Thats it! We are so had. Bush has sole authority to impose Martial Law

Originally posted by esdad71
Yes, I have read the thread, and you seem so upset?

I'm not upset, I was surprised. I was shocked that you said checks and balances are in place when most of this thread has been about the power of the president to override the very checks and balances granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

However, YOU did not read the thread becuase I keep asking, what does the "BUSH ADMINISTRATION" have to gain? Most people know he is a puppet

Originally posted by esdad71
Try and Tell me 3 things that Bush would gain by declaring Martial Law in the US? 3 things...

How can you expect me to talk to someone who keeps changing the question? It's a waste of my time... You only changed the question to "Bush Administration" after I answered your first question. Yet you act like it's the same question. And you act as though I haven't given any answers, when I gave 10. I don't want to play this game. You don't like the answers, fine. But it's not like I didn't give them.

If I came up with new answers to your new question, you would discount them too. I'm not going to bother.

Can you not rebut what I stated about they had a chance after 9/11 ?

Can I rebut it? No. He had the chance to do a whole hell of a lot of good after 9/11 and he totally blew that.

I don't know why he didn't take advantage of the situation then, but that proves nothing.

We don't know everything that's going on in the administration or their plans for the world. There may be a very good reason that the administration is waiting for just the right time to put Georgie back into action. I suspect it has something to do with the upcoming catastrophic 'terror attack' and the ensuing war with Iran.

Maybe 9/11 was just a test...

Why should Bush use executive’s powers, well:

To appoint circuit judges to do his biding.

So he can declare wars by passing the congress that has not wagged a war in 60 years.

So he can spy on American citizens to see “Who is with me and who is against me “this ones is a funny one.

Actually he has been very busy writing one law after another while by passing the legislative branch.

Seems that taking in consideration that the President own party control them it seems that he care less for their opinions and he may laugh at the checks and balances put in order.

Congress for decades is the ones to give away the lawmaking powers, but the president can do them too.

Congress no usually protest against the powers of the president but they can.

1974 Congress pass a joint resolution for presidents to have approval when it comes to war powers.

Reagan, Bush and Clinton ignore the resolution.

Only once the Supreme Court found that a president exceeded his authority using an executive order. The case was (Youngstown case: The court v. a Truman executive order)

So what the constitution said about presidential powers.

In the framework of our Constitution, the president's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad. And the Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make laws, which the President is to execute. The first section of the first article says that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.... .

In 1787, the doctrine of separation was adopted (Myers v. US)

Not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was, not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy."

Clinton challenge the executives power realted to labor issues, but The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found that the President's order was contrary to the National Labor Relations Act, and therefore improper.
Because the Clinton Administration did not appeal it stayed as the law.
People can sue if they are affected by executive’s powers and they can take it to courts

The president has powers but no matter what his power is not absolute.
The people in the nation still rules.

BTW congress can truly trump a presidential directive.
edition.cnn.com...

This article was before elections in 2004 and even then it was some concern about Bush power hungry visions.

I will like to see what the people that wrote the article feels about him now.




[edit on 13-1-2006 by marg6043]

Nice job Marge.

BH, I am sorry you feel like you are wasting your time with me, but i wanted a discussion with some content, that's all. Too often on here true meaning is pushed to the wayside, and if you choose one part left and one part tight, your a hippocrite. too left and you are loony, too right and you're a gun nut. Your answers were, shall we say, cliche. I know all the things that people think are wrong with Bush (I read them on this site
0, and that he hs an agenda. Sorry if I you thought i was attacking you, I was just hoping for some good answers from someone with so many ATS points.

So?

Of course Bush has the executive powers of the President; he is the President!!

Is this thread not about President imposing martial law, not about executive orders signed into law by John F. Kennedy??

-- Boat

Capitol Hill Blues

I warn my fellow members that I have serious doubts about the credibility of this source.

I'm not saying that the article is necessarily wrong, but I recommend withholding judgment, Pavlovian responses and inflamed passions until some sort of corroboration can be found.

The "secret executive order" gambit is as old as conspiracy theory.

Sometimes it turns out to be true, but more often it turns out to be disinformation fabricated for political or deflection purposes.

Viewer discretion advised.

Originally posted by esdad71
BH, I am sorry you feel like you are wasting your time with me, but i wanted a discussion with some content, that's all.

I'm wasting my time giving more answers to more questions, when you won't and don't accept them as valid. That's all. We disagree. I'm not going to be able to come up with answers you accept. It would be a waste of time and energy to try.

I was just hoping for some good answers from someone with so many ATS points.

I laughed out loud when I read that.

What I do know is what I've read about George Bush's childhood and his character as an adult. Here are some of the things I've found out by reading and researching him. This is the information I used to come to the 10 answers I gave.

- Pleasing his father and measuring up to Jeb in his father's eyes was/is all-important to him.

- Taking revenge against anyone who talked against him or treated him badly was/is extremely important to him.

- He liked to kick 'butt' and take names later.

- When playing a game with his friends, if he started to lose, he'd change the rules. If people called him on it, he'd take his ball and go home. He never played by the rules, He was known as a cheater.

- He put firecrackers in frogs' mouths and threw them up inthe air and blew them up.

- He challenged his father to a fistfight in his late 20s.

- His feelings of inadequacy were littered throughout his life. He has a great need to feel superior. He cannot admit to mistakes.

- He's an untreated alcoholic.

- He has a terrible, explosive temper.

Now, most of this information I have gotten from reading hundreds of articles over the past few years, but this one, which is from interviews with his childhood friends and other acquaintances, has a lot of corroborating information in it.

If you want an insight into George Bush, the person, read it.

The Accidental Candidate by Gail Sheehy

I feel sorry for the man. He never wanted to go into politics, but saw it as a way to prove his success, his worth. And then the power got into his blood and off he went. He's almost a victim of the power that he holds, yet doesn't know how to handle it.

THAT'S where I got my answers.

Originally posted by Majic
I warn my fellow members that I have serious doubts about the credibility of this source.

Thanks, Majic. Actually the thread has morphed away from the original article and we're discussing the Executive Orders already on the books, which are freaky enough!

Check it out. Pretty interesting.

Short-Order Cook

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Check it out. Pretty interesting.

I did, back when I first heard about them in alt.conspiracy a little over ten years ago. They're an old chestnut of sorts.

Regarding those, context is king.

Getting back to this alleged batch of executive orders, I think this story is in the right forum.

What's not clear to me is who the target of this "disclosure" is.

It may well be Doug Thompson, not the President.

His unnamed "sources within the White House and DHS" may not necessarily be his friends.

He has had past difficulties with what he claims were unreliable sources under what I still consider to be highly suspicious and dubious circumstances, hence my warning.

I'm not convinced those difficulties are over.

Originally posted by esdad71
Nice job Marge.

BH, I am sorry you feel like you are wasting your time with me,

esdad71 the article I posted it has nothing to do with you. Just something I found interesting after looking around for executives orders.

I think you have me confuse with another poster.

I was not posting this for you in answer to any of your post, it was just something interesting at least for me.

I don't vote anymore, just my choice But if we don't like it, here are our instructions.......www.archives.gov... if that did not work, but I think you know where I am going!

Wow Marge, can't even take a compliment but can threaten spankings in a political conversation and expect to be taken serious.


Bottom line is you still have never answered my question so i will reword it once again. What would any leader gain from declaring martial law as leader of the United States?

"EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President."

---------------------------------------------------------

what would bush gain??? well, cheap, if not free, taxpayer subsidized labor for his business buddies so he can actually start protecting our borders without peeving them off!!

For anyone who wants to chase down exactly which order gives him this right, here are a list of all of Reagan's executive orders. Remember the article said it was an executive order signed by President Reagan. Here is the link
www.archives.gov...

what would bush gain??? well, cheap, if not free, taxpayer subsidized labor for his business buddies so he can actually start protecting our borders without peeving them off!!

not sure why he needs to have free labor at his disposal he is not hte CEO of Wal-Mart. The idea of using gov't subsidized jobs is actualluy a good idea, and you do not an executive order to do it. It is called the National guard.

If martial law was declared , I am sure that it would be the first ripple in the next American revolution. Americans are comfortable, and if their own space is not threatened, they will go along with the masses. Try and take a gun from a gun owner, and you have something else on your hands.

[ex]The authority to declare what is or is not a national emergency rests entirely with Bush who does not have to either consult or seek the approval of Congress for permission to assume absolute control over the government of the United States.

The White House press office would neither confirm nor deny existence of Bush's executive orders or the existence of the Northern Command for National Defense. Neither would the Department of Homeland Security.

But my sources within the White House and DHS tell me the plans are in place, ready for implementation when the command comes from the man who keeps telling the American public that he is a "war time president" who will "do anything in my power" to impose his will on the people of the United States.

And he has made sure that power will be absolute when he chooses to use it. [/ex]

Source is Rense.com

Yes, we have had it.

LOL I tried to quote the external source properly for once and it didnt work.
So what else is new? What did i do wrong?

Please dont slap me, gently explain...my nerves are shot

Originally posted by esdad71
Wow Marge, can't even take a compliment but can threaten spankings in a political conversation and expect to be taken serious

Are you for real if it was a compliment well Thanks, but I never will spank anybody that do not deserve it.

Bottom line is you still have never answered my question so i will reword it once again. What would any leader gain from declaring martial law as leader of the United States?

Very simple it depends the agenda of such a leader as to impose his rule.

Or perhaps the leader is just an egocentric with delusions of grandeur.

We just have to wait and see, don't we esdad71 Bush has open the door for many posibilities.

[edit on 14-1-2006 by marg6043]

www.whitehouse.gov...

www.commondreams.org...


Whether we like it or not terrorism will strike again and whether we like it or not George Bush will take absolute power.

People are questioning the credibility of capitolhillblue so I went on the Whitehouse website and found the executive order that shakes up the line of succession in department of defense and in coordination with the Doomsday law passed in early 2005 it's perfectly clear that the Bush Administration really is seeking totalitarian power.

All Hail Heir Bush.

I know that the Bible Belt supports Bush but when the government tries to take their guns away even that should be enough for all of Bush's staunched supports to question.

Lets just pray that everyone is smart enough to take part in open widespread violent revolution.

hmmm... seems to me you guys are forgetting one crucial factor for a police state. the police. do you really think that the military would allow this to happen? i dont mean at the high levels, but the individuals, the ones who are in the military for their country. I doubt that they would participate in actions such as this. i know many many people in the military seeing as how i live pretty much on eglin air force base, and most of them are good people, not cold heartless killers.

Originally posted by lonemaverick
hmmm... seems to me you guys are forgetting one crucial factor for a police state. the police. do you really think that the military would allow this to happen? i dont mean at the high levels, but the individuals, the ones who are in the military for their country. I doubt that they would participate in actions such as this. i know many many people in the military seeing as how i live pretty much on eglin air force base, and most of them are good people, not cold heartless killers.

They're in the MILITARY. They wouldnt have an option to defy their orders.
If they simply turned around and said "No, I refuse to do this" they would be courtmarshalled, and the first ones to be done so, would be punished severely to make an example to the others.

Trust me, they would comply with their orders.