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.

 

WWIII and the U.S. Presidency?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
This is a hypothetical here. What happens if WWIII were to start before the 2012 election, and the President ended up implementing martial law? I know it would take a lot for this do happen, but let's just say it does for arguments sake.

If martial law was declared, would the election still go on? Would the President just stay in office until the war was over or until they decided to leave? What would happen? With the term limits and all other laws regarding this, are there any in place for this scenario? What recourse would the people have if any? I assume they would have none since they would be under martial law.




posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Vote RP and we might get out of this alive



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


Although I do agree that Ron Paul would be the best bet, I find it hard to believe that he would actually be able to change anything. The President is just a puppet controlled from behind the scenes by lobbyists and corporations. I think we are beyond the point of no return.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by SUICIDEHK45
 


All's you have to do is to get all these war mongering politicans in one room, and read out the number of deaths in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan.

It just astounds me that these politicans just dont get it, or more to the point, the banksters and the NWO dudes dont get it, that the people of the world are SICK OF WARS, vote these lunatics OUT.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by downunderET
 


If martial law is declared we may not get another chance to vote. That is what I'm asking here. Can the President stay in office as long as he wants, if he and congress says that it is "needed" for the safety of the country?



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SUICIDEHK45
 


What your talking about has no precedence in US history... So the only honest answer anybody can give is, "we would make it up as we go"

The only real answer we have to go on is history. Caesar never gave up his title. The senate even killed him. Yet Rome still ended up with an Emperor...

....Its the next phase of an Empire.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
I believe the common WWIII scenario is a nuclear exchange, therefore I doubt that anyone would care to go through the whole fake voting process.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by KnawLick
 


Unfortunately, the people "making it up as we go" are going to be the ones in power. Shouldn't all scenarios have a contingency plan in place. I know it's unlikely, but in this day and age anything can happen on the tick of a clock. One minute everything is "normal".....the next...BOOM!, WAR WERE DECLARED!!



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
For WWIII to 'happen' Congress would have to approve it.

Smelling a rat, Congress would probably require nothing less that a nuclear strike on American soil from a known state actor.

If this approval was given and martial law declared, the elections would still go on in an effort to make Americans feel comfortable and show our resolve and that nothing will change.

Obama, having allowed the country to be hit with a nuclear weapon, would lose this election to Romney who added to his ticket a WarHawk, in a landslide.




edit on 18-6-2012 by michaelbrux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


What is the last war congress approved?



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SUICIDEHK45
 


My point was it will depend on the individual character of the man presented with the question.

When George Washington served out his second term, the congress approached him about staying on as a life-long regent. A de facto King. Had the character of George Washington been different we may have had a different country.

We might not be as luck under your scenario. The character of the sitting president might be one of ego and self-glorification. And asked "would you like to rule for life" they might not answer it like good 'ol George did....
edit on 18-6-2012 by KnawLick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SUICIDEHK45
 


Iraq. It was the UN that wouldn't approve it.

Congress was very excited and behind the President all the way about Iraq.
edit on 18-6-2012 by michaelbrux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by SUICIDEHK45
 


i don't agree with that, it's true the current crops of presidents and candidates are controlled by corporations and lobbies, all it takes is one strong willed person to get elected and stop it.

the president has control of the justice department. if such a person were elected he could throw the full weight of the law at them and start putting many, many of them away for a long time.

i don't know many corporate execs who could handle super max's and sharing a cell with a multiple murderer.


edit on 18-6-2012 by randomname because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


War was never declared, congress just approved military action. Two different things.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss
Vote RP and we might get out of this alive


WE might get out alive with Ron Paul but what about HIM?



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SUICIDEHK45
 


Semantics.

but they will have to approve of something you called WWIII usually no one would even call it that until after it was over.

my opinion is that WWIII has already been fought, its just not what some were expecting so its not apparent.

that being said, no martial law was declared, elections continued as scheduled and elected officials left office when their terms ended.

it'll probably continue in this manner until you are old and grey, without regards to whether there is a war or not.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


Yes, I know, it's splitting hairs. Just was being a pain in the A$$. Sorry. You may be right. So do we get a WWIIII forum now?



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SUICIDEHK45
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


Although I do agree that Ron Paul would be the best bet, I find it hard to believe that he would actually be able to change anything. The President is just a puppet controlled from behind the scenes by lobbyists and corporations. I think we are beyond the point of no return.

Nailed it. It doesn't matter who the president is, he will have to report to someone(or something) above him...



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by SUICIDEHK45
 


Yes it was.

George Bush gave Saddam and his sons an ultimatum to 'leave Iraq within 48 hours or face war'.. You need to declare war under the Geneva convention.

Someone needs to do their homework :-)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Ron Paul seems too good to be true...
meaning he probably is.

Who knows is Obama will put martial law into place... but I don't think he even has to worry about it. I can't see Mitt Romney winning the elections.

Sorry, I really think Obama will be reelected. He doesn't look worried. All he has to do is catch another terrorist or thwart an attack on the US, and everyone will go googoogaga over him again.



new topics




 
2

log in

join