Our Constitution Has Been SUSPENDED...oh, has it now?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I have seen some, maybe even many, believe the Constitution has been suspended. The idea of it is a horrifying thought.
Has it? Is that true?
There is an idea that the President has more power than citizenship of the country believes and he no longer is “encumbered” by the system of checks and balances.
Really?
Public Policy is what governs….
The Patriot Act is the law…
The President is really a dictator….

To say anything can have more of a voice, whether it’s a policy or rule made by public officials, and is absolute or supersedes the Constitution….it’s just false.
When people think and speak of public policy, they are getting lost in the words it seems. Yes, it is a policy, but it is policy because it has been found to be constitutional or it hasn’t been challenged as not being such.
Congress who, as we all know, is one of the counters to the Executive Branch, would never allow a President to become a dictator. They would never allow their power to be rendered impotent. If a President made himself “Supreme Leader of the United States,” his supreme rule would last as long as it took him to exit the Rose Garden and put on his crown.
Everyone can relax, the Constitution is the true Supreme Leader of the United States.
Public Polices are struck down when they are found unconstitutional.

The “Rough Beast slouching its way towards Bethlehem,” otherwise know as the Patriot Act , has been stuck down when it is found unconstitutional.

The Presidential Dictator will soon be leaving office as stated by the Constitution.

For a suspended document, it still has a lot of weight, no?




posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
So this is how it begins. The gauntlet is thrown down. I accept your challenge, but alas, I must return at another time.

May only truth prevail!!!



(A most excellent topic of discussion Mr. Utah!)






[edit on 2/15/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 

I shall be sharpening my sword



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   
A frantic mind changes nothing, a mind that is alert conscious aware can change everything.



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by antar
A frantic mind changes nothing, a mind that is alert conscious aware can change everything.

I understand the idea, but not sure how you mean to imply it?



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


I take it that thread is in RATS


Is it worth the points? I haven't decided to splurge them yet. Not that they matter much, just know that monthy fee would take me to negative eventually, that doesn't sit well with me ... again, knowing that points are all but useless



I agree with those sentiments though. Hitler was elected and followed the laws. he just used a Red Flag attack to destroy his own building, claim it was an attack on the nation, and rallied his people to war ...

now, why does that sound faintly familiar?



Technically, our Constitution has been muddied by corruption. There are so many signing statements, clauses, and bull#, that We the People need to seriously work on rewriting it, and voting on paper, recountable ballots, with personally identifiable marks (like you draw a scribble, so if you are needed to verify that was your cast, you can, instead of electronic that can be manipulated, or even paper/scantrons that can be falsified).

I would take just a clean slate to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It isn't like people would go crazy doing things. They will pretty much follow the same actions and paths they do already. States should be able to set more independent laws without national interference.



on topic
The word suspended leaves the battle between the technical and what we see. By definition, it appears that it is not suspended, it is just ignored. But, if ignored and no action is taken against the ones who ignore it, essentially, is it not suspended?

an article on this subject


The current emergency power supplied to the President and the Secretary of the Treasury by section 95(a) authorizes them to regulate America's banking system, even to order the closing of banks. But such powers are clearly unconstitutional on two counts: The Constitution contains no authorization for any federal authority to declare a national emergency, and it likewise contains no authorization for regulating or closing banks. The absence of such grants of power in the body of the Constitution are, of course, reinforced by the Tenth Amendment. Therefore, the Constitution cannot be suspended as Dr. Schroder believes. Instead, its fundamental limitations are being ignored and the power of the executive branch of government is being permitted to grow to ominous proportions.



Basically, we have a government who acts like the constitution and bill of rights does not exist, or at least doesn't pertain to them. They commit all the illegal acts they want, pass bills that are illegal and violate constitutional rights.


A very intelligent attorney funded by true patriots could spend some time and outline all the unlawful and treasonous things that have been done and enacted ... and duplicate it to all the lawyers across the world, inundate both the civil, state, federal, and military court systems with the lawsuits. Make them listen, and possibly some smart general would see that it is their DUTY, by swearing to uphold the constitution, to arrest and sentence those who are guilty (not a coup, let people that are left still run the gov't) ... tried in military court and sentenced to serve their punishment in military prisons. After all, it was a crime against the country, treason, and done by CIC as well as other top people. No chance for pardon, no parole.




posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   
the constitution wasn't suspended in some conspiracy - my two favorite magazines being Cat Fancy and the Federal Register I should know this.

sounds to me like it all boils down to the oldie but goodie federal vs state's rights argument.

i saw the movie Legal Eagles and from what I could gather it seems to me that the feds win - a federal/centralized govt is always gonna be the boss.

look at the recent supreme court ruling re: medical marijuana in which they stated - the feds have right to make pot illegal - but the congress could always change the law.

nobody would suspend a constitution with a treasure map on the back.



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   




He was appointed actually as a political compromise, and his party engineered events for him to take power. He ran for office twice and was soundly beaten both times - Hitler was never elected.



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeThinkerIdealist
 

I want to thank you for checking out the article. However, you left out a very important part a few lines further down.
“In 1976 Congress passed the National Emergencies Termination Act, which specified that any national emergency NOT extended by the President on an annual basis will be AUTOMATICALLY terminated. Also, the act RECOGNIZED the POWER of Congress to TERMINATE a national emergency.”

It changes the meaning quite a bit.

I think much of the problem is not only have the people forgotten the power they have to force change, the Legislature has too. Bad laws cannot be blamed on the Executive Branch but for the signature . The President does not introduce laws…he approves them. It is our own fault we let bad bills go through because we have chosen a man of bad judgment or one motivated by his own self intrest. If a Rep. of the House knew we would not tolerate abuse, and in two years he would be sent packing…he would act quite differently.



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Well, people are so much in a daze, they only know what they are told. If they are not told the national emergency is over, it will take people like you, who have read this to speak up and not be silenced before you get people to listen and make the change.


justice dept, congress, and senate are like patsies now, so I don't expect much help from them.


I am really relying most on those honest soldiers, who I hope have read the document they swore to uphold and protect.


The people at this point, I have the least faith in. They are absolutely numb or in a state of forced denial (because work, bills, life beckons them to not care). I have visited with my father, who watched the same basic 15 minute loop of news for hours. He watches the same reruns of the same shows nightly. He once fought in Vietnam, now he has become complacent and lethargic.

The apathy of the nation scares me. It is exactly what is required for a 1984 or Anthem type of society.

I am both happy and sad from this very site, for it points out just how tuned out on reality people are, but also shows that some people are awakened and there is some intelligence left. That statement doesn't require all of ATS to agree, but the debate is a good thing. The issues become discussed, and possibly instills a bit of passion so it spreads out, hopefully in a pyramid pattern.

Communication is the first step in our sad state, but action is the most important step.


I agree, if we started booting morons out of their government seats, they would wise up and shape up very quick. In fact, turning over all of the hypocrits next time out is nearly a necessity. We need to make our stand NOW. It is utter b.s. that they rode a promise of withdrawal from Iraq and putting this administration in line, and then slammed the door in the face of the public, voting for funding, taking impeachment off the table. This is why their approval rating is so low. In fact, it is so low if people weren't lazy, I would say we would have held new elections and kicked them all out. They are our employees, we can fire them at any time we wish, and hire a better person for the job.

If we impeached a president for oral, why can't they impeach a president for lying to move a war into a different country and dropping OBL before he was caught? Then he says publicly he isn't worried about him after promising to get him. Tell me that is not a failure of all three branches.

Now, I am not 'anti-republican' or 'pro-democrat' ... I reserve no party affiliation. I like Huckabee a whole lot better than McCain. Obama I think is trying to be a Kennedy in talk, I only would like Clinton if Bill would balance the budget. This being removed from any NWO conspiracy theories, that puts a different spin on things. I liked Kucinich, but not his gun control, I like Paul, but he spoke of too much too soon.

Lets see some real people up there. # the experience, # the money raising. It is bull# anyway (I censor myself
)




In the end, what you ultimately believe becomes the truth, if people think he can get away with 'ensuring continuity of government' he will. if that does happen, i won't want to be here, for I think civil unrest will equate to pulling the lid off a boiling pot.



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeThinkerIdealist
 

I really like the way your mind works.

To lose faith in the people, is dangerous though, is it not?
I am discouraged by the things I see in people today. I refuse to lose faith.
Here is a little story.
One of my first years in college, I took a class in Business Law. The professor was this curdled old man about the size of a hobbit and had a rough and ugly voice. He stated on the first day of class, he would get someone to drop out before the end of the hour. That was quite odd. While I was new to college, I thought it was strange anyone would ever want such a thing.
Anyway, he began going around the room asking people questions. He zoomed on one guy (he had found his mark) and began directing them to him. Sure enough, within minutes, the guy got up and walked out of the room.
As the guy left, the professor said, “You now have an understanding of the state of country deeper than most anyone you come across.”
What did he ask the guy that made him get up and leave?
They were things like… how many stars are there on the flag? How many stripes are there? Who is the Vice President? How many states are there? Then, the one I liked the best…Do you honestly want to learn the answers?
Guess he didn’t.
My point is, we (you, me, and most of the people on ATS) want to learn the answers. We want to know the truth. We don’t want to be the guy who can tell you the stats of the top 20 running backs in the NFL, but not have the faintest idea on issues which TRULY matter. ( I am still wiping my tears away from the Super Bowl, by the way.)
When we lose faith in the “people” we begin losing faith that there is a chance for change. It is people who stopped slavery. It is people who stood up to a dictator and stopped the Nazi conquest of the world. It is people who ended the disgusting practice of separate, but equal.
As long as we hold true to the Ideals of the founding of the country….change is always possible.
We need to keep believing!



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by _Johnny_Utah_
 


(knuckles crack)

SOURCE (previously quoted): www.constitution.org...


In 1976 Congress passed the National Emergencies Termination Act, which specified that any national emergency not extended by the President on an annual basis will be automatically terminated. Also, the act recognized the power of Congress to terminate a national emergency. Schroder claims that the national emergency declared by FDR in 1933 was expressly exempted from this act. But he fails to note that this exemption was done away with one year later in a measure amending the Trading With the Enemy Act.


I have so far been able to substantiate the claims made by the above refernced author. What I HAVE found are the following facts...

The first is that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt did in fact expressly exempt the authority of Congressional termination stating:



"Now, therefore, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, in view of such continuing national emergency and by virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411) as amended by the Act of March 9, 1933, do hereby proclaim, order, direct and declare that all the terms and provisions of said Proclamation of March 6,1933, and the regulations and orders issued thereunder are hereby continued in full force and effect until further proclamation by the President."


I have found no further proclamation by the President which could be construed as "doing away" with this exemption, as claimed by the author quoted above.

The second item I have located is the statutes themselves, as they stand today, which clearly state:



NATIONAL EMERGENCIES (50 U.S.C. 1622 (2002)).

(a) Termination Methods. Any national emergency declared by the President in accordance with this title shall terminate if_

(1) there is enacted into law a joint resolution terminating the emergency; or

(2) the President issues a proclamation terminating the emergency.


Judging from these facts it seems clear, that the Constitutional authority of the United States of America has indeed been suspended since 1933, and has never been reinstated.

Congress has NO AUTHORITY to terminate a National Emergency.




[edit on 2/15/0808 by jackinthebox]

[edit on 2/15/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Hitler remained in power as the result of the Enabling Act which was ratified by the Reichstag. So technically you are indeed correct, in the sense that he was not elected by popular vote. But US Presidents are not elected by popular vote either. The Enabling Act was a vote of confidence to retain Hitler as Chancellor after his appointment to office.



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


www.marad.dot.gov...

(d) Automatic Termination of National Emergency; Continuation Notice from President to Congress; Publication in Federal Register. Any national emergency declared by the President in accordance with this title, and not otherwise previously terminated, shall terminate on the anniversary of the declaration of that emergency if, within the ninety-day period prior to each anniversary date, the President does not publish in the Federal Register and transmit to the Congress a notice stating that such emergency is to continue in effect after such anniversary


I may be misreading this, but it seems to say annually the State of Emergency terminates. The President has to “re-declare” the National Emergency every year to keep it in effect. So, while there may not be a proclamation doing away with the National Emergency, one is not needed for it to end.



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   
All this really amounts to is putting the matters into a state of dormancy. Congress has no authority to overrule the FDR declaration. Dormancy is NOT termination. The President can reinstate these powers at any time he so chooses and for any reason.

Furthermore, the statute begins with the following (I will take the liberty of adding emphasis where I see fit.):



TERMINATION OF EXISTING DECLARED EMERGENCIES (50 U.S.C. 1601 (2002)).

(a) All powers and authorities possessed by the President, any other officer or employee of the Federal Government, or any executive agency, as defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code, as a result of the existence of any declaration of national emergency in effect on the date of enactment of this Act1 are terminated two years from the date of such enactment. Such termination shall not affect_

(1) any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or determined on such date;

(2) any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to such date; or

(3) any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to such date.


What this means, is that all the President has to say is that the actions taken previously under Executive Authority have not been concluded. In fact, a "determination" must be made that they have indeed concluded. Item two is even more sinister. Even if the direct actions taken under emegency power are concluded, any action that proceeded "based" on that emergency are exempt from termination, so long as the action takes place before the termination is ratified. Futhermore, "rights and duties" of the Executive Privilege which "matured" under a state of emergency, and before the expiration date, are EXEMPT from being terminated. Whatever the President says are his rights and duties are exempt from termination.

[edit on 2/15/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
If they rip up our constitution...It will take me about 10 minutes to load my guns.



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Hitler may not have been appointed, but

he sure had his growing share of people rooting for him

and with the perception of the people that "he" was saving them from terrorism and a certain death, his people grew in the millions.

Sound Familiar?



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeThinkerIdealist
 


Sorry, can't tell you about RATS. What happens in RATS, stays in RATS. Well probably anyway. I haven't been there either.


The pics I posted just dead-link for some reason. I just wanted to splash some color up there and avaoid a one line post to link this thread to my subscriptions.

BTW, you have some excellent posts. A bit long perhaps, but very good stuff nonetheless.



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   
i'm with you tac109- give me about 15 minutes tho lol
and now with this line this isn't a 1 line post



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by _Johnny_Utah_
 


Any national emergency prior to the creation of this statute is exempt from the requirement of notification. This includes the suspension of the Constitution in 1933. Just thought I would clarify that.


[edit on 2/16/0808 by jackinthebox]





 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join