1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

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

Obama must take emergency control now

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Revmitchell, Dec 20, 2013.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Feb 18, 2006
    Likes Received:
    I believe America is in the throes of a multi-crisis of historic proportions that begs the use of presidential emergency power.

    Look to Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist paper No. 70 for how he defines such power. First, the need for it must be essential. Second, it must stabilize the steady administration of the law. Third, it must be necessary to maintain the protection of property, civil rights and justice for all. Fourth, it must meet the threat to the security of liberty against the assaults of ambition, faction and anarchy.

    President Theodore Roosevelt referred to it as the “stewardship theory of power,” and it was advanced by President Franklin D. Roosevelt prior to 1939.

    Late Cornell professor and noted political scientist Clinton Rossiter called it “Constitutional Dictatorship” in his book of the same title, first published in 1948. Sixty-three years ago, I was a student in one of his classes heading for the law school. I find it to be even more prescient with time. I am sure Rossiter, if he were alive today, would be asking President Barack Obama why he had not taken this power and run with it.

  2. Gina B

    Gina B Active Member

    Dec 30, 2000
    Likes Received:
    Did you write that?


    Was it MEANT to be satire? That's priceless. Let's go ahead and go into a dictatorship to protect the rights and freedoms of the people, giving the President and the government officials HE trusts no accountability, because we're really being threatened by, for example, GLOBAL WARMING and by that same president and his trusted people's actions. So the answer is to give the people NO power and to give him and his people ALL the power.
  3. InTheLight

    InTheLight Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Dec 17, 2010
    Likes Received:
    Folks, I'll save you the trouble of linking to the article. Here is the list of "crisis" that demands Obama to use emergency powers:

    • The $24 billion in cost to America of the shutdown of government fostered by demagogic zealots in the House of Representatives.

    • The near crisis of America failing to honor its debts brought on by the same zealots.

    • A gridlocked Congress unable to pass legislation.

    • The failure of traditional bipartisan compromise.

    • The use of corporate super-PAC money to control both election and legislative outcomes.

    • The resulting wealth imbalance that gives one-tenth of 1 percent control of 99 percent of U.S. wealth.

    • The austerity put upon the jobless, homeless, and stressed middle class and those in poverty while Wall Street receives billions in bailout and toxic asset protection from the great recession it caused by its greedy risk taking.

    • Meanwhile, our national infrastructure is decaying along with job opportunities.

    • Global warming conditions create super-storms and burning fossil fuels creates climate change, but zealots in Washington ignore it.
  4. thisnumbersdisconnected

    Apr 11, 2013
    Likes Received:
    Something about this article appearing in a third-tier newspaper -- if it's that high in the rankings -- in Elmira, New York by one Sherman Moreland didn't ring true with me. Why an obscure newspaper in upstate New York? If you truly want to propose this, you go to The New York Times or The Washington Post. So what gives here? It took a little Internet research, and a bit of luck, but here it is -- I think.

    Problem is, if one Googles Sherman Moreland as journalist, reporter, lawyer (which he claims to be) or in association with the newspaper, all you get is a series of stories on this idiotic piece he did. One of the better rebuttals is here on the website for the Western Center for Journalism. It states that Moreland got the idea for "Constitutional presidential dictatorship" from Dr. Clinton Rossiter, who was chair of the Government Department in the late 50s.

    Look up Rossiter online. The man was a moderate, who spoke out strenuously against the radicals of the 60s, and stood ground against the armed rebels who took over Cornell's Student Union Building in 1969. Not only did he never espouse such a radical concept as presidential dictatorship, he would have probably physically attacked anyone suggesting it.

    [URL="http://www.lifeinthefingerlakes.com/articles.php?view=article&id=228]This[/URL] is where the plot thickens.

    That last article linked details the life and career of one Sherman Moreland, a law graduate from Cornell who moved to Elmira -- in 1894. Moreland was elected to the New York legislature in 1903 and eventually authored a bill which became the basis for the Moreland Commissions in New York, which authorized the governor “at any time…to examine and investigate the management and affairs of any department, board, bureau or commission of the state” without benefit of legislative, gubernatorial or court subpoena or other legal instrument. He could simply call any government entity before him as judge, jury and executioner. I have to admit, that's not a half bad idea, but it isn't exactly constitutional, either.

    Highly unlikely this is a coincidence. There is a Sherman Moreland III still living in New York who was interviewed for that article. He apparently has taken his great grandfather's idea to the extreme, likely in a way his semi-famous ancestor would not approve, and definitely not in a way his beloved professor, Dr. Rossiter, would approve.

    Here's the bottom-line consideration: Could this be a "trial balloon" floated by someone on the Great Pretender's behalf? Could this lame duck dictator actually be considering such a drastic -- and likely unconstitutional -- declaration? Which leads to another question: If he declares a national emergency, declares Congress dissolved, ineffective, incapacitated or whatever he chooses to use as his reasoning -- what the heck does anyone do about it?
    #4 thisnumbersdisconnected, Dec 20, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 20, 2013
  5. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Nov 21, 2004
    Likes Received:
    Regardless of the veracity of the link; in my humble opinion if Obama were not black he would be impeached for his abuse of executive powers. Conviction is another question in Harry Reid's Senate.

    People in public office and general are so afraid of being called the "R" word they are paralyzed. The fact is that political correctness, which limits the 1st Amendment, is a powerful tool of the radical left.

    It was refreshing to me to see the "Duck Dynasty" guy express his opinion about homosexuality in this country and use Scripture as well. He might have been better off using Romans 1 but I could be wrong as the passage from Corinthians is more specific and includes other than homosexuals. FYI I have never watched the show, didn't know it existed until a few months ago, and have no plans to watch it, ever!
  6. General Mung Beans

    General Mung Beans New Member

    Aug 1, 2011
    Likes Received:
  7. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Mar 30, 2004
    Likes Received:
    There's also the little matter of Americans waking up to the fact that the last 80 years of government legislation and policies has royally put the screws to the constitution and the people.

    The alternative media is all over every lie and piece of propaganda they put out and exposing their corruption and abuse of power around the clock. It makes sense they'd want a dictatorship. They are arming themselves to the teeth and militarizing the police while trying to grab our guns and and buy up all the ammo after all.

    They do claim the authority to imprison us indefinitely or execute us without due process. They seem to be able to get all bipartisan when they're granting themselves dictatorial powers like this.

    Both the left and the right love big authoritarian government they just disagree over who should be in control of it.
    #7 poncho, Dec 22, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 22, 2013