Constitutional craziness?

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Here's a link to a list of amendments that are currently being proposed:

Proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution 111 Congress; as of 1/26/09

....and then there's this:


H.CON.RES.1 : Regarding consent to assemble outside the seat of government.


Which goes on to say:


Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),That pursuant to clause 4, section 5, article I of the Constitution, during the One Hundred Eleventh Congress the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate or their respective designees, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, may notify the Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to assemble at a place outside the District of Columbia if, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it. Passed the House of Representatives January 6, 2009.


Maybe someone is expecting something?

Some of those proposed amendments look harmless enough at first glance, and I have searched the forums here and know that a couple of them have been discussed (removing limit on number of terms POTUS can serve, for instance) but I didn't find a thread that pulled them all together in this way. And then this "consent to assemble outside the seat of government" struck me as interesting... but maybe someone else can explain?

I'm not a USC, so I have no further comments at this time!

illimey




posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by illimey
 


Something is definitely in the works.

I suspect that we are in for a wild ride in 2009.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
clause 4, section 5, article I of the Constitution


Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.


Other than spelling out who and changing consent to consult this seems rather superfluous and not really Amendment worthy.

But maybe that is the catch...informing that you are going to do something rather than securing permission to do something. To separate the houses of the House and the Senate if they feel (and let's not confuse the term opinion as being anything more than a feeling or suspicion) it is in the "interest" of the public could mean as little as one party controls the Senate and the other party controls the House. Or it could mean as much as to conduct business outside of public view, scrutiny and accessibility for input.

Either way I do not like this as a proposed Amendment. And thank you OP for bringing this to both my and ATS's attention.





[edit on 7-2-2009 by Ahabstar]



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
First, thank you Ahabstar for inviting me here and Thanks to the OP for this thread.

Now:

Several thing come to mind on reading this..

One has to wonder why the need "now" for an approval/Amendment authorizing an assembly of the House and Senate outside of DC?

I would imagine that in the event of an attack or other catastrophe, natural or man made, that there would be some plan or plans in place to ensure those government bodies continue on unabated.

Now with that being said, whatever plans are in place at this time, must not be sufficient for whatever it is they may or may not be preparing for.

I know that is twisted logic to the extreme, but how is it possible that the government has gone this long without some preparations in place in case DC become inhospitable or uninhabitable?

This needs some more investigation and research and is quite fascinating..

Semper



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Or it could mean as much as to conduct business outside of public view, scrutiny and accessibility for input.


While a valid hypothesis, would there not be places in DC specifically set up to conduct such business?

I can only imagine, but there has to be any number of places they go to talk about the things "they" don't want us to hear or know about now..

I read this as a "readiness" in case it becomes impossible to conduct the business of government in DC...

What I consider to be a far more ominous proposal..

Semper



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 
Don't they meet at NORAD in the event of an emergency?




posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Well up until 1992 The Greenbrier Hotel was a plan B until it was featured in a Washington Post article. One would think that there is another location in place by now.

The most remarkable thing about the Greenbrier was that it was never used for its intended function. And there is a bunker below the Capitol Building itself that is well know and was mentioned a few times on 9/11 during the Pentagon coverage.

Come to think of it, would not any of the 50 State Legislature locations (or their contingents) be able to serve as temporary locations provided they were secure?

The President does have Air Force One which is able to conduct business under heavy fighter escort and be refueled in flight to remain in the air for as long as needed if no safe ground location could be secured.

In fact I remember the sonic booms as Wright-Pat sent escorts supersonic just to intercept and cover a leg for Air Force One as W was flying around on 9/11.

[edit on 7-2-2009 by Ahabstar]



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


True it could be a weakness that was found during recent CoC drills. And that it is meant to be a point of clarification so we don't have another Alexander Haig moment during a crisis. But I am still rather suspicious of the wording. The fact that it has already passed the House without hearing a single word about it beforehand raises a few flags for me as well.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I agree that the wording is somewhat suspect..

Like you asserted, any "Statehouse" could be and I would have previously assumed, would have been used.

This has to be something entirely different..

Pam,

I am sure that NORAD is one possible location, but again, it would depend on the nature of the emergency and the location of said emergency as well.. Again, I assume..

Research in progress.... Tune in later...



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Well after a little digging I find that Rep. Louise MacIntosh Slaughter, currently chair for the House Rules Committee, is the sponsor. It was introduced and passed on Jan 6, 2009, the first day of 111th Congress, with no cosponsors.

A bit about Rep Slaughter



In early 2005, she authored the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act, or FAB Act, which would reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, which has been criticized as an attempt to silence religious and conservative broadcasters.


I am feeling less and less comfortable with this Amendment proposal now than I was before looking into it some more.

“The government being the people's business, it necessarily follows that its operations should be at all times open to the public view. Publicity is therefore as essential to honest administration as freedom of speech is to representative government. "Equal rights to all and special privileges to none" is the maxim which should control in all departments of government.”--William Jennings Byran


[edit on 7-2-2009 by Ahabstar]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Very interesting thread.

I was wondering as I read this, if Washington where attacked, it would be considered an act against the government, therefore the appropriate steps would be to round up and place in to protection/hiding any key government personell.

With this in mind, could they do pretty much what they like whilst in hiding? I mean protesting in front of the Senate is one thing, but where would you protest or who too, if the main body of goverenment where in hiding?

I am not saying this will happen, more of a 'do you think it's valid?' type thing. Go into hiding for a valid reason, continue to operate behind the curtain?

Who knows, nice research anyway.

EMM



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by illimey
 


Nice catch! Way to stay alert! Starred and flagged!



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
reply to post by illimey
 


Something is definitely in the works.

I suspect that we are in for a wild ride in 2009.


I can't argue with this!

What do you think the "something" may be? There are plenty of "crazy" theories out there...

Personally, I would not be at all surprised if this is just another link in the chain of planning towards the NAU (or something like it) and ultimately, of course, Global Government!

It's on its way.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


Ahabstar,

Thank you very much for your contributions to this thread. You obviously know a lot more about what MAY be going on here than I do, and you are also obviously willing and able to find the information that's out there! Thanks again.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
I agree that the wording is somewhat suspect..

(snip)

Research in progress.... Tune in later...


I'm looking forward to the results of your research! Thanks for your interest and contributions.

I would LOVE to be able to see the "big picture" of everything that's going on in the political (national and global) world today, but that would mean that I'd be "one of them", so on second thoughts....




posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
Very interesting thread.


I think so too! Thanks, and I hope you and others are able to keep it going.


I was wondering as I read this, if Washington where attacked, it would be considered an act against the government, therefore the appropriate steps would be to round up and place in to protection/hiding any key government personell.


I'm quite sure that an attack in DC WOULD be considered an act against the govt! Of course, many provisions are already in place for protecting POTUS and other luminaries (not all in the same place at same time, for example), however this provision to (perhaps permanently and WITHOUT any apparent "emergency" reason) move the main political business of the nation to another location is indeed noteworthy....

Maybe a definition of "public interest" would be useful in this context?


may notify the Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to assemble at a place outside the District of Columbia if, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.


Anybody?


With this in mind, could they do pretty much what they like whilst in hiding? I mean protesting in front of the Senate is one thing, but where would you protest or who too, if the main body of goverenment where in hiding?

I am not saying this will happen, more of a 'do you think it's valid?' type thing. Go into hiding for a valid reason, continue to operate behind the curtain?

Who knows, nice research anyway.

EMM


Thanks for your thoughtful contribution! Keep 'em coming...



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
I think it all depends on what they mean by the statement .......

"the public interest shall warrant it."

What exactly does that mean?

My mind is coming up with a few different "idea's" about what it "might" mean but *shrug* who knows?

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Flagged.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
This resolution is now in the hands of Senate Committee on Rules and Administration

Their first scheduled meeting will be on Feb. 11, 2009. While the resolution is not on the schedule it could be discussed. At this point, this committee has to approve of the resolution before it will be presented before the full Senate for a vote to consider it. Now that said, there could be a similar already in the Senate that if approved would go to a subcommittee of the House...which would more than likely be the same committee that Rep Slaughter chairs.

Got to love the circle logic in getting things done. Now if it does pass the Senate's sub committee and passes the Senate, then final drafting will be made and agreed on (including time for expiration) before going to Obama to approve before sending to the states (since it is an amendment for the Constitution). From there it returns, the tally of the state's votes are made and if there is a 2/3 majority it is presented again to Obama to sign into being an Amendment to the Constitution.

There are lots of things that can happen along the way so it is still early in the process. But we heard about the flag burning bill and the gay marriage bill just as early in the process. I still have not heard a word on this on any MSM outlets, TV nor Radio.

I guess what needs to be done how is to turn the light on this little cockroach and see if it scampers away...which always sounds like fun.




[edit on 9-2-2009 by Ahabstar]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   
I didn't know there was a law stating that they had to meet in DC?

I am not lawyer enough to know if there is any harm here, so long as there is still public coverage I do not see why it is such a big deal that the Congressional meetings actually happen in DC. I think the capitol has even been moved before?



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2
I didn't know there was a law stating that they had to meet in DC?

I am not lawyer enough to know if there is any harm here, so long as there is still public coverage I do not see why it is such a big deal that the Congressional meetings actually happen in DC. I think the capitol has even been moved before?


I agree... kind of. It shouldn't be a big deal. But the very fact that there MAY be plans underway to make such a change is surely noteworthy?

What if we wake up one morning and discovered that the "US" Government was now convening in, oh, let's say Toronto or Mexico City?

Of course, that's probably an extreme example. So let's bring it down to earth and simply ask the question:

Someone somewhere obviously sees a need to "prepare for" a move of government business away from DC. Regardless of the destination, this fact alone is - to me at least - curious enough to warrant thought and research.

Just what COULD happen to make it "in the public interest" for this to take place?

Maybe the plan is to help the Californian economy recover by moving federal government to LA or SF? After all, if CA crumbles it'll be even harder for the US as a whole to keep things together, don't you think?



Just thinking out loud....

(edit - I can't even spell "and" today
)

[edit on 2/10/2009 by illimey]





new topics
top topics
 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum