It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by TheOracle
I consider this VERY VERY good.
Because these guys and gals are Americans and they are getting a BIG taste of the trashing of our Constitution. The Constitution they are sworn to uphold. Remember they owe allegiance to the Constitution and NOT to the President or Congress. The President may be the Supreme Commander but he does not own their loyalty.
This may be a major blunder on the power mongers part especially if they are planning to declare Martial law in the near future.
Congressman Beck had this to say about the War Powers Act:
"I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is the worst. It means that when Congress declares an emergency there is no Constitution. This means its death....But the Constitution of the United States, as a restraining influence in keeping the federal government within the carefully prescribed channels of power, is moribund, if not dead. We are witnessing its death-agonies, for when this bill becomes a law, if unhappily it becomes law, there is no longer any workable Constitution to keep the Congress within the limits of its constitutional powers." - Congressman James Beck in Congressional Record 1933
The following are excerpts from the Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973, Special Committee On The Termination Of The National Emergency United States Senate. They were going to terminate all emergency powers, but they found out they did not have the power to do this so guess which one stayed in, the Emergency Act of 1933, the Trading with the Enemy Act October 6, 1917 as amended in March 9, 1933.
"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency....Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 (now 63) years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency....from, at least, the Civil War in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency." - Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973
....If people would only understand that WE give the government/corporation the authority they "believe" they have. It is only the authority to legislate FOR us....
What lawyers & judges won't tell you about juries
The fully informed jury movement has been in the news and the subject of badly misinformed journalism. The following article, which appeared in the Progressive Review in 1990, explains this important issue:
William Penn may have thought he had settled the matter. Arrested in 1670 for preaching Quakerism, Penn was brought to trial. Despite Penn's admitting the charge, four of the 12 jurors voted to acquit. The judge sent the four to jail "without meat, drink, fire and tobacco" for failing to find Penn guilty. On appeal, however, the jurors' action was upheld and the right of juries to judge both the law and the facts -- to nullify the law if it chose -- became part of British constitutional law.
It ultimately became part of American constitutional law as well, but you'd never know it listening to jury instructions today almost anywhere in the country. With only a few exceptions, juries are explicitly or implicitly told to worry only about the facts and let the judge decide the law. The right of jury nullification has become one of the legal system's best kept secrets.
Now a remarkable coalition has sprung up to challenge this secrecy as undemocratic, unconstitutional and dangerous.....
Around 2002-2003 things changed slowly, with (amazingly) even a few glimpses of sanity...BUT, that story is tossing fuel into a fire that is burning merrily enough already, and provoking faux outrage. AND, deflects focus from the actual problem which should be the inappropriate "enhanced" pat-downs....
Originally posted by diakrite
Hrm..do not laugh about the nail clipper..In Bristol (UK) I had to break off the nail file-bit of it before I was able to enter the plane..stupidest part? the rather serrated broken end of it was much sharper than the whole un-broken file-bit...Yet, I could board anyways.. UK AND the US have lost their collective marbles in a bout of Uber-paranoia, it seems..edit on 12/4/2010 by diakrite because: typo
Originally posted by OldCorp
As a Marine, I was trained to kill with my bare hands - not braggin', just sayin'. I wonder how long it will be before military personnel will be handcuffed before being allowed to board an aircraft.
Also, the duty free in many airports were still selling anything you'd need, including swords..
Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
It is all theater for the purpose of indoctrination people. They don't care about the supposed threats. Their actions prove that beyond any possible doubt.
That is the question. While I know of many who would not, I don't know about the rest. What they need to remember is their oath.
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by cloudwatcher
But he was a good soldier and did what he was told.
I'm sure all your family are loyal soldiers and believe in what they are doing..
But, should a soldier do what he is told even if they believe it is not right??
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
So any order given that violates the Constitution or the various laws of the land would be unlawful. If the troops keep that in mind, we should be ok.
The Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal."