Can Obama suspend 2016 elections?

On October 17, 2006, President Bush signed into law, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, which affords the president (any president) the ability to declare a ‘public emergency’ at his own discretion, and place federal troops anywhere throughout the United States. Under this law, the president also now has the authority to federalize National Guard troops without the consent of state governors, in order to restore ‘public order.’ The President can now deploy federal troops to U.S. cities, at will, which eliminates the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act.

Then, in December 2011, while vacationing in Hawaii, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law, which allows the “indefinite detention” of U.S. citizens without charge, by the U.S. military.

Even if this theory is false. Why would Obama sign a law of that nature?

course, given the current lawlessness we are seeing at the hands of soros funded groups such as Black Lives Matter; the rioting already seen in Baltimore, Ferguson and Chicago and the ongoing ambush and murder of our police officers, it is not hard to see how Obama would be able to point to widespread ‘civil unrest’ and declare a ‘public emergency,’ and then suspend federal elections.

Sais

a reply to: ssenerawa

No, but you think he possibly can and would like to.

a reply to: ssenerawa

The law is invalid and violates posse comitatus. State Governors, all 50, have already weighed in on Federal overreach when it comes to nationalizing state guard units. Only Congress can change the posse comitatus law and from what I see it remains in effect with no changes.

Secondly the Elections are defined by the US Constitution and nowhere does it give the ability for any branch to cancel / change elections.

The NDAA is signed into law every year if I recall correctly and deals with funding and updates. A Federal judge already ruled the indefinite detention of American citizens is unconstitutional and is not applicable.

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: ssenerawa

No, but you think he possibly can and would like to.

What makes you think he wouldn't like to? The guy doesn't give a crap about the Constitution or due process. He only cares about his pet agendas.

a reply to: ssenerawa

Good thread. Bumped for concept alone.
We the people if ignorant of our laws will be killed by them.
All the lawmakers have to do is make all the people criminals.
It happened in Germany starting with the Pat..er Enabling Act--
and eventually everything Hitler did to even his own people
was technically legal.
Immoral, unlawful, in our case grossly unconstitutional; but
as far as legislation goes, get the popcorn. Because if Obama
uses a shaky promulgated construct of crap law that has been
piling up like sweet corn in a 13 yr old Boy Scout's colon:*
it's gonna hit the fan long before the trip to the latrine.
*That was an admittedly nasty metaphor, but quite inade-
quate... especially in regard to THIS election cycle.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: ssenerawa

No, but you think he possibly can and would like to.

What makes you think he wouldn't like to? The guy doesn't give a crap about the Constitution or due process. He only cares about his pet agendas.

Just for us, M.. I'm going to try and find that Gary Larson
cartoon with the pet Agendas. It's almost as twisted as I am.

And as far as overreach-- Lincoln put legislators, newspaper
owners and editors: along with a sizeable amount of rich
people in JAIL for not doing what he wanted at the beginning
of the War of Northern Aggression.
Per real history it seems, even with the Bonus Vets; tyranny
and barrels can get turned inside in a hurry... with precedents.

a reply to: ssenerawa

Simple answer he can't there is nothing a president can do to prevent his term from ending.

For all those posting the President cannot please read up on
1)Martial Law
2) Continuity of Government
3) Suspension of the Constitution

Here is one example:

The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Brought to you by Google.
Google em

a reply to: dragonridr

And if nobody votes for the next president, that would give a clear sign people have no faith in the next President?

Although I know that nothing will change whoever you choose for next president.

Because every future or historical decisions will and have been made outside government structures.

They only have power to let the show go on and fill their pockets and shifting valuta around the system to keep us happy or complaining. .

So IMHO if they don't want it to happen ,it's not going to happen


Let's play along the game called planet earth.

Here's an article discussing your topic

Obama wants a third term and this is how he could make it happen

originally posted by: Gothmog
For all those posting the President cannot please read up on

originally posted by: Gothmog
1)Martial Law

Congress must authorize "martial law" as the power to suspend habeous corpus resides with their branch. If the President does it Congress can challenge it. The suspension can only occur during an invasion or a rebellion and nothing allows for it to be implemented outside those 2 specific requirements.

originally posted by: Gothmog
2) Continuity of Government

Designed and to be implemented during an invasion of the US when government agencies are at risk to the enemy. Cannot be used outside of the 2 specific requirements mentioned above.

originally posted by: Gothmog
3) Suspension of the Constitution

Habeous corpus is the only part of the Constitution that can be touched and only by Congress and only during a rebellion / invasion of the US.

Given everything above Federal courts are still involved and can issue a writ for a person affected to be presented to the court for review (checks and balances).

originally posted by: Gothmog
Here is one example:


The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Brought to you by Google.
Google em

Trying to declare a state in rebellion is not as easy as one thinks. It requires specific criteria be met. That declaration allows a President to federalize state guard units to "put down the rebellion". During hurricane Katrina Bush dispatched federal military units to assist. The Governor of Louisiana refused to turn command of her state guard units over to federal authority.

Bush was told by his senior advisors that the only way he could override the governor was to declare New Orleans / Louisiana in a state of rebellion. They warned him that the legalities involved would not support that action, which is why we ended up with joint command of federal troops and state guard units.

Any action taken to suspend habeous corpus must meet 1 0f the 2 requirements discussed.
Suspending the Constitution is not an option and is unconstitutional. There is no mechanism in the Constitution allowing for it.

Habeous Corpus is the only part that is able to be suspended and only by Congress and only during an invasion or rebellion.

Lincolns declaration during the Civil war was ruled unconstitutional albeit after the war by Scotus. the only portion allowed applied to the southern states that rebelled.

Posse Comitatus prohibits the use of federal military units from engaging in civilian law enforcement functions. Posse Comitatus is a federal law though so Congress can modify it to allow for that possibility. You will run into states rights issues though.

State guard units are exempt from posse comitatus as they answer to the Governor / adjutant general and not the President.

Obama cannot do any of the above lawfully or constitutionally.

originally posted by: Metallicus
What makes you think he wouldn't like to?

Why would he want to? When he retires he can sleep in, do what he wants to, spend time with his family etc.

The guy doesn't give a crap about the Constitution or due process.

Any evidence to back that claim up?

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
Here's an article discussing your topic

Obama wants a third term and this is how he could make it happen

The Warner Defense Act of 2006 did not nullify posse comitatus. The sections they use include state pf rebellion. A state refusing to comply with federal laws can be declared in a state of rebellion and a perfect example would be in the 1960's when a state governor refused to allow a black person into a school in violation of federal law. After being given every opportunity to comply US Marshall's were sent to enforce the federal law and the state guard units were federalized to support that action.

Once again we come back to state of rebellion as defined in the Constitution.

The only way Obama can get a third term is to modify the 22nd amendment and I dont see that happening anytime soon.

Even if we elected a new potus / vpotus and something occurs that render them unable to serve (death etc) the Constitution would still prevent Obama from remaining on as President. Since there are no term limits on Vice President I could see it being possible for him to remain as President until new elections are held / Congress acts.

I would think this is where continuity of government would come in. After the Vice President you would have the Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate and then we would move into he Cabinet secretaries starting with the Secretary of State.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Amazing how some can cite specific acts and bills, which in and of themselves spell out the limitations and requirements that must be met that directly refute the very premise the person who cited them is trying to push, isn't it?

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: ssenerawa

No, but you think he possibly can and would like to.

What makes you think he wouldn't like to? The guy doesn't give a crap about the Constitution or due process. He only cares about his pet agendas.

When have any of your presidents in recent history?

the sought for... private, civilian army, secretly amassed by #44 are just waiting for the word sent by the radical Clergy at the Friday Prayer, a certain Fatwa to be issued at certain Mosques starting the hidden ISIS platoons from the Syrian Refugee resettlement cities all around the lower 48 States to : Start-the-Summer-of-Chaos, hinder elections, set up Sharia enclaves... (the 'transformation' begins & the Legislative Branch will not swear in new members on 3 Jan. '2017
nor 20 Jan. 2017 for the new POTUS to do an Oath of Office)

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: ssenerawa

No, but you think he possibly can and would like to.

If you don't think it is even remotely possible than you are on the wrong forum. It really doesn't matter what the laws are, given how they have shown clearly that they are willing to break them. Plus you have to consider an "event/false flag"" than nobody is prepared for could have special circumstances. In order for the President to do this, we would need something un-witnessed before to happen I think.

a reply to: ssenerawa

No, he doesn't have that power.

And as was reported on numerous threads, both political parties have rules in place to replace a candidate. Losing a political candidate is not a national emergency or even a local emergency. It's happened before.

originally posted by: St Udio
the sought for... private, civilian army, secretly amassed by #44 are just waiting for the word sent by the radical Clergy at the Friday Prayer, a certain Fatwa to be issued at certain Mosques starting the hidden ISIS platoons from the Syrian Refugee resettlement cities all around the lower 48 States to : Start-the-Summer-of-Chaos, hinder elections, set up Sharia enclaves... (the 'transformation' begins & the Legislative Branch will not swear in new members on 3 Jan. '2017
nor 20 Jan. 2017 for the new POTUS to do an Oath of Office)

Say what?

It's September. Their "start the summer of chaos" party seems to have taken a wrong turn in Albuquerque because none of that happened. And the Sharia Enclaves (what the heck are those?) have noticeably not managed to get set up, and Daesh (ISIL) has lost a lot of troops and commanders.

...or else the Mandela Effect has dumped you into a different universe. Your scenario isn't possible in this one. In this universe, most of the 2.6 million Muslims in America (less than 1% of the population) are loyal Americans and serve in our military and all over the country.

So relax. You'll like this universe a lot better than the one you came from.

(and "Eid Mubarak" to Muslims on ATS reading this.)