TERRORISM: House Passes Emergency Election Bill, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 22-4-2004 @ 07:21 PM by Agent47
In a story that smells slightly like the NWO, the House of Representatives has recently passed a bill that sets up the provisions for emergency appointments in the aftermath of a major terror attack. The provisions of the bill allow for vacancies to be filled 45 days after an attack.

FoxNews Article

Advocates say it is a valid concern for America, and have also advocated an Amendment to the Constitution that would allow for better emergency management in the wake of terror attacks. Critics claim that the period of time is too short to set up proper elections and to long to keep Congress in chaos. Say what you will about FEMA and RX-84 conspiracies, but this could legitamize these arguments.

"Fearing that terrorists might target Congress, the House on Thursday approved a bill to set up speedy special elections if 100 or more of its members are killed.

The House, in a 306-97 vote, put aside for now the larger issue of whether the Constitution should be amended to allow for temporary appointments in the event that an attack caused mass fatalities among lawmakers.

The House, said Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., sponsor of the elections bill and a foe of appointments, "is rooted in democratic principles and those principles must be preserved at all costs."

Hearings were also scheduled on the issue of incapacitation, or how to define when a member who is still alive is unable to carry out his congressional duties, possibly because of a biological or chemical attack."




[Edited on 22-4-2004 by Agent47]

[Edited on 4-22-2004 by Valhall]


reply posted on 23-4-2004 @ 02:32 AM by SkipShipman
It would be far more wise to allow the existing appointment system to operate after such a crisis scenario. Governors would offer appointments with the kind of stability a Republic truly requires. There is no doubt that after such a crisis, an election process would indicate massive special interests ready to feed at the public trough.

This bill is a bad idea regardless, it should reinforce our Republic, not top feeders who dump pounds of cash on candidates, for tons in deficit spending.

You can notice the decline into all the bad features of democracy after the direct election of Senators. Appointed Senators represented their States, not their campaign contributors, who were usually massively wealthy. The people too often go along with that kind of "democracy," getting peanuts even from the most liberal.

We have the most stable government in human history, don't ruin it when the next fake "terrorism scenario," actually happens. Keep going "like nothing happened," pass no new laws, because that is the entire reason it happened.

Wait after the appointments for the next election. Does anyone seriously think that the Patriot Act or Homeland Security Act would have passed under ordinary day to day circumstances? Why put up with it after a phoney "falling on the sword," which is too highly likely to have happened.

No more of these atrocious bills that follow even more atrocities with all good intentions paving the road to H-E double hockey sticks.

(At the close of the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”)



[Edited on 23-4-2004 by SkipShipman]


reply posted on 23-4-2004 @ 03:25 PM by Esoterica
Originally posted by Satyr
I'd reorganize a committee of wise men, as they did back when we started all this crap...people who are hardcore Libertarians, who value freedom, and realize that power is all corruptive. Then, these wise men would be rigorously tested to to see if they're really wise and, most importantly, humble. We'd then hold a Yes/No election to see if any of these people were to be acceptable representatives for the citizens. None of this being forced to vote for the lesser of two idiots. Does that sound like a good start? When everyone decided who they would like to represent them, then the process of creating an entirely new form of society would begin. There may not even be a standard form of gov't, so to speak. I truly believe there's a better system. The one we had originally was good, but obviously, far too open to exploitation. We were all warned over and over again, but no one listened, apparently.


That's very good, in theory. But men that you describe don't exist, in theory. The founding fathers we had at the beginning of this nation were slave-holding, adultering alcoholics and smugglers. They had a spark of inspiration with regards to freedom, but they were far from perfect. Remember, only landholding white males could vote.

These supermen, as you describe them, are figments of history's imagination. The men we see in our statues and on our money never existed. They are only the ideal of mortals who lived long ago.

Don't ever put your trust in wise men, because they don't exist. Power corrupts even those with the best intentions.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^