Thinking the Unthinkable

(Apologies to Hermann Kahn, who used that title for a study of thermonuclear warfare)

Two serious questions for consideration: (Relocated below the fold, so the first wont completely turn you off before even reading the rest of it.)

1) Under what circumstances can national elections be suspended or canceled?

2) Can individual states enact measures to allow recall of their U. S. Congressional reps and senators?

*****
Taking up the first question, absolutely nothing appears to be "unthinkable" to the current group in charge.

Although it ultimately wasn't used after all, the House Democrats were seriously considering an end run around our Constitution by using a "deem and pass" ("Demon Pass", as it was humorously referred to, as if it were just a harmless prank) to get the healthcare bill passed without actually having to take responsibility and VOTE for it.

We had Obama, in a recent interview, note that he wasn't all that concerned with "procedure" and appear to have no problem with bypassing little details like that to get the job done.

You have an Illinois Democrat Congressman accidentally coming clean...
   Questioner: [regarding obamacare] Where in the Constitution?
   Congressman Phil Hare: I don't worry about the Constitution to be honest with you.

Whenever a method to move along their agenda appears to violate the Constitution, that doesn't seem to bother them at all; they're cool with it.

So, what are they capable of if they feel that being rejected by the electorate could interfere with accomplishing what they feel has to be done? How far would (or could) they go, if they truly feel (in their twisted way) that it is for our own good?

What mechanisms (excuses) are available for them to use, if they truly thought the coming elections in November might need to be put "on hold" for awhile?

Could this be enforced by our own armed forces?

I think they would be violently opposed to anything like this, but check out the Oath of Enlistment soldiers take upon joining...

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

They swear to support and defend the Constitution (not the bozos who are currently in charge),

BUT, after the "and" comes "that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

Is there hope in the Uniform Code of Military Justice about the legality of those orders, and the obligation to follow them (or not) in such circumstances?

Oh, and let's not forget this little gem: Obama's civilian national security force proposal.

A statement Obama made July 2, 2008 in Colorado Springs...
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the
national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian
national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong,
just as well-funded."

What does he want with a domestic army? It's not particularly new; see Cuba, the old Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, North Korea.

But do you know a free country with anything like this?

As far as I know, that proposal is still being worked on; he hasn't given it up.

About this time, last year, I would have suggested counseling for anyone who wrote what I just did above.

Now, I have to seriously suggest we try to anticipate what these people are capable of, so as to be able to counter it before it can even start.

Paranoid?  The question becomes, "Am I paranoid enough?"

*****
For something a little less apocalyptic, let's consider the second question.
("Can individual states enact measures to allow recall of their U. S. Congressional reps and senators?", in case you've forgotten by the time you've read this far. :-)

In the Constitution, Article 1,  Sections 2 & 3 appear to pretty much leave it up to the individual states to determine how they pick their reps and senators.

Section 4, of that same article, modifies that with "but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations".

The 10th Amendment says, about as specifically as possible...

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

BUT, the "detail" the Devil resides in is this power that is delegated to the United States by the Constitution:  Article 1, Section 5,

"1: Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,"

So! What do you think?

Can the states set up recall procedures, under the Constitution as it stands now?

-