Are they going to be another major tragedy

[JerryNumbers]

At one time there was something in the constitution that would allow a 3rd term. one of our president did serve a 3rd term, but that has been since changed to where it is no longer allowed.

Franklin Roosevelt is the only president to serve more than 2 terms. But that will not happen again unless the constitution is changed for it now reads no president can serve more than 2 terms.

Seems some get confused on this matter for during Franklin Roosevelt's time there was no term limit, but 2 term limit is in place now and no one can be elected to the office again who has already been elected to two terms.

The president of the United States does not have the power to stay in office past his elected term.


Amendment XXII
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.

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. ratified #22

http://www.stlplaces.com/constitution/

[Chelle]

"This know also' date=' that in the last days perilous times shall come."[/color'] ~2 Timothy 3:1~

It's only a matter of time...

I agree. That's an excellent verse, btw. :thumb

[Anon]

Roosevelt won a third term because it was wartime.

[HappyChristian]

THE EXECUTIVE ORDER IN TIME OF WAR

Many of the fears of the founding fathers may now be coming to fruition. Today, the executive branch of the government is immensely powerful, much more powerful than the founding fathers had envisioned or wanted. Congressional legislative powers have been usurped. There is no greater example of that usurpation than in the form of the Presidential Executive Order. The process totally by-passes Congressional legislative authority and places in the hands of the President almost unilateral power. The Executive Order governs everything from the Flag Code of the United States to the ability to single-handedly declare Martial Law. Presidents have used the Executive Order in times of emergencies to override the Constitution of the United States and the Congress.

President Andrew Jackson used executive powers to force the law-abiding Cherokee Nation off their ancestral lands. The Cherokee fought the illegal action in the U.S. Supreme Court and won. But Jackson, using the power of the Presidency, continued to order the removal of the Cherokee Nation and defied the Court's ruling. He stated, "Let the Court try to enforce their ruling." The Cherokee lost their land and commenced a series of journeys that would be called The Trail of Tears.

President Abraham Lincoln suspended many fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He closed down newspapers opposed to his war-time policies and imprisoned what many historians now call political prisoners. He suspended the right of trial and the right to be confronted by accusers. Lincoln's justification for such drastic actions was the preservation of the Union above all things. After the war and Lincoln's death, Constitutional law was restored.

In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson could not persuade Congress to arm United States vessels plying hostile German waters before the United States entered World War One. When Congress balked, Wilson invoked the policy through a Presidential Executive Order.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued Executive Order No. 9066 in December 1941. His order forced 100,000 Japanese residents in the United States to be rounded up and placed in concentration camps. The property of the Japanese was confiscated. Both Lincoln's and Roosevelt's actions were taken during wartime, when the very life of the United States was threatened. Wilson's action was taken on the eve of the United States entering World War One. Whether history judges these actions as just, proper or legal, the decision must be left to time. The dire life struggle associated with these actions provided plausible argumentation favoring their implementation during a time when hysteria ruled an age.

THE NEW DANGERS

A Presidential Executive Order, whether Constitutional or not, becomes law simply by its publication in the Federal Registry. Congress is by-passed. Here are just a few Executive Orders that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:


EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
Without Congressional approval, the President now has the power to transfer whole populations to any part of the country, the power to suspend the Press and to force a national registration of all persons. The President, in essence, has dictatorial powers never provided to him under the Constitution. The President has the power to suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in a real or perceived emergency. Unlike Lincoln and Roosevelt, these powers are not derived from a wartime need, but from any crisis, domestic or foreign, hostile or economic. Roosevelt created extraordinary measures during the Great Depression, but any President faced with a similar, or lesser, economic crisis now has extraordinary powers to assume dictatorial status.

Many of the Executive Orders cited here have been on the books for over a quarter of a century and have not been applied. Therefore, what makes them more dangerous today than yesteryear? There has been a steady, consistent series of new Executive Orders, originating from President Richard Nixon and added to by Presidents Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter and George Bush that provide an ominous Orwellian portrait, the portrait of George Orwell's 1984.

This was written before Clinton issued his many, many EO's, under the name of "Presidential Directives." For more on this, look at

http://sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon5.html

[Anon]

The President has the power to suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in a real or perceived emergency. Unlike Lincoln and Roosevelt, these powers are not derived from a wartime need, but from any crisis, domestic or foreign, hostile or economic. Roosevelt created extraordinary measures during the Great Depression, but any President faced with a similar, or lesser, economic crisis now has extraordinary powers to assume dictatorial status.

There we go, that is what I was talking about, basically.

[HappyChristian]

Yeah...that "or perceived" part is pretty scary (actually it all is!)

[Anon]

I dunno though, it'd have to be someone America really liked, because Americans have attitudes and if a President did something too extreme I think he'd be in danger of his life.

[HappyChristian]

I could see Obama getting away with it! He's a little to JFKish for comfort!

[Anon]

Obama just better be careful not to be too focused on blacks, otherwise he won't win enough confidence.

[matie-k]

I don't think the people in this nation would ever put up with having a dictator. We're very used to "the people having the power" concept, and there would be a revolt or something.

[Anon]

I don't think the people in this nation would ever put up with having a dictator. We're very used to "the people having the power" concept' date=' and there would be a revolt or something.[/quote']


I agree, the only way I could see it is if a very personality-plus guy got in there, and then something so terrible happened to where the people didn't care about anything but surviving.

Kinda grim really.

[John81]

Many dictators gain their power just that way Suzy. They create or exploit circumstances so that the people believe they need a strong, single leader.

I've read many articles and opinion pieces, and heard in college lectures about the "need" and sometimes the "virtue" of America having a "benevelent dictator."

Many in America today, on both sides of the liberal/conservative spectrum, would either support or go along with such a scenario if "their guy" was the one likely to get the position. Or, as so much of what passes for conservatism and liberalism today is blending, it's possible both sides could even agree upon one to support if they thought they could get their way and profit from it at the same time.

[kevinmiller]

I'm sure the rapture will be enough of a disaster that everyone left here wouldn't have the slightest problem with one man taking control.

[pep_3000]

Don't forget the "Patriot Act." If you go through it the whole thing is unconstitutional. If they decide to call something terrorism they can suspend almost all of your rights. You can be held without trial, or legal counsel, shipped to Cuba, or Turkey, or Egypt and tortured for information. The problem is that what is terrorism is never defined, it is whatever the government decided it is. So technically King George II could have all the people who oppose him arrested, and tortured as terrorists. If he was more popular or something major happened it would not surprise me if he tried to find a way to stay in office.

I think there will be another major attack at some point. There is a lot of animosity between people in the United States and the west and people in the Middle East and Muslims (which are not the same thing). Us, the United States and the West in general, have meddled in the Middle East for centuries. Most of the region was carved up by France and Britain when the people there were promised independence after World War 1. We have exploited the mineral wealth of the region. In Iran we deposed the leader to put the Shah, who was a brutal dictator, back in power. We say that we stand for democracy, yet support brutal undemocratic regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Also, many Muslims and people from the Middle East feel under threat from the West. Physical threat, political, cultural and moral. They see Western television and MTV and want no part of that culture. And I have not even mentioned our unconditional and no questions asked support of Israel and the battle of perceptions that entails.
I would agree that if the situation was reversed. If Christians lived in he Middle East, and Muslims in the West; there would be Christians who would become violent, just like Muslims are often accused of.

PEP

[JerryNumbers]

<>

So you think we should not support Israel.