly

    Grizzly Enemy of Christmas

    Messages:
    12,693
    Likes Received:
    509
    Faith:
    Atheist
    Do you guys remember when Bush was in office and a certain segment of liberals believed that he was going to declare martial law and round us liberals up into FEMA camps? Apparently there is a counter-segment of conservatives who are also prone to this line of thinking.
     
  5. stiggywiggy

    stiggywiggy New Member

    Messages:
    1,451
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    Why am I suddenly thinking of Caiaphas?
     
  6. OllieFranz

    OllieFranz Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Christian
    Even the letter cut-and-pasted in the OP acknowledges that these are special powers (assuming they exist) to be used in the case of a declared emergency. Bypassing the Constitution and getting away with it, while morally wrong and against Constitutional principles, has regularly happened in many emergencies in the past by presidents of all parties. Even Lincoln fudged more than a little in the name of preserving the Union during the Civil War.

    The country has survived all the earlier instances, and eventually cooler heads restored the rule of law. So even if Obama should invoke these powers, for which there is no evidence of specific intent, the Constitution will be quickly restored.
     
  7. Touma

    Touma In on the cover up

    Messages:
    7,102
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Christian-Seeker
    OP, let me ask you a question. Let's say a national emergency happens that puts a major part of our food production in danger. Would you rather the government take over farms and up production, or would you rather let private entities make that decision, at what ever price they want?

    Now mind you, these private entities will likely act like the rest of us: panicked, stocking things up for themselves.
     
  8. SharonL

    SharonL Senior Veteran

    Messages:
    9,627
    Likes Received:
    81
    Faith:
    Christian
    Touma - let me ask you a question - Have you looked at how the countries that has control of their people do it - They control the health care, the oil, and the food - it is not done overnight - it is cut a little at a time - I'm not worried about my generation - but my children's generation is going to be hurting. How can you look at the leaders and their mindset of Socialism and not see that some of the things going into place now will benefit them down the road. We are all so busy calling each other names and drawing the line between Dems and Rep that things are going on behind our backs that will have a big impact later. Throughout history - this is how it has been done.
     
  9. Touma

    Touma In on the cover up

    Messages:
    7,102
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Christian-Seeker
    You didn't really answer my question, but that is okay. Another question: Why weren't you mad about very similar provisions that have been around since 1950?
     
  10. SharonL

    SharonL Senior Veteran

    Messages:
    9,627
    Likes Received:
    81
    Faith:
    Christian
    Sorry - didn't mean to ignore your question. However, I've been around a lot longer than you have and have walked through all this before - but never before have we been in such danger zones as we are right now. When we had those rules before we did not have a government full of people wanting Socialism and the danger of the wrong people taking over all the decisions was not there and we had a lot more trust in our leaders than we now have. You are young and have not seen what has been building for years until we are virtually at a fork in the road in this country. Do we want our Constitution to stand or will we let it be chipped away little by little. This is what is happening - what you see is no big deal because you have not seen the build up of all that is going on and has been for the past 30 years.
     
  11. SmellsLikeCurlyFries

    SmellsLikeCurlyFries Social Capitalist

    Messages:
    4,727
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Pagan
    Representative Kay Granger is a hypocrite. She has no right whatsoever to complain about the President overstepping the Constitution when she herself voted for the NDAA.
     
  12. stiggywiggy

    stiggywiggy New Member

    Messages:
    1,451
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    So representatives don't have a "right to complain" if YOU see some inconsistency on their part? No, she has that right. It's in the First Amendment. See how easy it is to cite parts of the actual Constitution?
     
  13. Wayte

    Wayte Oh, you know. Some guy.

    Messages:
    2,291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Atheist
    Man, you are just so adorably bitter :p

    Anyways, I gave the bill a quick once over. Doesn't really seem horrible, and unless "m just bad at translating politician, it seems like the closest thing to "controlling others" they have is the ability to prioritize government contracts, which it seems like they could already do. And either way, the whole thing is in the event of an emergency anyways. The only people who will have a problem with this are those who are taught to fear the government.
     
  14. SmellsLikeCurlyFries

    SmellsLikeCurlyFries Social Capitalist

    Messages:
    4,727
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Pagan
    A "right to complain" is not referring to a literal RIGHT. To say she has no right to complain basically just means her complaint only further makes her a hypocrite.

    Kinda like when people say if you vote for McCain, you don't get to complain about the bad things he would have done when people warned you about it. It doesn't mean they will literally try to prevent you from complaining.
     
  15. stiggywiggy

    stiggywiggy New Member

    Messages:
    1,451
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    Why are you so angry and steamed at my alleged bitterness?
     
  16. stiggywiggy

    stiggywiggy New Member

    Messages:
    1,451
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    OK. You didn't mean what you said. I see. Now what were you saying about hypocrisy? Maybe the people you are accusing of hypocrisy were also being non-literal like you. If so, your accusation would be double-hypocrisy on your part, right?
     
  17. Wayte

    Wayte Oh, you know. Some guy.

    Messages:
    2,291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Atheist
    I just thought it needed to be pointed out, and I accept that I"m probably the only one here petty enough to do it.
     
  18. SmellsLikeCurlyFries

    SmellsLikeCurlyFries Social Capitalist

    Messages:
    4,727
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Pagan
    No, I meant what I said, but what I said has different meanings for different contexts. 'Cause, you know, that's how language works.
     
  19. stiggywiggy

    stiggywiggy New Member

    Messages:
    1,451
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    You bitterly point out bitterness. OK. But don't be so hard on yourself. That's not petty, just funny.
     
  20. stiggywiggy

    stiggywiggy New Member

    Messages:
    1,451
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    So you DON'T think this congressperson has a right to complain? I assure you she does, Mr. Supposed Libertarian.