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.

 

Pop Quiz: Which of the following claims against King George III also apply to our President?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
www.archives.gov...


He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

I expect a lively discussion on why these charges do or do not apply to our office of President. Note, while the title may be perceived at being directed at our current President, if any of the Presidents in the last 50 years have been guilty of these charges please extrapolate with evidence. This thread is more so to determine if our centralized executive branch has attained too much power.

I'll start by pointing the following out:

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.



Claiming "preeminent authority" to write the laws on immigration, the Justice Department filed suit to block Arizona from enacting its own. "Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility," said Attorney General Eric Holder. "Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves." Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: www.sfexaminer.com...





The Obama administration is taking quick action following the Supreme Court's decision on Arizona's immigration law. The federal government will only aid the state in undocumented immigrant cases that meet existing federal rules—applicable, for instance, if the person in question is a convicted criminal or recently arrived in the US, an official tells CNN.
www.newser.com...

edit on 7-7-2012 by GenerationGap because: Typos, likely to fix more.

edit on 7-7-2012 by GenerationGap because: More of em.

edit on Sat Jul 7 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS




posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
All of them?



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Our rights today are significantly infringed upon, but it's not as blatant and impossible to deal with as it was with King George.

My favorite part though is "He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people."

Manly firmness.. hah



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drezden
Our rights today are significantly infringed upon, but it's not as blatant and impossible to deal with as it was with King George.


I disagree.

They didn't really even have forensic science and there were no fingerprint databases.
You could get away with way more stuff back then.
They had to chase you with a horse rather than cars/helicopters/drones.

They fought and drove off the King's soldiers even.

Today if you tried to make a real fight, they would call in an airstrike or artillery barrage in a heartbeat. If you are posing a real challenge/threat I mean.

I suppose the balancing factor is the Internet. Back then it was hard to communicate and organize, however today it's far easier to do that. So both era's have their bonuses and their drawbacks.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Drezden
Our rights today are significantly infringed upon, but it's not as blatant and impossible to deal with as it was with King George.


I disagree.

They didn't really even have forensic science and there were no fingerprint databases.
You could get away with way more stuff back then.
They had to chase you with a horse rather than cars/helicopters/drones.

They fought and drove off the King's soldiers even.

Today if you tried to make a real fight, they would call in an airstrike or artillery barrage in a heartbeat. If you are posing a real challenge/threat I mean.

I suppose the balancing factor is the Internet. Back then it was hard to communicate and organize, however today it's far easier to do that. So both era's have their bonuses and their drawbacks.


Well I disagree with you. There was a monarch back then, one who was on a different continent. No phones or internet, so it was harder for these groups to communicate.. harder for the public to be informed..etc. It's bad today, but we have some things better today.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drezden

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Drezden
Our rights today are significantly infringed upon, but it's not as blatant and impossible to deal with as it was with King George.


I disagree.

They didn't really even have forensic science and there were no fingerprint databases.
You could get away with way more stuff back then.
They had to chase you with a horse rather than cars/helicopters/drones.

They fought and drove off the King's soldiers even.

Today if you tried to make a real fight, they would call in an airstrike or artillery barrage in a heartbeat. If you are posing a real challenge/threat I mean.

I suppose the balancing factor is the Internet. Back then it was hard to communicate and organize, however today it's far easier to do that. So both era's have their bonuses and their drawbacks.


Well I disagree with you. There was a monarch back then, one who was on a different continent. No phones or internet, so it was harder for these groups to communicate.. harder for the public to be informed..etc. It's bad today, but we have some things better today.


Yeah I agree/disagree.
I decided to agree/disagree with myself.

Mixed bag.



new topics

top topics
 
3

log in

join