It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Can Obama suspend 2016 elections?

page: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

You obviously haven't seen any protest or social media




posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks for the commentary on the article...

BTW I didn't write it; just provided it as an aid to the OP's discussion.

I really don't really have any opinion or commentary on it myself...



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 06:58 PM
link   
In theory, no.

In practice, only if the States or Congress try to stop him.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: Aazadan

You obviously haven't seen any protest or social media


People making fools out of themselves on social media isn't a protest. When I think protests, I think reactions like the LA Riots, except as a reaction to who was elected. We won't have that. We'll have people make asses out of themselves on facebook, we might get a sit in or two where some jerks block a freeway for a few hours, and then it will settle down to the usual political sniping and spinning that never goes away.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Of course he can, if he takes the notion to. He'll just have to tell the public, cnn and fox he's gonna take four more and bango! Ted Nugent has a heart attack.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ssenerawa

Uhm no - not wrong.

Thats because local governments operate under the State Constitution and not Federal. They are unable to suspend Habeous Corpus since that is spelled out in the Federal Constitution. Habeous Corpus is the only part of the Federal Constitution that can be suspended. If a state acts beyond their authority and it interferes with an individuals rights in violation of the Federal Constitution that State would be in violation and would qualify as being declared in a state of insurrection / rebellion.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: Xcathdra

Martial law

The imposition of the highest-ranking military officer(Obama) as the military governor or as the head of the government, thus removing all power from the previous executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. It is usually imposed temporarily when the government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (BLM) (e.g., maintain order and security, or provide essential services).



Again not spelled out in the Constitution and SCTOUS has ruled on it after the Civil War.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ssenerawa

Not quite acccurate -


In the United States Code, the IEEPA is Title 50, §§1701-1707.[2] The IEEPA authorizes the president to declare the existence of an "unusual and extraordinary threat... to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States" that originates "in whole or substantial part outside the United States."[3] It further authorizes the president, after such a declaration, to block transactions and freeze assets to deal with the threat.[4] In the event of an actual attack on the United States, the president can also confiscate property connected with a country, group, or person that aided in the attack.[5]

The IEEPA falls under the provisions of the National Emergencies Act (NEA), which means that an emergency declared under the act must be renewed annually to remain in effect.


Its geared not towards the population but the country, group or individuals involved in the attack on / in the US.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: Xcathdra

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(BLM) or invasion(BLM,ISIS) the public safety may require it."


Yup already talked about it and if you notice it spells out when Habeous Corpus can be suspended - Rebellion or an invasion.

Your point?



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 09:27 PM
link   
No they cant be suspended. At least not in the manner your attempting to attribute them to.
edit on 13-9-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
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?


We have to take into account the tin foil distracting the people who are not reading the laws they are trying to undermine.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes they can.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes they can.


Lol good luck with that.

No they can't.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: Shamrock6

I was replying to an earlier poster that didn't think it was possible because of a current law, when in fact laws can be suspended with the acts listed above and many more.

I was quoting the BLM leader/activist because Hillary isn't looking to well, and you have to see how easily these laws can be enacted given the current state of things

Sorry Im on my iPhone, everything I posted is well researchable

BLM activist/leader tweet


I know who you were replying to, and about what.

And it's not.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Thats why most states dont even have State Guards, and when you hear about the guard it refers to the National Guard which is federal and so more useful to the feds over states, right?

a reply to: Xcathdra



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
As other posts have indicated, there would be hell to pay if he even tried. He doesn't have the authority. Just about everyone has turned their back on him, he already knows that he is irrelevant.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join