Stepping over the Constitution AGAIN

SharonL

Senior Veteran
Oct 15, 2005
9,957
1,099
Texas
Visit site
✟23,316.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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
 

SOAD

Why do they always send the poor? (S.O.A.D.)
Jul 20, 2006
6,317
230
✟7,778.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
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

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.
 
Upvote 0
I

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.
 
Upvote 0

Grizzly

Enemy of Christmas
Supporter
Jul 6, 2002
13,036
1,674
57
Tallahassee
✟46,060.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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.

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.
 
Upvote 0

Touma

Well-Known Member
Feb 19, 2007
7,201
773
36
Virginia
✟19,033.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
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.
 
Upvote 0

SharonL

Senior Veteran
Oct 15, 2005
9,957
1,099
Texas
Visit site
✟23,316.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0

SharonL

Senior Veteran
Oct 15, 2005
9,957
1,099
Texas
Visit site
✟23,316.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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?

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.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stiggywiggy

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2004
1,452
51
✟2,074.00
Faith
Non-Denom
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.

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?
 
Upvote 0

Wayte

Oh, you know. Some guy.
Jan 31, 2010
2,306
92
33
Silverdale, WA
✟18,059.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
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?

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.
 
Upvote 0

SmellsLikeCurlyFries

Social Capitalist
Jan 22, 2012
4,727
76
32
Chattanooga, Tennessee
✟5,424.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Democrat
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?

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.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stiggywiggy

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2004
1,452
51
✟2,074.00
Faith
Non-Denom
A "right to complain" is not referring to a literal RIGHT.

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?
 
Upvote 0

SmellsLikeCurlyFries

Social Capitalist
Jan 22, 2012
4,727
76
32
Chattanooga, Tennessee
✟5,424.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Democrat
OK. You didn't mean what you said. I see.

No, I meant what I said, but what I said has different meanings for different contexts. 'Cause, you know, that's how language works.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums