Posted on 03/15/2009 5:06:02 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I don’t see it possible for Obama or the Democrat Congress to be able to get a 3/4 ratification vote by the states to give Obama a ‘lifetime presidency”... LOL...I'll bet there was a time when you didn't see it possible for Obama to get elected too.
Take a look at the oath for military folks
For Officers
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
So the Prez (current or in former times) comes in - what - 4th place and then only if regulations and the UCMJ is obeyed.
Lots of interesting fiction based on a variation of these as a premise.
I don't think we have a lot to worry about until we see the outcome of the next set of Congressional races. You all, of course, may chose the think otherwise, as is your right.
His Gestapo will be in every city, town, and hamlet in America, spying on citizens and reporting back to their ACORN Oberfuhrers.
Thanks for posting...Any thots on how to get word out on this...did hear Levin talked about it, but hope Fox news & others pick it up!
All I can think is “Politically correct...........Ideologically Vacant”
the perfect image of that sickening snob.
You said — “I’ll bet there was a time when you didn’t see it possible for Obama to get elected too.”
—
When he was running in the primaries, I thought that Clinton would get the nomination, at first, but then it became apparent that he was really “pulling it off”. But, that wasn’t so strange, considering it was the “Democrats”. However, when it came to the election, no..., I was *not* so certain that Obama would lose. I was *hoping* that he would lose, but it was also “appearing” that he had a big chance of winning, too — which we now see was very true.
Thus, it was *not* that far-fetched for Obama to win, not in terms of “all the signs” that were given, running up to the election.
HOWEVER, the difference here is in one case, we’re talking about an *election* in which Obama seems to “fit” very nicely the “mindset” of many Democrats. Thus, it’s not surprising. On the other hand, with a Constitutional Amendment, that’s another story all together.
Obama only had to get a “win” (meaning “majority”) in a state where he wanted to get the electoral votes. That’s just slightly over 50% — and that’s all.
With a Constitutional Amendment, you’ve got to go through several hurdles which have a “higher bar” than the 50% marker. You’ve got to get over 66% of the Senate — and — the House of Representatives to even get a Constitutional Amendment started in the first place. If you can’t pass the “high bar” of 66%, you’re not going anywhere.
Then next — you’ve got an *even higher bar* of — 75% — to ratify it. Along with that usually goes a “time frame” too, which is another “bar” to the passage of an Amendment.
Heck! If they couldn’t even get the ERA passed and the deadline was extended, trying to get it passed, I don’t know how anyone expects to get a Constitutional Amendment passed, giving Obama a “lifetime Presidency”.... LOL...
To even “hear” someone even suggest that this is a “rational possibility” makes me question the mental stability of someone suggesting it... :-)
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, ...............Ah Ha! See no mention of automatic weapons! No mention of having a SKS, Mauser, Springfield 03, M-1, AK 47, etc. etc.etc.. Wait till the SCOTUS gets the Obama Judges. You will be allowed only the Musket. Sarc/
That is a problem with Turkeys...
Free elections in th e US are a thing of the past. IMHO the last free election was in 2004.
When you consider ACORN, money from Arab countries to democrats and the WH incharge of the 2010 census we are toast.
I think the order’s need to be constitutional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committees_for_the_Defense_of_the_Revolution
Worthy of repeating to avoid the same evil!
Having sat through “manadatory formations” like this as a young Marine many years ago I will say that they look much less than enthusiastic at having to sit in front of BO Plenty and hear him spew.
LOL. You are the one making the assertion without the slightest substantiation except some vague recollection. I was serving in the USN at the time. After the fact, Kissinger wrote about his concern about Nixon’s mental health given the stress he was under. I cannot recall that there was any formal agreement within the JCS to ignore or subvert the orders of the President/CIC. Any JCS member would be insane to sign on to such an agreement. Moreover, they would be violating the law.
I was sent this
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7886780711843120756
via email. It’s LONG, but I’ve watched a bit of it so far.
The “stepping” militant ‘bamsters are featured.
I can see it -
it would be within the realm of someone raised in a victimhood/vengeance oriented, racist culture
to put gov’t legitimacy (legal use of deadly force) behind a militant racist organization
and use it to get back at “whitey”.
That mentality and the implementation is
ALREADY HERE
in America. Those who were prudent and bought a house they could afford are now paying for the imprudent decisions of others.
And this is the #1 basic tenet of liberalism - forcing the responsible to pay for the irresponsible choices of others. And then condemning the responsible as greedy.
I told many others about that speech,
but all I got from the glassy eyed bamsters
was excuses and “perhaps she meant...”
As an officer, you swear an oath to the constitution, not the president. Now, the phrase “not in the best interest of the United States” is subject to a lot of interpretation, but if it really meant “unconstitutional”, then the JCS generals were spot-on.
If it meant “contrary to the generals’ wishes”, it was mutiny in the planning.
It matters not to me if you have any recollection of the events surrounding these events.
I stated what I recall from, now if the article was true or not I have no way of knowing.
But on a side note, the person carrying the football, if the president for no apparent reason wants to launch an attack, does he have to do it regrardless of the facts surrounding the events?
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.