Text 9692, 74 rader
Skriven 2013-08-12 09:34:00 av Gary Perkins (11748.fidonews)
   Kommentar till text 9666 av David Drummond (3:640/305)
Ärende: Re: How to raise a panic
================================
-=> David Drummond wrote to Gary Perkins <=-

 GP> In any case, the entire notion is a bit silly.  The president would
 GP> have to get the support of the Joint Chiefs, as well as all the
 GP> departments of Homeland Security, as well as a SOLID majority of their
 GP> subordinates.  Senators, Representatives, and likely the entire
 GP> Judiciary would not support him, so his first act would have to be to
 GP> try and disband them (effectively making him a dictator).

 DD> You don't think they'll all plotting together?

Not all, no.  Some, definitely.  Hopefully not most.

I don't remember which network podcast I was watching, but they did a
story on a gaffe by one of the junior reps.  Apparently for many years
he raised reindeer.  He's also a bit of a conspiracy nut.  I didn't
catch all of the early part of the story, but in his state the sitting
representative for his district was a shoe-in for re-election, and so
no one else but him was running against the guy.  Of course, the guy
was a bit crooked, and got found out only a few weeks before the
election, and withdrew from the race.  And so, they were left with the
reindeer herding conspiracy guy...lol!

That case was a bit extreme, but it does highlight what happens here.
Every couple of years the crooks are weeded out, and honest people do
manage to get elected.  Hopefully we can keep rooting out the bad
politicians.  I much rather have a guy who's a little on the paranoid
side and comes from a mundane background in office over most of the
rest.

 GP> Were any of that to happen, pretty much all of the States' militaries
 GP> would be storming Washington anyway.

 DD> Is this why so many of the US forces are stationed overseas?

?

 DD>> And on that subject, if the US constitution was such a great piece of
 DD>> law, why did it need so many amendments?

 GP> That's why it's considered a great document, and probably the only
 GP> reason we have one of the oldest continuous governments.

 DD> If it can be altered so many times, it can be changed again... maybe
 DD> not to the benefit of the masses.

If it's not done with the States' pleasure, there are multiple remedies.

 GP>  We also
 GP> consider it great because if it's abused or ignored, the states can
 GP> choose to overthrow those in power.

 DD> Yeah, sure. What forces can one little state summon up? What forces
 DD> does the President lead?

Not one, fifty.  One state is not likely to do anything...otherwise,
Texas may have already done something (it's no secret that relations
between Texas and the federal government have had a lot of tensions
the last few years).  

Things are bad enough that more than a few state legislatures have
already re-affirmed their sovereignty as a warning to the federal
government that they're overstepping their bounds.  Were the federal
government to step FAR beyond those bounds, they will step up.  Each
of us has our own military, and plenty of citizens who will volunteer
should it come to protecting our constitution.  It's enough to match
the federal government's manpower... and considering that a majority
of the federal military is natural born and grown in a state, I'm sure
there'd be more than a few who would uphold their oath.

 
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.49
--- SBBSecho 2.20-Linux
 * Origin: Southeast Texas BBS (1:393/31)