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.

 

Can US Citizens Legally Demand the Resignation of the President?

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


Ok, now we're getting closer.

But what are the citizens rights for example if the Prez decides to do something so outrageous that it clearly tells 100% of the population that he has to go.

It's brought to a vote of impeachment clearly if it's not election time. And if it's decided NOT to impeach. What happens then? Does he stay in power even if he is not wanted by 100% of the population? Can the people DEMAND a vote if it's not election time? Do they have the right to do so?

I know this is a crazy scenario (Maybe not) but I'm curious as to what recourse the citizens would have in this case?

My thoughts are that if this did happen, Marshall Law would be declared so as to keep a handle on 300,000,000 people. Just my thought tho.

Thanks




posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
if we try anything the UN will just invade.


see libya exhibit A



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 





How about forcing every single politician that has lied to step down? Getting rid of one won't do a thing, get rid of them all and let the new ones know it will happen to them if they try the same things...


There has not been adecent politician in the USA since Congressman McFadden

This needs to be put in place in EVERY STATE!

A weapon, every single one of us should be pushing for, - a state law allowing voters to recall federal Senators and Representatives as well as state officials.
Recall Congress Now Org

However this will be a bitterly fought battle. The last thing TPTB wants is their pet legislators worried about what the voters want instead of what they have been bribed to do.


While 18 of the 50 United States offer their citizens an opportunity to recall their elected officials, it is a fact that in our nation’s history, no federal legislator has yet been recalled.

It has not been for lack of interest. Rather, the process has languished in part due to debates on whether or not legal authority exists for recall of U.S. Senators and Congressmen; and, in the case of Idaho, interference by a state court prevented recall of a federal legislator....

After reviewing the body of law and opinion concerning recall, it is apparent that if recall of federal legislators is to succeed, it will likely only be after an intense battle in the federal court system as to the degree to which the courts will go to allow the literal meaning of the Tenth Amendment to be in force and effect.

As this author reads this language, it appears clear that " the States ‘ and " the people " living with in them, should be recognized to have the right of recall.

But in order to implement a strategy that will enable recall petitions to result in actual removal of errant Senators and Congressmen, considerable legal and political obstacles will present themselves and can only be overcome by understanding the lengths to which those opposed to recall can be expected to go...

Eighteen states have recall provisions. Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin all have recall of some kind available to their voters. Only seven of these states require any grounds.
www.uscitizensassociation.com...



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by boncho
 





How about forcing every single politician that has lied to step down? Getting rid of one won't do a thing, get rid of them all and let the new ones know it will happen to them if they try the same things...


There has not been adecent politician in the USA since Congressman McFadden

This needs to be put in place in EVERY STATE!

A weapon, every single one of us should be pushing for, - a state law allowing voters to recall federal Senators and Representatives as well as state officials.
Recall Congress Now Org

However this will be a bitterly fought battle. The last thing TPTB wants is their pet legislators worried about what the voters want instead of what they have been bribed to do.
; and, in the case of Idaho, interference by a state court prevented recall of a federal legislator....


So your opinion is that the image of American Freedom is an illusion and some posters are saying that the illusion is about to be shattered or is at least in the process of doing so?

That it may be possible but would most likely take years to accomplish and probably not even get past the courts?

Is there any law, constitution etc that allows for the majority to instantly call for an election at all under certain circumstances?

Sorry, but this intrigues me.

Curiouser and Curiouser.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jude11
But what are the citizens rights for example if the Prez decides to do something so outrageous that it clearly tells 100% of the population that he has to go. ... It's brought to a vote of impeachment ... And if it's decided NOT to impeach. What happens then? ... I know this is a crazy scenario (Maybe not) but I'm curious as to what recourse the citizens would have in this case?
If it was something “so outrageous” as you present in your hypothetical, and yet Congress didn’t impeach him, then that would mean a complete collapse of our system of checks and balances, and the citizenry would likely revolt.

That recourse is ultimately always available to the citizens, be it in societies under democratic or tyrannical forms of government.


My thoughts are that if this did happen, Marshall Law would be declared so as to keep a handle on 300,000,000 people. Just my thought tho.
If the President did something “so outrageous” to unite everyone in opposition to him, and Congress failed to act or even colluded with him, I guess it wouldn’t be out of the question to imagine they would declare marshall law. But the politicians would need the military to enforce it, wouldn’t they? For that nightmare scenario to work would require the military, or a significant number of military personnel, to accept the orders of the politicians.

But as we’ve seen in countries where even dictatorships have ruled for decades, the military, or a significant part of it, wouldn’t necessarily go against the people.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


Ok, got it.

But lastly, is there anything on the books to allow the citizens to DEMAND a speedy vote through legal avenues and avoid the entire collapse of society scenario? Something to bring satisfaction to the population before the military hits the streets?

And of course, a quick and speedy process that would not be in the courts or congress for years while the tension boils in the streets?

Maybe I'm being unrealistic but there has to be something in place.

Thanks


edit on 23-3-2011 by jude11 because: edit



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 





So your opinion is that the image of American Freedom is an illusion and some posters are saying that the illusion is about to be shattered or is at least in the process of doing so?

Do I believe " the image of American Freedom is an illusion" YES! Very much so thanks to several years worth of investigation.

I know this is lengthy but compared to the reams of data I have gathered it is very short and only covers one prong.
Unfortunately you can not document a large "conspiracy" in just a couple of lines.

Here is one example of the manipulation of the US government for over 60 years. This well researched article has over four pages of foot notes.


...With World War II, America saw its agricultural system intentionally subjected to political policies that radically transformed it....

This transformation was the result of organized plans developed by a group of highly powerful -- though unelected -- financial and industrial executives who wanted to drastically change agricultural practices in the US to better serve their collective corporate financial agenda. This group, called the Committee for Economic Development, was officially established in 1942 as a sister organization to the Council on Foreign Relations. CED has influenced US domestic policies in much the same way that the CFR has influenced the nation's foreign policies.

Composed of chief executive officers and chairmen from the federal reserve, the banking industry, private equity firms, insurance companies, ....-- CED determined that the problem with American agriculture was that there were too many farmers....

In its 1945 report "Agriculture in an Expanding Economy," CED complained that "the excess of human resources engaged in agriculture is probably the most important single factor in the "farm problem'" and describes how agricultural production can be better organized to fit to business needs.[2] A report published in 1962 entitled "An Adaptive Program for Agriculture"[3] is even more blunt in its objectives, leading Time Magazine to remark that CED had a plan for fixing the identified problem: "The essential fact to be faced, argues CED, is that with present high levels farm productivity, more labor is involved in agriculture production that the market demands -- in short, there are too may farmers. To solve that problem, CED offers a program with three main prongs."

Some of the report's authors would go on to work in government to implement CED's policy recommendations. Over the next five years, the political and economic establishment ensured the reduction of "excess human resources engaged in agriculture"...

CED members were influential in business, government, and agricultural colleges, and their outlook shaped both governmental policies and what farmers were taught. Farmers found themselves encouraged to give up on a farming system that employed minimal outsourced inputs and capital and get "efficient" by adopting instead a system that required they go into debt in order to purchase ever more costly inputs, like fossil-fuel based fertilizers, chemicals, seeds, feed grain, and machinery. The local, decentralized food distribution networks that were previously in place became subject to corporate buyouts, vertical integration and consolidation, leaving farmers with fewer and fewer outlets to sell their goods. With this consolidation of grain handlers, railways, food processing, meat packing, brewing and beverage makers, cereal makers, food retailers and restaurants, more and more of the food dollar went to processors and retailers, which gained increased market power.

The human cost of CED's plans were exacting and enormous.


CED's plans resulted in widespread social upheaval throughout rural America, ripping apart the fabric of its society destroying its local economies. They also resulted in a massive migration to larger cities. The loss of a farm also means the loss of identity, and many farmers' lives ended in suicide...


Their plan was so effective and so faithfully executed by its operatives in the US government that by 1974 the CED couldn't help but congratulate itself in another agricultural report called "A New US Farm Policy for Changing World Food Needs"
www.opednews.com...


NOW does that sound like the US citizen was in control of the US Government????

WHAT has the CED's "New US Farm Policy for Changing World Food Needs" meant to the rest of the world???


#1. 1995 VP of Cargill Dan Amstutz writes World Trade Organization Agreement on Ag. It got rid of tariffs and opened borders.

#2. Amstutz writes 1996 farm bill called Freedom to Farm (Freedom to Fail Act) that over produces very cheap grain. The law also change US grain reserve policy. multinationalmonitor.org...

#3. Amstutz goes to work for Goldman Sachs.

#4. Gramm, head of the CFTC, helped firms such as Goldman Sachs gain influence over the commodity markets. At the end of 2006, food prices across the world started to rise, suddenly. Wheat had shot up by 80 per cent, maize by 90 per cent, rice by 320 per cent. www.wanttoknow.info...


“Then, in spring 2008, prices just as mysteriously fell back to their previous level. Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, calls it “a silent mass murder”, entirely due to “man-made actions.” Through the 1990s, Goldman Sachs and others lobbied hard and the regulations [controlling agricultural futures contracts] were abolished. Suddenly, these contracts were turned into “derivatives” that could be bought and sold among traders who had nothing to do with agriculture. A market in “food speculation” was born. The speculators drove the price through the roof.” www.independent.co.uk...


#5. In 2008 Monsanto and Cargill report record breaking profits. USDA reports “The cupboard is bare” we have no more grain reserves. www.sourcewatch.org... and www.grist.org...



Today's global food crisis shows "we all blew it, including me when I was president," by treating food crops as commodities instead of as a vital right of the world's poor, Bill Clinton told a U.N. gathering on Thursday. UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 23, 2008



President Bill Clinton, now the UN Special Envoy to Haiti, publicly apologized last month for forcing Haiti to drop tariffs on imported, subsidized US rice during his time in office. The policy wiped out Haitian rice farming and seriously damaged Haiti’s ability to be self-sufficient. www.democracynow.org...


From Clinton's Mea Clupa, it is obvious that what was done was INTENTIONAL and he KNEW IT!


One of the most influential in creating the WTO is a little-publicized organization called the IPC-- the International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council, shortened to International Policy Council.

The IPC Chairman is Robert Thompson, former Assistant Secretary US Department of Agriculture and former Presidential economic adviser. Also included in the IPC are Bernard Auxenfans, Chief Operating Officer, Monsanto Global Agricultural Company and Past Chairman of Monsanto Europe S.A.; Allen Andreas of ADM/Toepfer; Andrew Burke of Bunge (US); Dale Hathaway former USDA official and head IFPRI (US).

Other IPC members include Heinz Imhof, chairman of Syngenta (CH); Rob Johnson of Cargill and USDA Agriculture Policy Advisory Council; Franz Fischler Former Commissioner for Agriculture, European Commission; Guy Legras (France) former EU Director General Agriculture; Donald Nelson of Kraft Foods (US); Joe O’Mara of USDA, Hiroshi Shiraiwa of Mitsui & Co Japan; Jim Starkey former Assistant US Trade Representative; Hans Joehr, Nestle’s head of agriculture; Jerry Steiner of Monsanto (US). Members Emeritus include Ann Veneman, former Bush Administration Secretary of Agriculture and former board member of Calgene, creator of the Flavr Savr genetically-modified tomato.

The IPC is controlled by US-based agribusiness giants which benefit from the rules they drafted for WTO trade. In Washington itself, the USDA no longer represents interests of small family farmers. It is the lobby of giant global agribusiness. The USDA is a revolving door for these private agribusiness giants to shape friendly policies. GMO policy is the most blatant example. www.globalresearch.ca...

Government-industry revolving door

The FDA is BLUNT about WHO calls the shots and it ain't the citizens:




International Harmonization www.cfsan.fda.gov...

The harmonization of laws, regulations and standards between and among trading partners requires intense, complex, time-consuming negotiations by CFSAN officials. Harmonization must simultaneously facilitate international trade and promote mutual understanding, while protecting national interests and establish a basis to resolve food issues on sound scientific evidence in an objective atmosphere. Failure to reach a consistent, harmonized set of laws, regulations and standards within the freetrade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements can result in considerable economic repercussions.
Participation in Codex Alimentarius
Cosmetics International Activities
International Organizations and Standard-Setting Bodies
International Office of Epizootics (OIE)
International Plant Protection Convention
World Health Organization (WHO)
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO
Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA)
Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues
Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Microbiological Risk Assessments
Pan American Health Organization
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development


SHIELDING THE GIANTS: www.whistleblower.org...


smirkingchimp.com...
www.smirkingchimp.com...
www.smirkingchimp.com...


The END GAME for US farmers:
www.examiner.com...
www.activistpost.com...
www.forbes.com...

HARMONIZED LAW in the EU:
www.i-sis.org.uk...

HARMONIZED LAW in the Austraila:
This comment reminds me of the Keystone Cops. TOO bad the results are rancher suicides... First comment and Second comment

Background from Aussie Ranchers:

AGMATES: Why NLIS is a fraudulent rip off of Australian Livestock Producers.


US propaganda Machine:


Australia’s ID system protects export markets, safety


illinoisfarmertoday.com...
Iowa Farmer Today


The same two gears driving the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) in the United States prompted Australian officials to start a similar program nearly a decade ago....

But, many livestock producers were initially skeptical.

“Livestock producers are directly impacted by NLIS in that they have to purchase tags and are responsible for tagging animals with NLIS devices. This was something they never had to do before,” he says.

Producers are becoming more supportive, while few consumers are aware of the NLIS,...

The REALITY!



...Australia has decided that RFID NLIS is not a legal means of identifying livestock because the tags can be easily cut out and substituted. The recent severe floods in Queensland have seen police and owners rely on the firebrand to identify the thousands of stock on other ranches. However, enthusiastic bureaucrats are demanding the producers put orange RFID tags in the ears of cattle that they have identified as theirs on other ranches before they take them home. An orange tag indicates that the beast has no whole of life accountability and will be discounted by the packers....
Fight NAIS Down to the Last Cowboy: Australia Beef Association

edit on 24-3-2011 by crimvelvet because: fumble fingers



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join