Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency

Can anyone say Article 48??? And those who get that good for you, those who don't need to learn history before they start making accusations at anything or one.

Originally posted by NGC2736
dgtempe, damn, crashing really does wind you up!

Darn right.

I will also tell my other posters here that you havent seen abuse of power yet. We've had disasters- many of them...too many to count. Along with WWI and WWII and the United States did not feel it necessary to use this obscure article during those times. Now, it a hurricane strikes Bush kicks into the big "D"????? BS.

We should all be very upset about this little bit of news.

Oh well. :shk:

You mean THIS article 48?

["Article 48 was a measure in the constitution of the Weimar Republic of Germany (1919–1933) that allowed the President to rule by decree without the consent of the Reichstag (parliament). Legislation passed under this article of the constitution was referred to as Notverordnung (emergency decree). Article 48 was used by Adolf Hitler in 1933 to establish a dictatorship, ending the Weimar Republic and ushering in the Third Reich."] from Wikipedia

I thought so.

Thank you Grover. Used by Hitler. I rest my case.

But where is the outrage from Washington on this?
They're just going to let it happen?



This is just too much for me. Way too much and it makes me mad as hell that the media either doesnt know or doesnt care or maybe they've been told to shut up about it?

BTW, Do we know this is true for certain?

[removed quote of entire previous post]



What we know is what the White House directive says and it is posted on the official White House website.




Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 27-5-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Article 48?? This is an insane reference to something which ceased to exist more than 60 years ago. Most of the people speaking to this topic were not yet conceived when this German law passed into oblivion.

On the other hand... (i.e.: in the REAL WORLD...)

The Constitution of the United States of America has VII (7) Articles and XXVII (27) Amendments. You conspiracy whacks need to learn ALL of these Articles and Amendments before you try to tell anyone what Bush can or cannot do. The reality of this particular situation is blatantly obvious in the real world, but in your divorced from reality world you PREFER TO BELIEVE ANYTHING which paints GWB as some Hitlerian Nazi dictatorship bent upon enslaving you. How utterly pathetic, ludicrous and devoid of common sense.

Class is in session:

Amendment XXII (22) of the Constitution of the United States :

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.


Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.

Real world facts and lessons to be learned:

1.) The United States Congress passed Amendment 22 on March 21, 1947.

2.) Amendment 22 was ratified by the requisite number of states (36) on February 27, 1951.

3. NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51 and HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20 clearly and unambiguously state in plain English the following in definition (e):

(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;

Final lesson to be learned...

4.) NSPD-51/HSPD-20 ARE LEGALLY SUBSERVIENT TO AND SUPPORTIVE OF THE CONTINUED APPLICATION AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE ARTICLES WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED SATES OF AMERICA AND ALL OF ITS SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS AS RATIFIED BY THE REQUISITE NUMBER OF AMERICAN STATES.

PERIOD.






[edit on 27-5-2007 by Sean Osborne]

[edit on 27-5-2007 by Sean Osborne]

The constitution is not carved in stone nor is it immutable. All it takes to bring the whole house down is for one branch to assert total power and not be challenged by the other two... Which is exactly why the framers of the constitution gave us a trilateral or tripod system, they assumed that each branch would be jealous enough of its own power as to prevent one branch from becoming all powerful. Instead, what we have had since 2001 is one party (the Republican) bent on total domination of the political process controlling all three branches and stacking all the key positions with cronies willing to empower the executive branch.

Article 48 is just a point of reference to highlight what can happen when a power mad executive has the type of power that was granted them in article 48 or in a white house directive... which by the way is an assertion by the White House, not the law of the land... congress writes the laws supposedly and it is up to the executive and the courts uphold them... Now we get to see whether the congress and courts do their part and resist this grab for total power, or do they enable.

[edit on 27-5-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by Sean Osborne

You conspiracy whacks need to learn ALL of these Articles and Amendments before you try to tell anyone what Bush can or cannot do. The reality of this particular situation is blatantly obvious in the real world, but in your divorced from reality world you PREFER TO BELIEVE ANYTHING which paints GWB as some Hitlerian Nazi dictatorship bent upon enslaving you. How utterly pathetic, ludicrous and devoid of common sense.

Wunderbar, mein freund! The new Reich, err, um, Administration will need such as you, if it is to succeed in oppressing, err, um, protecting the chattel, err, um, fine citizens of this delusional, err, um, vulnerable society. Every good fascist, err, um, nationalist, err, um, patriot knows that excessive freedom, err, um weak security breeds anarchy, and it's high time we addressed it.

Osborn, you talk of this in political doublespeak, just as it is written. The fact is, this gives a FORM or legal cloaking, that can be argued either way. And it is meant that way. Because while people argue, events happen, and by the time the arguing is done, it's often too late to reverse the events.

This was written by lawyers, historically known for leaving loopholes.

Personally, I think every third lawyer in America needs to be shot as a rabid beast of prey. The only problem is what the hell to do with the other two to keep them out of mischief.

Oh, brother. It's not Bushie, it's a 'group of people'

I have a question about conspiracy and coincidences.

In the media blitz of the pre-war propaganda, what group of people were coordinating the effort to convince the American people that a war in Iraq was 'necessary'?

What group of people did Cheney meet with for 'formulating' the energy policy?

What group of people were hired(not elected) to run the country with the new directives for emergency Homeland security measures?

and where does the buck stop? Who takes the fall? Does Alberto Gonzales take credit for firing attorneys who are not lock step with the White House Dept. of Justice? or does some young women become a scapegoat? Does Bushie take credit for anything, or is there another guy behind the curtain? i think Bush is just a puppet, and hasn't done any 'honest' work EVER.

Originally posted by grover
The constitution is not carved in stone nor is it immutable.

The FACT OF THE MATTER IS that nothing in NSPD-51/HSPD-20 has any legal bearing over the Constitution or the 22nd Amendment whatsoever.

Period.

The Constitutional specific checks and balances among the three branches of American government remain intact and continue to function as designed, in addition to other legal failsafes within US Legal Code.

Moreover, and specifically to the point of the focus of this thread and the lunacy placed into print in the communist Progressive.com website by Rothschild - nothing that he has written has any basis is fact.

Instead, what we have had since 2001 is one party (the Republican) bent on total domination of the political process controlling all three branches and stacking all the key positions with cronies willing to empower the executive branch.

ROTFL! OH PUH-LEEZE. Like the World Soclialist, quasi-Communist Clintonista's did no such thing when they were in power for 8 straight years. Basket case pathetic.

Originally posted by Lordling:

Wunderbar, mein freund! The new Reich, err, um, Administration will need such as you, if it is to succeed in oppressing, err, um, protecting the chattel, err, um, fine citizens of this delusional, err, um, vulnerable society. Every good fascist, err, um, nationalist, err, um, patriot knows that excessive freedom, err, um weak security breeds anarchy, and it's high time we addressed it.

Like I said, "devoid of common sense."

Originally posted by NGC2736:
Osborn, you talk of this in political doublespeak, just as it is written. The fact is, this gives a FORM or legal cloaking, that can be argued either way. And it is meant that way. Because while people argue, events happen, and by the time the arguing is done, it's often too late to reverse the events.

You need to broaden your universe being the current Pencil Nebula minset and worldview you have.

This was written by lawyers, historically known for leaving loopholes.

I quoted no lawyer. Again, the three branches of US government are operating normally and these Directives we're talking about in this thread exist to ensure that no matter what - natural disaster or some state-sponsored terrorists detonate nuclear weapons in several US cities - the government will continue to function normally.

Personally, I think every third lawyer in America needs to be shot as a rabid beast of prey. The only problem is what the hell to do with the other two to keep them out of mischief.

Too bad the same need of being "shot" doesn't apply to rampant conspiracy theorists and those to propagate such unadulterated crapoleum. If, as you leftist loonies are fond of calling them, the "Bushies" were as Nazified fascists as you claim - none of you would be alive at this moment to post such over-the-top insanity.

Originally posted by Sean Osborne


Too bad the same need of being "shot" doesn't apply to rampant conspiracy theorists and those to propagate such unadulterated crapoleum. If, as you leftist loonies are fond of calling them, the "Bushies" were as Nazified fascists as you claim - none of you would be alive at this moment to post such over-the-top insanity.

Welcome to ATS Sean. Just want to point out that the above is frowned on here.

Happy posting.

Originally posted by accountability

I have a question about conspiracy and coincidences.

In the media blitz of the pre-war propaganda, what group of people were coordinating the effort to convince the American people that a war in Iraq was 'necessary'?

Pre-war?

Gee, lemme see here ... that was a large group of people in positions of absolute power from January 1993 through to January 2000. Subhuman vermin like Bubba Clinton, Hitlery Clinton, Madeline Not-so-Bright, John "Git Stuck in Stoopid Iraq" Kerry... and a whole host of radical leftist democraps were saying then and are on public record to this day saying such thing to "convince" the American people.

Too bad those words were as hollow and devoid of any substance and the schmucks who uttered them.

Oh, but wait... they voted for the war before they voted against it!!!




[edit on 27-5-2007 by Sean Osborne]

[edit on 27-5-2007 by Sean Osborne]

Sean, as per intrepid's note above:

please click here to check your U2Us

Thank you.

[edit on 27-5-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Osborne, all the stars are only a pencil away from being in or out. And as the Pencil is mightier than the expectation, this directive must leave thinking people to wonder just how it will be used.

But I'm glad you noticed my place in the galaxy.

And I never inferred that you were a lawyer, only that the document in question could be twisted by the well oiled words of those who practice that vile craft. You have made your own 'spin' on how this authority is to be used at some future date, but are you so well placed that your interpretation will carry the day in the event it is ever invoked? Or do you just"know" that no leader will ever make a grab for power if the chance is there before him/her?

And I may well be shot, but I would rather be shot for a damn good reason than just because I was no longer a useful parrot.

Yes, I almost admit to being a conspiracy 'nut'. But even so, I am in good company, as Thomas Jefferson and Dwight Eisenhower could be called the same for their warnings to watch for chicanery in high places.

It is better by far that I err on the side of prudence with dogs and men, for both have a nasty bite.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Sean Osborne


Too bad the same need of being "shot" doesn't apply to rampant conspiracy theorists and those to propagate such unadulterated crapoleum. If, as you leftist loonies are fond of calling them, the "Bushies" were as Nazified fascists as you claim - none of you would be alive at this moment to post such over-the-top insanity.

Welcome to ATS Sean. Just want to point out that the above is frowned on here.

Happy posting.

intrepid,

Does that frowning apply to NGC2736? I see no reminder to him in this this thread from yourself on what is or is not forwned upon posting material.

Originally posted by NGC2736 :

Personally, I think every third lawyer in America needs to be shot as a rabid beast of prey. The only problem is what the hell to do with the other two to keep them out of mischief.

Let's not be selective in our admonitions, shall we?



[edit on 27-5-2007 by Sean Osborne]

But the fact was Mr. Osborne, that I was referring to something that was germane to the post itself, ie that lawyers 'built' the document in question. Therefore my aside to the worth of lawyers and their ilk, who twist the words of freedom, was aimed at no one present on this thread.

However, in the interest of fairness, I withdraw the remark. I will go that step towards peace, though it is beyond my power to apologize to such craven vermin.

And I speak specifically towards those lawyers who use their wiles to support the political process whereby oppression is moved forward on a daily basis in my nation. Their actions, from the doctrin of plausible deniability on down, amount to the outright rape of our Constitutional Liberties. And this document in question is the offspring, cloaking itself in the mantle of legality, and slithering it's way into the lives of free Americans.

There is another thread about a law change in the UK allowing the prime-minister total power in an emergency. It seems uncanny that the US and UK both have very similar laws pushed through a lately.

link to other thread