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.

 

Martial Law in America

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Two months have passed since the announcement.

Life was better before martial law. Now all that stands between life as we knew it and being able to return to it is a few military soldiers and police spread out in pockets around the city. Remove them, and we can return to life as we knew it. And put new people, careful people, in their places. It becomes a simple problem with a very difficult and deadly solution.

But not insurmountable given sheer numbers of men with weapons. And so form once again the patriots of liberation.

In retribution for your lies

In retribution for your corruption

In retribution for your greed

In retribution for our dead and crippled children

In retribution for the innocent and pariahs

In retribution for the world

In retribution for our dignity

Martial Law cannot, and will not last. Too many guns. Just too many. They will disarm the first few. But words travel faster and further than bullets.




posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


The real problem comes by figuring out what to do afterwards. After the federal empire is overthrown what do we replace it with? I say education and amendment.

It is not the constitution that has failed us.

It is our lack of understanding the constitution that has failed.

We must insist that the law of the constitution be enforced and applied to all. Otherwise it is exactly what Bush called it. And, while I do not think we should ditch the constitution , I do think we should add some amendments.

Lets us examine my problem with the federal empire before I make my suggestion.

The president is elected by the electoral college (who are polled who they will vote for before they get appointed to their position) and not by the popular vote. The president appoints supreme court justices who answer to none and hold their office for life. Only one side of congress has the power to accept or reject the appointment and that is Senate. Meanwhile the House of representatives does not even seem to be able to retain the authority over direct taxation. In fact they seem alot more concerned with polling constituents and re-drawing district lines rather than addressing the problems of you and I.

So to correct the problem I offer the following amendments:

Election of the president by popular vote and dissolve the institution of electoral college.

Ten year terms for Supreme court justices.

Leave the Senate as it is.

No term limits for any federal office. (If we get a good politician in an office we should be allowed to keep him in office if we so choose)

And finally and most radically I purpose we dissolve the house of representatives and in its place institute a House of the people.

My Reasoning

We have abysmal representation as it is now. We have abysmal representation because we trust others to speak for us with out speaking for ourselves. Some people will say anything to get into office and you know that. The best way to protect ourselves from people willing to give false promises is to represent ourselves. We could do this via the internet. We could make it secure by installing new hardlines devoted to no other purpose. It would also create some jobs if we did. But most importantly, it would allow us to speak for ourselves.

The idea of self representation in government is discouraged by the current government because it takes power away from them and places it directly into the hands of the people. The argument is made that we do not have enough time to read all the legislation or that we lack the education to make sound decisions and yet our current legislators can not find the time to read all the bills the vote on and as far as an education goes, I trust that the you are at least educated enough to read,write and use the net. But consider this, would you have voted yes to the invasion of Iraq? When schools need new books and the roads have potholes in them would you vote yes to a 2% increase in taxes to cover the costs or would you vote no and continue to let your kids learn from old books as they are driven them to school on shooty roads?

This last one is one of the most important.

To put it another way, I trust you more than I trust Ted Kennedy. I would rather that you and I vote on the next issue than some representative that will say whatever to get into office.

Please remember my words here.



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   
With all due respect, if you think we're under martial law now you're wrong and are in for a very big surprise if and when it ever happens.

If you're worried about it happening we've been discussing it here.
FEMA sources confirm coming martial law
And I hope what was posted there will help to calm your worries.



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   
A house of the people by internet.
I like it!


Maybe we could get SO to manage the network/websites? I wonder if he'll work for $1 a year too?
And of course Springer would be the Speaker of the House...He's got that "diplomacy" thing going on.
And Simon, well he can be king of GB as long as he signs a "non-conspiracy" agreement.

Seriously though that's a curious idea. But this thread much like the hated "Dear Comrades" letter thread, is just speculation at what that scene could look like after martial law gets old, people get frustrated, and are ready to do something drastic. Food will be one driving force, but not the only.

Millions of outraged people with all sorts of weapons won't be a pretty sight. I believe a war of attrition would ultimately favor the large numbers.

But even after all that, what would really change? Just the next set of greedy, selfish bastards positioning themselves into what's best for them?

And the people ending up having to attack their own government again? When does this cycle end? Or does it...

Anyway, cool post man.



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   
This notion of mine could be worked out. And if it were, we would then have a perpetual government of the people and not a tyranny. The key is giving some amount of authority to those subject to it. By keeping the Senate we maintain the representative government as we are established while amending the the house of representatives to the house of the people incorporates a bit of direct democracy into the equation.

The idea would require all public officials to be internet savy. McCain and other from his age range might require assistance. The true challenge would be to make the idea function. Meaning anyone of the house would be allowed to purpose constitutional legislation. Only a majority yes vote would send a bill to senate for further consideration.

Regardless of the outcome you could rest assured your voice was heard and counted. Unlike the representatives of today who vote for unconstitutional legislation to further their own agendas.

OF course the other amendments I suggested need to be passed too.

President by popular vote. 10 year terms for SCOTUS. No term limits allowing us to keep officials we like as long as we want.

Sigh...

I have thought about this for a very long time and after this next civil war when we hold the next constitutional convention I plan to be there. I expect to wait 10 to 15 years but after all is said and done I will be there.



posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   
titorite, lol, you have some good ideas, it's just that you might be getting a bit too far beyond the scope of this thread, which was to say that I believe Martial Law, in its strictest sense of soldiers in the streets, would not and could not last beyond a few weeks or few months. I know there are some who say that this country has never come out of martial law because of the state of emergency declared that was never officially ended.

But for the most part we don't have military in the streets. I am saying if it comes to that nationwide:

1) we don't have the personnel or resources to sustain martial law. Even 1 million troops when diluted down to trying to bring tyranny over 330 million spread out across this land, would be facing impossible odds against an American public hungry, distressed, and armed to the teeth.

2) people would be forced into actions that would not be pretty

3) and that the timeframe for public tolerance would be very small. Smaller than anticipated.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join