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.

 

Patriot Act Does Not Apply To Bush?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher

I suppose we all are getting rather tired of disappointments and seeing little progress towards justice, authenticity and freedoms. Hang in there...


I am a littler disappointed about the works in the congress but you have to understand who is in charge.

Now I have the feeling that things will change dramatically after the congress elections if is a shift in power.

Then perhaps we may see some real issues been taken seriously.

I am just in a period of waiting now, to see what is next, so far almost everything I have wished for has come to realization believe it or not, from the fall of DeLay and Frist to the real truth about the Iraq war.

So hey I have wished for more so I am just relaxing and waiting.


Trust me, when I wish hard enough it comes true.


Most of the time




posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Imagine terrorists making plans to bomb your town on the phone... don't want my mother and sister blown up at the local mall...terrorist have stated they want to kill infedels in middle America...That's you and me. The CIA or FBI is welcome to listen to my calls! It was never a good idea to buy or sell illegal items on the phone or internet.......If you are not a crook or dope dealer ya got nothin' to worry about !!!!!! Git er done !!!!

[edit on 24-3-2006 by Hammer51]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hammer51

If you are not a crook or dope dealer ya got nothin' to worry about !!!!!! Git er done !!!!



That line has been over-used. Time for a new one.

The US government used to have a system of checks and balances. To prevent anyone gaining too much power.

Those checks and balances have been dismantled. Completely. Which means that the USA now is a legal dictatorship.


Don't worry. Be happy.




posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Wow you must either not know what a dictator is, or you have a really really really low standard.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   
People are making the mistake of blaming Bush entirely for what they see as a dictatorship in America. Any president will take as much power as he can if left unchecked by the other two branches of our gov't. The legislative and judiciary are not doing their job of providing checks and balances, so I suggest you address them directly, since you voted for your senators and reps.

We have not lost our liberties, there is no police state, and free speech is still the law of the land, so I don't see the dictatorship that some say is here.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
We have not lost our liberties, there is no police state, and free speech is still the law of the land, so I don't see the dictatorship that some say is here.


Some have lost their liberties, free speech is being carved away like a bar of soap. Some people won't see the dictatorship untill it comes up and knocks on their door. But it's there. Maybe it hasn't effected you personally yet, but it will.

When the president can sign a paper saying that he doesn't have to obey the law, then you've got yourself a dictatorship.

I do agree that Bush is not the dictator, but BushCo is.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
The legislative and judiciary are not doing their job...




And, sadly, neither are the people...



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
We have not lost our liberties, there is no police state, and free speech is still the law of the land, so I don't see the dictatorship that some say is here.


I agree with this but I must admit I dont like the direction this is taking us. If everyone would quit crying over it and vote these people out of office then the next bunch would maybe get the message....

But they wont.....the Dems will point the finger at the Reps and the Reps will point the finger at the Dems and it will be bussiness as usual.

And by the time anyone wakes up we may well HAVE that dictatorship everyone keeps talking about.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   

When the president can sign a paper saying that he doesn't have to obey the law, then you've got yourself a dictatorship.


My god! According to you we have been a dictatorship since before the 1900's! Why didn't someone tell me?


[edit on 24-3-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hammer51
If you are not a crook or dope dealer ya got nothin' to worry about !!!!!! Git er done !!!!




Good gawd, they used to say that same crap in the Soviet Union when Stalin was in power!~


Perhaps you should seriously consider moving to North Korea, cause you make an absolute mockery of liberty, freedom, the founding fathers, the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution with that load of Orwellian passivism garbage.

Recent news:
Archbishop compares Bush to Ugandan dictator
'Dictator' Bush puts US at risk
BUSH AND HITLER

Flashback from 2003:
Nader Calls Bush 'Dictator'



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   
And let's not forget:

Sandra Day O'Connor Fears U.S. Dictatorship




"...It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings."




posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
We have not lost our liberties, there is no police state, and free speech is still the law of the land, so I don't see the dictatorship that some say is here.




Must of forgot all about indefinite detainment, if the government thinks (that's not prove) your a terrorist or subversive. But maybe you like the idea of wearing an orange jumpsuit and shackles with a nice black hood in Klub Gitmo, cause your conniving paranoid neighbors lied and fabricated evidence that your a evil terrorist. You really have little to no idea what it takes to falsely destroy someone when you hold the power, do ya?

When you hold the power you walk on water and play above the law:

SUPPRESSED DETAILS OF CRIMINAL INSIDER TRADING
LEAD DIRECTLY INTO THE CIA'S HIGHEST RANKS

On Sept. 6, 2001, the Thursday before the tragedy, 2,075 put options were made on United Airlines and on Sept. 10, the day before the attacks, 2,282 put options were recorded for American Airlines. Given the prices at the time, this could have yielded speculators between $2 million and $4 million in profit.



Must of forgot about the free speech cage too.

I'll agree, it's not just one person that is responsible for the entire mess, but the buck stops at the top and this thread is about BUSH.



[edit on 24-3-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
It's like I said in another thread. If there's a carload of people heading for a cliff, you can say they're not dead, and that's true.

Yeah, we don't have a full-blown dictatorship yet. But the car is heading for the cliff and people are just watching it, saying, "Those people look fine and healthy to me. They're not dead."

No problem!



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Yeah, the same cliff that we were supposed to have fallen off last year and year before that, and so on...

By adding a Signing Statement to this bill President Bush is not doing anything unprecedented or illegal, so for some of you to all of sudden claim dictatorship is ridicules and absurd. This one case just illustrates how little it takes for certain people to start preaching their tired and BS rhetoric and how little it takes for a feeding frenzy

One more thing, comparing the detainees at Gitmo, who are not even US citizens, to my neighbors is really amusing, offending, and quite sad all at once. But don't let me stop you, keep posting those same old pictures, I guess it works on some people who are easily distracted by flashy imagery.


[edit on 24-3-2006 by WestPoint23]

[edit on 24-3-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
This one case just illustrates how little it takes for certain people to start preaching their tired and BS rhetoric and how little it takes for a feeding frenzy.


Playing the role like an alcoholic in denial of the facts doesn't bear any wisdom either. Maybe you ought to start perusing the articles, rather than remaining in a compancent stupor and void of critical thinking.

He already has a track recorded of lawbreaking by bypassing the NSA to commit domestic wiretaps and disregarding Geneva protocols. Where you been, sleeping? No, the truth isn't on Rush Limbaugh talk radio either.

No US citizen's in gitmo ehh? So you have the complete list of detainees? As for flashy images why don't you learn how to illustrate instead of whining like a child then. Funny how they did get YOUR attention and provoke you into a response though, didn't they.



[edit on 24-3-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Playing the role like an alcoholic in denial of the facts doesn't bear any wisdom either.


In denial of what facts? The fact that Signing Statements are not illegal or the fact that they are nothing new?


He already has a track recorded of lawbreaking by bypassing the NSA to commit domestic wiretaps. Where you been, sleeping?


Oh yeah? Funny, I must have missed that ruling wich surly must have been made by the Supreme Court or the Congress. Can you be so kind as to show me when that decision was made?

[edit on 24-3-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
In denial of what facts? The fact that Signing Statements are not illegal or the fact that they are nothing new?

Oh yeah? Funny I must have missed that ruling witch surly must have been made by the Supreme Court or the Congress. Can you be so kind as to show me when that decision was made?


Don't play dumb if you plan to look smart

How long does it take for an addict to recognize he's wrong?
Some never wake up before it's too late and then death.

Patience young one, the Bushco body slam is coming and it's going to hurt down to the red ink. You are free to ignore the signs and remain in denial, but the tornado still rips the roof off no matter how you want to twist your mind.

For now, best not think the attorney/client privilege is sacred or you ever get sick, since they might deny you employment and health care or throw you in the slammer.

Justice Department responds to House questions on NSA wiretapping program
"In one of the few revealing answers," Conyers adds, "the Department suggests that communications between attorneys and clients or doctors and patients may be captured through warrantless wiretaps. Moreover, some of the Department's responses leave open the possibility that other surveillance programs exist with a scope far beyond this program."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


In a system of societal order, the good, liberty and integrity of the system prevail. A system gravitates towards lies, fraud, usery, slavery, deceit or corruption in order to hold onto power will implode in on itself...much like ancient Rome did. If you choose to serve an evil master(s) that mandate mass murder, fabricate untruths and wreaks chaos for profits, then don't be so niave about the consequences when the time comes to pay the piper. You know better.

Wrong + Wrong never equals Right, destruction is not part of order, it's part of chaos. I have already been through that "I want to blow things up and kill stuff" phase, and you can bet your ass you will pay for that lack of conscience, even if you "think" the government's legalized murder and carnage is just.



Now go play with your 33% approval rating, your beginning to bore me
to death with your trollish hive mentality which few want or desire to have.

www.realclearpolitics.com...





[edit on 25-3-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Good prevails in the end, not lies and corruption in any system of order.


I hope so, I wouldn't want it any other way.


Now go play with your 33% approval rating, your being to bore me to death with your trollish hive mentality.


Oh, and here I thought we were having so much fun.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47
Then maybe a system of government with an Executive branch isn't for you. The executive should have the ability to change laws Congress passes (the President (whoever it is) should have the ability to line item veto to get rid of pork) because sometimes Congress isn't always right.


Although I often have a very difficult time agreeing with people who dislike Bush because the vitriol hasn't changed and was there before he was even elected, Bush is clearly attempting an unconstitutional expasion of executive power, although I would stop just shy of calling it an attempt at dictatorship.

What we are talking about is NOT a line-item veto, but something worse: the ability to completely render the legislative branch virtually irrelevant if the judiciary cooperates. By the way, the line Item veto is unconstitutional, end of story. A Republican congress gave it to Clinton as a compromise- both sides were happy, and in a rare instance of government looking out for the little guy, the SCOTUS killed it in Clinton v City of New York. That is because the line item veto can radically change the meaning of a bill, thus allowing a narrow avenue around majority rule in the legislature. The minority can force a qualifying statement, the president line-item vetoes the mainpoint, and the minority party has just passed a law without having to compromise a darn thing.

Signing statements have no constitutional basis or authority. They have been used rarely in history- Bush has made almost half of them ever written. By some counts there have been as many as 1200 and change. Bush is rapidly approaching 600, and a good part of the remainder were the work of Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton.

That's because under Reagan, Alito championed the idea embraced by this administration that Signing Statements might asserted in a more significant way.

Alito's Memo on Signing Statements

By the way: by the admission of the Alito memo, statements before the Reagan Administration really can't be counted in the same category or used in this debate.

Page 2 top paragraph:

Presidential approval is usually accompanied by a statement that is often little more than a press release

(note the redundant context of the words usually and often- maybe I'll be on the SCOTUS some day too!)

Page 2 Section B3:

It seems likely that our new type of signing statements will not be warmly welcomed by congress
(emphasis added)

When you limit consideration to the new kind of statements, Bush has already made more than half of those. He's on a pace to be responsible for 2/3 of them by the end.

The new signing statements rest upon a series of presumptions of exception to Constitutional requirements.

It presumes to create a loophole around the 10 day sign/veto period. (Page 5 Section C bullet 7)
The same section implies the right to retroactive veto.

It assumes the right of the court to make determinations of intent which enjoy parity with the law as written. To do this it makes a thin argument osstensibly for parity with legislative histories, however legislative histories and other evidence of legislative intent is chiefly relevant to the interpretation of ambiguous statutes; they are not law or even an addendum to law in and of themselves, much less can they in anyway create a loophole around the constitution. Clearly it is not mere parity being sought here, even if such parity were warranted. It clearly is not wanted however; if the framers of our constitution thought the president's intent should have any bearing on the text of the law (as opposed to an up or down approval of something that only congress constructed) then the President would have been given the power to introduce legislation.

There are broader purposes, and these ends are inappropriate.

www.usdoj.gov...

These functions include (1) explaining to the public, and particularly to constituencies interested in the bill, what the President believes to be the likely effects of its adoption, (2) directing subordinate officers within the Executive Branch how to interpret or administer the enactment, and (3) informing Congress and the public that the Executive believes that a particular provision would be unconstitutional in certain of its applications, or that it is unconstitutional on its face, and that the provision will not be given effect by the Executive Branch to the extent that such enforcement would create an unconstitutional condition.(1)


Of these objectives, 1. Is of no legal importance.

2. To be brief, doesn't strike the law, it only empowers the president to essentially dare congress to impeach him. It is only legal to the extent that it directs the efficient enforcement of the law. Although the president could hypothetically order the DOJ not to enforce certain sections of the Patriot Act which bind him (using a "saturday night massacre" to do it if need be) this would not void that law, and the impeachment of any involved officials would be possible. Furthermore, a state could hypothetically adopt laws pursuant to the federal law, depending on the nature of the law, and arrest federal officials within their borders who did not enforce the law. Since congress can administer D.C... you guessed it. If nothing else this would force the issue into the SCOTUS almost immediately.

3. Is blatantly unconstitutional. The president has no constitutional authority of this nature and the legal doctrine of Judicial Review as asserted by Edward Coke cannot be applied to the Executive since the whole point of Coke's ruling was that "no man should be the judge in his own case".


Bottom line my friends, at the end of the day, these signing statements are irrelevant because their ends are unconstitutional. If the court were to actually recognize them, and defend them against all legislative recourse, they could hypothetically render the legislative branch all but obsolete for the purpose of passing laws. In the worst case scenario, which I do not consider likely, the people, through the legislative branch, may actually have to fight a legal war to pull the judiciary back to the middle so that the executive branch can be put in its place. I'm not going to call it imminent fascism, as some would, but I do call it a dang bad idea and a butt-load of problems just begging for a chance to happen.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Although I often have a very difficult time agreeing with people who dislike Bush because the vitriol hasn't changed and was there before he was even elected, Bush is clearly attempting an unconstitutional expasion of executive power, although I would stop just shy of calling it an attempt at dictatorship.


If it quacks like a dictator....then it probably is.
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator."
George W Bush - December 18, 2000

•Virtrol is still effective means of displacement and relegation.
•Vitriol strips the enemy of his personality, prominency and prestige.
•Vitriol erodes the enemy's claim to justice and exposes their carnality.
•Vitriol eliminates the enemy's image of invincibility and fortitude.
•Vitriol weakens the conscience and political capital of the enemy.


So here's to vitriol, knock them off of their stinkin' high ponies,
serve it up raw and in their face Sun Tzu style!

Here's something else to add into the 4th reich soup de jour:

Delta Force founder: Bush may have started World War III

by Retired Command Sergeant Major Eric Haney

Less complacency and more vitriol is good for America,
but bad for big egos.

Thanks for laying out the specifics of the law though!


[edit on 25-3-2006 by Regenmacher]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join