Posted on 08/29/2014 3:13:35 PM PDT by Jacquerie
Everyone has wondered if his vote would be the one that put a candidate president, senator, . . . county commissioner over the top. We vote more out of habit and tradition, rather than a conviction that “our guy” will work toward restoration of the American republic.
Can the November election reverse Obama’s law making, treaty making, his control over spending, and oppression of conservative groups? Who can name the powers Obama does not have?
Of course, my title implies something that could never happen. Not a chance. But what if wide swaths of the American people become so disgusted with the existing smokescreen of republican, constitutional government they just don’t bother to participate? What if the vast majority of Americans determine the progressive/islamic agenda is so well under way, so hardened into our governing and social institutions, that conservatives cannot reverse its course, and progressives see no need to accelerate the existing trend toward despotism?
Imagine only a few thousand per congressional district, or maybe a hundred thousand per state bother to vote for congressman or senator this coming November. Would the resulting congress be legitimate if it rested on so thin a foundation?
Governments in the past have experienced similar disgust and breakdown. In 1640, king Charles I of Great Britain discovered that very few powerful men supported him. The result was civil war.
Government under the hapless Articles of Confederation dissolved from lack of interest by the states. The result was the constitution.
This isn’t to say despotic authority wouldn’t still exist over us. DHS and other agencies haven’t accumulated billions of rounds of ammo for nothing. If the eligible voter participation rate fell to a couple percent, one thing is certain. It would mean shattering of the republican façade, the last outer shell of a constitution rendered out of practical existence.
To paraphrase Obama, we live in transformational times. To democrats the purpose of congress is to rubber stamp the will of Obama. Democrats are worried about lack of participation at the polls, to which the rats famously bus and reward their voting legions. Los Angeles is considering a taxpayer funded bounty for voting. Compulsory voting isn’t unusual in other countries. Dozens have some form of it.
As we dive head first into hard tyranny, don’t think the rats wouldn’t relish a law that demands we condone their criminality. I don’t think it is far off. If so, it would be the last gasp of the American republic.
I’m sick of the system, but I feel a very deep civic duty to stand and be counted. First election I ever voted in was a school levy (I voted no) and I haven’t missed an election since.
The most important thing is to bear in mind we the people have a duty that goes beyond the ballot box to ensure that votes are counted and that elections are fair.
My vote is my voice and I will not be silenced.
I just want the option “none of the above”, which if it received the majority of votes would mean the parties would have to present new candidates for an election.
Having been elected to a precinct election judge, I can at least see that our precinct runs a fair election. I can also affirm that our county election department makes every effort to do the same.
I will admit I don't know what a school levy is. Can you elaborate, just for my own edification?
progressives see no need to accelerate the existing trend toward despotism?
Orly? As long as it was their despot they will never
STOP accelerating that trend.
It would be no different than last time with 100% returns for hussein.
Rush today was debating a discussion on how we can’t win because of the media- he said, it wasn’t the media that caused the loss in 2012, it was the fact that 4 million Republicans stayed home and didn’t vote. I had to hold my nose and vote for Romney because I knew if Obama got a second term he would go balls out on his continuance of the destruction of America.
I sit and wonder of all the things that have occurred in his 2nd term- that perhaps wouldn’t have happened if Romney had won....Eric Holder/ Vallerie Jarret would be gone. All the issues with IRS, ISRAEL, UKRAINE, ISIS...
At least I know Romney loves America...unlike our Chief of Golf World.
Yes !
Would the resulting congress be legitimate if it rested on so thin a foundation?
It would be if office and have control of the country whether you considered it legitimate or not.
This kind of thing is often mentioned, I have trouble seeing it work. What if the second election results in the same thing? Pretty soon it’s January and the new terms starts, who is running things? Who is paying for these extra elections?
For the Presidency ? Whomever would be the highest duly-elected officeholder as of January 20th. The Speaker of the House would be acting President in this instance.
However, this is something I’d see more likely as happening in a Governor’s race if anything, with either the Lt Governor/Sec of State/Atty Gen or legislative leader serving in an acting capacity.
When they had a situation in Minnesota in 1963 with a hung election between incumbent leftist RINO Gov. Elmer L. Andersen and Democrat Lt. Gov. Karl Rolvaag, Andersen remained a few months past the end of his term after the election was certified (he lost by 91 votes).
I think the Speaker should be removed from the line of succession, the provision allowing them to become acting President after resigning from Congress is just bizarre.
It makes constitutional sense to have the Pres Pro Tem there but practically speaking, who wants some 85 year Senator in charge? I tend to think the Sec of State should be # 2 behind the VP.
Remember back in 1973 after Spiro Agnew was forced to resign (only the second time in history, as John C. Calhoun did so months before his term expired in order to resume serving in the Senate), the Dems and left-wing activists tried to persuade Speaker Carl Albert not to ratify an appointee of Nixon’s to be VP, expecting they’d run Nixon out of office before long and could install Albert.
Albert, possessing an iota of dignity and decorum and not wanting to effectively overturn the results of an election, opted not to go that route. He, of course, would’ve been the last Democrat to show such restraint.
I'm sure the current power cabal would do all in their power to sabotage it.
What if the second election results in the same thing?
Back to the drawing board...
Pretty soon it’s January and the new terms starts, who is running things?
The same people who are now--the staffers. You don't think the elected Democrats stuffed the ACA with all that crap by themselves?
Who is paying for these extra elections?
We are. The same people paying for the results. You don't fill a job opening with unsuitable candidates, you hold out for someone at least adequate.
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20064674,00.html
It sounds like Albert dreaded the possibly of ascending to the White House.
Levy is a term for taxation
I should hope that you at least try to weld the ballot too. Boycoutting the ballot box will never win anyone anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.