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.

 

POLITICS: Congress Passes Doomsday Plan

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   
The House of Representatives have snuck a bill past the American people that will allow them to continue to operate with an extremely minimal amount of representatives available to vote. The new bill redefines the quorum needed in order for the House to continue. The bill was designed as a stopgap that would allow the congress to continue in the event of catastrophic circumstances.
 



news.bostonherald.com
WASHINGTON - With no fanfare, the U.S. House has passed a controversial doomsday provision that would allow a handful of lawmakers to run Congress if a terrorist attack or major disaster killed or incapacitated large numbers of congressmen.

"I think (the new rule) is terrible in a whole host of ways - first, I think it's unconstitutional," said Norm Ornstein, a counselor to the independent Continuity of Government Commission, a bipartisan panel created to study the issue. "It's a very foolish thing to do, I believe, and the way in which it was done was more foolish."

But supporters say the rule provides a stopgap measure to allow the government to continue functioning at a time of national crisis.

GOP House leaders pushed the provision as part of a larger rules package that drew attention instead for its proposed ethics changes, most of which were dropped.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The bill basically says that a majority of congress would no longer be based on the total number of representatives, 218 of the 435, but instead would be based on a majority of congressman able to show up at the House.

So in other words, if in the event of a catastrophe, if only 20 members are able to show up, and 11 are present, then that would be enough to conduct business.

11

This rule does not even deal with the political affiliation of the members able to show up. So if 11 republicans, or 11 democrats are the only ones to show up, they can conduct the business of the Congress at will.

What may be most interesting is the definition of a "catastrophic event". Such an event may include things like, "natural disaster, attack, contagion or similar calamity rendering Representatives incapable of attending the proceedings of the House".

So if there is a bad snow storm that closes down the eastern sea board, and only members of Congress that live within 10 or 20 miles of the House can show up, a majority of those members present would be enough to conduct business.

[edit on 1/11/2005 by phreak_of_nature]




posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Well, first it was the "Pentagon Weather Nightmare Report" in which scientists were saying to the governemt that climate change could very well be imminent, and it would be catastrophic. Now this... I think that the government is starting to realize that climate change is getting worse, and could even affect large areas of the country. I think it is too much of a coincidence, and the reason why this was passed is because they know that we are going through a climate change, one that could paralize sections of the US and other parts of the world as well.

[edit on 11-1-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   
To those of you that have access to RATS, the first thing that ran through my mind after I read this was a direct connection with www.abovetopsecret.com...

It seems as if this is a pre-Contigency plan for 2012.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Well, it was my assumption while reading the story, that the provision was designed with the intent to allow congress to continue in the event of a terrorist attack. And that may be the way they sell it to the public. I only used the "snow storm" as an example of the extremes that could be applied in this case.

This is a bad rule that can easily be abused.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Now that Muaddib put it in such eloquent way I have to said that it makes sense. As long as they don't try to re writte the constitution by themselves.

I guess the climate changes are here even when some said that more research has to be done.

Well if we keep going on research and waiting by the time we get somebody to said we have a problem it will be to late. Right?



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Man, the sound of that goose-stepping is REALLY getting louder, isn't it?

Is it still too early to tell the Bushies I told you so? Or will we have to wait until..."I pledge allegience, to the flag, of the United States of America...and to the Empire, for which it stands. One nation, under Bush and God, indivisible, with security and direction for all..."???

Can you say Mt. Weather? I knew you could...


[edit on 11-1-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simulacra
To those of you that have access to RATS, the first thing that ran through my mind after I read this was a direct connection with www.abovetopsecret.com...

It seems as if this is a pre-Contigency plan for 2012.

Unfortunetly, those who haven't recently renewed their RATS Access can't do so right now. I just tried it, and it was unavailable in the ATS store for me.
I think this is probably a part of the upgrades. Hopefully we can get to it later.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   
this reminds me that the federal reserve system was created by a bill that was pased on christmas day without a quorom........maybe its the same man behind the curtain here ?



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Man, the sound of that goose-stepping is REALLY getting louder, isn't it?

Is it still too early to tell the Bushies I told you so? Or will we have to wait until..."I pledge allegience, to the flag, of the United States of America...and to the Empire, for which it stands. One nation, under Bush and God, indivisible, with security and direction for all..."???

Can you say Mt. Weather? I knew you could...


This has nothing to do with taking away people's freedom Gazrok...

It has to do with the ability of the government functioning when disaster strikes.

Do note that it says, and i quote...

if a terrorist attack or major disaster killed or incapacitated large numbers of congressmen.


Excerpted from the article.

Now, please do tell me what congressman in his/her right mind would sign for their own demise if it was a plan by them to take the power away from the people?..... Do you actually think these congressmen would agree to die so that power can be given to just a few?....

This is obviously a contingency plan, in case something really horrible and incapacitating happens. Knowing that there was a Pentagon report which dealth with climate change, and that it stated that it could be worse than terrorism, and knowing that the amount and intensity of disasters are growing, i am pretty sure this is a contingency plan for the effects of the climate change we are going through.

[edit on 11-1-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I thought of posting this yesterday. Fascinating how little attention it gets.

This is not preparation for 2012 or Armageddon. It is live constitutional change, allowing the so-called "quorum" to to run the country if Congress members become in any way "indisposed".

This comes from the administration that has at its helm the "president" that has produced more furtive Executive Orders than any POTUS in history. How much criminal intent is behind some of those?



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
I thought of posting this yesterday. Fascinating how little attention it gets.

This is not preparation for 2012 or Armageddon. It is live constitutional change, allowing the so-called "quorum" to to run the country if Congress members become in any way "indisposed".

This comes from the administration that has at its helm the "president" that has produced more furtive Executive Orders than any POTUS in history. How much criminal intent is behind some of those?


There is a difference between being "indisposed" and being "incapacitated by a natural disaster or terrorist attack"..... that first. Second, there are also Democrats in the U.S. House...and do tell me, how exactly does the president hold power over the US House?



[edit on 11-1-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Do you actually think these congressmen would agree to die so that power can be given to just a few?....

No, not at all. But something could be orchestrated to keep them from the house, and those that do attend could constitute a quorum.

natural disaster, attack, contagion or similar calamity

Let's take contagion for example. Suppose another anthrax laced letter shows up. This one makes it into the rotunda after polluting the House offices. That would meet the newly defined criteria. If 5 members of congress have been vaccinated against anthrax, they would by definition be capable of appearing. If only 3 of those members show up, they are a majority, and would therefore represent a quorum. Those 3 members would have the ability to pass laws, and even in the extreme case, declare war.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Doesn't take away freedoms huh?

Just look at Phreak's sample scenario, and you can see how this sets a very DANGEROUS precedent!

While the INTENTION might seem innocent enough on the surface, it doesn't change the fact that if any kind of event is created, in which certain members of Congress cannot report for duty, that it is now LEGAL for those who can make it, to then enact legislation, and yes, even approve WAR.

It's a VERY slippery slope my friends... I wonder if the residents of Coruscant felt this way while Palpatine was becoming the Emperor? (Star Wars reference)...

*cue the Imperial March*



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Ok, what is it with people making references and analogies of real life and sci-fi computer games and sci-fi movies?.....


BTW, there are a lot of holes in phreak's scenario. First of, where exactly do you get the idea that only a few of the US House representatives are able to get anthrax vaccines or any other vaccine?

Second and more important, the scenarios covered in this bill are in case of "similar calamities", meaning it has to be something real bad...a case of anthrax like what happened last year is not a calamity. This bill is covering something like what is happening in parts of California at this moment, and other parts in the US. I really doubt that "the evil government" has total control over the weather and can make "calamities" over the house of some US House representatives, or can control diseases to the point that only a few people get it, while others don't.



[edit on 11-1-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Funny, i remember learning about an act made in the pre-WWII republic of Germany that was very similar.

Led to the sort of things you guys are talking about now. Kind of scary.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoBoLT
Funny, i remember learning about an act made in the pre-WWII republic of Germany that was very similar.

Led to the sort of things you guys are talking about now. Kind of scary.


Would you care to provide links?

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Ok, what is it with people making references and analogies of real life and sci-fi computer games and sci-fi movies?.....


BTW, there are a lot of holes in phreak's scenario. First of, where exactly do you get the idea that only a few of the US House representatives are able to get anthrax vaccines or any other vaccine?

Second and more important, the scenarios covered in this bill are in case of "similar calamities", meaning it has to be something real bad...a case of anthrax like what happened last year is not a calamity. This bill is covering something like what is happening in parts of California at this moment, and other parts in the US. I really doubt that "the evil govenrment" has total control over the weather and can make "calamities" over the house of some US House representatives.


[edit on 11-1-2005 by Muaddib]

I guess all I am trying to say is that this bill was not written as tightly as it should have been. There is plenty of wiggle room for abuse. If I can think of scenarios that can be used to circumvent the quorum rules, what makes you think that someone else who knows the law better can't find an even better way around it.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Sure i think this will be what you want.

March 1933: During the election campaign massive intimidation by the SA means that only, apart from the Nazis, only the Nationalists are able to campaign. The Prussian police, now under Nazi control, employs 50,000 'auxiliaries' who are mainly SA to be used against the opposition. Many Nazi opponents are beaten up , some 50 killed. Despite this the Nazis only get 43.9% of the vote but with the Nationalists they have a majority. With the election over the communists are banned and their Riechstag deputies arrested.

23rd March: AN ENABLING ACT giving dictatorial powers to Hitler's government is put to the Reichstag. A 2/3rds majority is required and 2/3rds of the Riechstag must be present. However along with the Nationalists, the Peoples Party and the Catholics vote for. The Democrats (all five of them ) are split but decide to vote for, on the grounds that as Hitler is going to establish a dictatorship anyway it is better to let him do it legally. Only those Social Democrats who attended (many are already under arrest) have the courage to vote against.

www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk...

To describe the act:

*Article 48 of the German Constitution of August 11, 1919:
If public safety and order in Germany are materially disturbed or endangered, the President may take the necessary measures to restore public safety and order, and, if necessary, to intervene with the help of the armed forces. To this end he may temporarily suspend, in whole or in part, the fundamental rights established in Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153

Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 were human rights and civil liberties acts i believe

web.jjay.cuny.edu...

I can find more if you need.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   
No need....nothing of what you posted above has anything to do with this bill.....

Nothing of what you posted above is even happening in the US....

First of the bill is for the US house of representatives...it doesn't give more power to the president....

Second, where are the Republicans making riots and physically attacking Democrats, Liberals, Greens etc?.....

Many of the violent acts in the past have been committed by Liberals, Greens, and some Democrats, not only some Republicans....you obviously need a reality check....

[edit on 11-1-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Wow thats an idiotic comment.

Read my original post to see that i said it reminds me or something similar.

I DID NOT say this is exactly whats happening is the US. I DID NOT say this has anything to do with the US besides the fact it could become a similar event.

Thanks for being nothing but an irritant. Really is worth while.

EDIT: How the government in the US has conducted itself is totally irrelevent you fool. Im mearly pointing out any similarities in the act.

Reality check? You need to stop jumping to ignorent conclusions and really read what people are saying instead of just looking for an opportunity to criticise.

[edit on 11-1-2005 by CoBoLT]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join