03-27-2017, 01:32 PM
Therein the greater risk. As I wrote, such exercise of power left unchallenged has a way of leading to more of the same. Some precedents are impossibly dangerous, and yet doing nothing is at least equally so, if not more.
What does one do when the population is so indescribably ignorant on the average, so divided, so apathetic, corrupt, cowardly, and greedy that they cannot or will not come together in agreement on the most basic elements of how life shall be? What does one do, given all that plus the fact that there are vested interests so deeply entrenched and accessing of the real power of the throne, so to speak, that not only can they set into motion that which we all claim to hate, but nobody will step up to put it to ends?
How much can a president really do in this context? How much can he do when Congress is so basically corrupt that men like Paul, Massie, and Amash constitute a proportion suggesting of a mosquito's fart in a hurricane for influence and the power to bring "real" change? That is why I brought up the notion of martial law as being the LEAST UNLIKELY path to the end in question. They are all unlikely. None of them seem very hopeful at all, but martial law seems the least hopeless... which is really saying next to nothing.
That all said, a truly good man in proper control of himself, given the minimal conditions, could perhaps pull off such a move. But once again, the precedent will have been set such that we all pretty well know that the next time a president will deem the situation sufficiently dire, he will repeat the performance. That might be OK, but what if it were another Obama who decided that we are at such a pass that we can no longer afford the BoR? We MUST have socialism for the greater good. He pulls that rabbit out of his ass and then where are we? Dangerville. Slavetown. Fuckitsburg. We're done.
And yet, to continue this way... are we any better off, as the general population becomes ever softer, more ignorant, and corrupted?