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 President use military against congress?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
All military members and the President are sworn to support and defend the constitution agaisnt enimies foreign and domestic. If congress fails to uphold public debt is that grounds for the President and or military to remove the acting congress and call for new elections?

To take it one step further could military take similar action against the president for doing the same? Failing to uphold public debt?

Can US President and Congress be considered an enemy of the United States? Their failure to act could do more damage to the US than Osama Bin Laden.

These thoughts crossed my mind and I wanted to discuss these thoughts with your thoughts on the subject matter.




posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
good luck with that considering the military is eveywhere else but here to the tune of 130 foreign bases.


then theres the posse comitatus act.

short answer is no wont ever happen
edit on 28-7-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
In theory either could "do away with" each other. The idea behind separation of powers is to avoid one branch from obtaining run-away authority over another. Because of this, they are given the authority to stop each other. Which is kind of a catch-22, as the action taken to fix the problem, basically gives rise to the same problem in a different branch: too much power.

But to actually do this, isn't that likely in my opinion. They are all in on this together. It's just a big game, they don't want to change the status quo, because it's making them too much money.

Unless Obama declared himself supreme leader of America, or congress tries to abolish the position of POTUS, or some other craziness like that, no serious action is going to be taken, in my opinion.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Well if Congress as a whole through act or failure to act threatens the constitution or breaks it's laws is there a mechanism that the States or other US entities could use to arrest them and hold them accountible? Other than policing themselves?

I mean if Congress itself threatens the security of the United States there must be away for the people to enforce the Constitution. I would hope so anyway.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
If he wants to get re-elected it sounds like a good move. It will be up to the military in the end and who they decide to support if it results in civil war.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I'm a veteran and I say no. You might be surprised how much the topic of martial law comes up in "what would you do" discussions. Active duty military (Air Force at least) are disgusted by the idea. As far as deposing Congress or the President, there would have to be significant breach of trust. For example, if members of Congress attempted a coup, you better believe the military (if not factions) would take up arms. Same goes for the President. If he tried to secure more power (which he does, I mean overtly or with great protest), the military would absolutely take him into custody.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


No matter the political leanings of military members, nearly all are ardent constitutionalists. They would likely decide collectively who is in violation and move to secure the threat. I doubt any branches would rip off but I am more inclined to believe the Army and Marines are more susceptible to propaganda so I could see a Army/ Marines vs Air Force/ Navy type thing but all bickering aside, all armed forces branches are like family and will likely come together. Very unlikely to have a branch on branch war. As far as members within a certain branch splintering off, that's even less likely.
edit on 28-7-2011 by SpringHeeledJack because: grammar



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
i think the more correct question is

"IS their, historical precedent,
for a sitting President of the Office of The United States,
too have used Military Branch of the The United States,
Against any other Branches of the United States Goverment."

Congress being a branch of the Government.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by BobAthome
 


Sure, sort of. I'm a little young and not quite knowledgeable about this but I believe the Kent State murder would be one example. Also, the military was used to desegregate southern states. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, it was a matter of the State Guard vs the Federal Military, ending with state forces backing down.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
It would be the perfect oppurtunity for the states, backed by the citizens, to step in, abolish then re-establish the federal government as authorized by our Constitution.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeven
Well if Congress as a whole through act or failure to act threatens the constitution or breaks it's laws is there a mechanism that the States or other US entities could use to arrest them and hold them accountible? Other than policing themselves?

I mean if Congress itself threatens the security of the United States there must be away for the people to enforce the Constitution. I would hope so anyway.


It's called the judicial branch.

Anything congress does that is perceived to violate the constitution will need to be reviewed and determined by the judicial branch whose purpose is to interpret the Constitution as it applies to each situation.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 


That's right. "Judicial Review" is the term for this. I think the OP may have left out a few details but (correct me if I'm wrong) it's implied that the process has failed and completely broken down by the point of military intervention.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I don't know that anyone in Washington is threatening the security of the United States (the ECONOMY maybe)...but in my opinion there are VERY FEW in Congress (or the White House) who are living up to their sacred oaths of office.

They should ALL be sent home. (Isn't that what happens to normal people when they consistently, over time, fail to do the job they were hired for??? They get fired???)




posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
The Courts are SUPPOSED to provide the check

Here is what is happening on the state level to rectify the situation:

Recall the Rogues

Recall can provide more accountability in between elections and put office holders on notice that they are being watched. Recall is now available to constituents in 18 states. Another 13 states have initiative procedures whereby petitioners could put recall measures on the ballot. RecallTheRogues.org provides each state’s relevant laws, plus updated news and commentary on recall efforts around the nation.




The fully informed jury movement prorev.com...
Informing the public and THEN pass state laws.


Informed jury amendments have been filed as an initiative in seven states and legislation has been introduced in the Alaska state legislature....

Today, the constitutions of only two states -- Maryland and Indiana -- clearly declare the nullification right, although two others -- Georgia and Oregon -- refer to it obliquely. The informed jury movement would like all states to require that judges instruct juries on their power to serve, in effect, as the final legislature of the land concerning the law in a particular case....

Those who have endorsed the right of a jury to judge both the law and the facts include Chief Justice John Jay, Samuel Chase, Dean Roscoe Pound, Learned Hand and Oliver Wendell Holmes. According to the Yale Law Journal in 1964, during the first third of the 19th century judges did inform juries of the right, forcing lawyers to argue "the law -- its interpretation and validity -- to the jury." By the latter part of the century, however, judges and state law were increasingly moving against nullification. In 1895 the US Supreme Court upheld the principle but ruled that juries were not to be informed of it by defense attorneys, nor were judges required to tell them about it....


The Ten Amendment (State Nullification) is another critical issue.
www.tenthamendmentcenter.com...

The biggest Achilles Heel of TPTB is the local and state governments. TPTB has tried to control it by using controlled "grassroots" organizations called NGOs who lure "Activists" into the likes of the World Wildlife Federation. www.ogiek.org...

Here is another State Level idea. I really want to see the Federal Reserve - Hung, Drawn and Quartered - but in the mean time this looks like an alternative.

CAMPAIGNING FOR STATE-OWNED BANKS




While bank bailouts fatten Wall Street, states continue to battle the credit crisis. In the search for innovative solutions, some political candidates are proposing that states generate their own credit by setting up their own banks.


See:

THE GROWING MOVEMENT FOR PUBLICLY-OWNED BANKS
www.webofdebt.com...
www.webofdebt.com...
Another weapon, one every single one of us should be pushing for, is a state law allowing voters to recall federal Senators and Representatives as well as state.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SpringHeeledJack
 


I know of no legal precident,, but im canadian,,,

now military used against citizens and other military,,yes their is precedent.

ie Judical Precident,, which of course, in the pleaded case,,would have too be "germain" too the "present", matching the legalities established , in each step taken.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Xeven
 


Who says failure to act will be catastrophic? Wall Street? Where have we heard that one before? Maybe a failure to act about the debt ceiling will just expose how the government spends too much and will actually do some future good.

Besides, if the President uses the military in such a matter, he pretty much becomes king. I doubt that the military would want to be a kingmaker.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Xeven
 


I won't postulate that there are no military servicemembers who wouldn't attempt to seize control of Congress if ordered to do so by the POTUS, but I doubt very much this would be supported by the majority of military servicemembers.

An order like this goes thru filters, often referred to as the chain of command. So in this hypothetical situation, the order would presumably go thru senior White House staff & then thru Department of Defense channels.

Provided it actually got thru White House channels, ordering for what effectively constitutes a coup of one branch of government would probably stir up a great amount of dissension. There may be any number of clever legal arguments to support such an action, but an order like that would greatly transcend legalities, forcing people to make value decisions. So it's not just a question of what if, but whether DOD would back an order like that. And I don't just mean senior officers at the Pentagon, but the designated commander & his force. For instance if I were to receive a warning order that we were moving out to D.C. to detain & remove members of Congress, I'd tell my commander to go pound sand.

My opinion is that most servicemembers understand how bad it would be to turn against its own people & political structure simply because an elected official decided it was in the best interest of the nation. And as much as I disagree with Mr. Obama's foreign and domestic policies, I don't believe he'd be foolish enough to issue an order like this.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Now the thing you have to keep in mind is legally the United States Government is run by an
Incorporated Company
called
The United States of Washington D.C.
They have a C.E.O ,, he is called the President of the Corp. ie U.S.of.A,
if he recieves enough votes he stays as C.E.O, for a time limit.

Revoke the Charter of Corporation.
No more Charter,,well,,,

Before you are completely,,, taken,, gutted,,,and destitute,,your carcass left rotting in the heat

Charter of Corporation.
has the Corporation lived up too its responsabilites to the shareholders,,
People,, in fullfilling it obligations too the majority of the (shareholders),, People
If it then becomes clear that the C.E.O is not fullfilling these duties, as set out by "The Oath of Office"
then it is up too the People too call a non-confidence/vote, showing where the failure too govern said Corp.
has lead too its current crisis.

i guess,,,



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SpringHeeledJack
 


It is good to hear that the military has a strong sense of unity, it makes a big difference. How do you think they will stand with the unresolved events of 9/11? Will they want to keep their skeletons in the closet or do they have the courage and integrity to face their fears?



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by SpringHeeledJack
 


It is good to hear that the military has a strong sense of unity, it makes a big difference. How do you think they will stand with the unresolved events of 9/11? Will they want to keep their skeletons in the closet or do they have the courage and integrity to face their fears?


After what happened at the Pentagon????? u dont think the military dont know the truth? lol,, but their holding that, little secret,, for the day they make thier move against an old enemy called TOP SECRET.
lol
Boy they sure changed a lot of key jobs up top lately,,must be a reshuffling of the "GREAT MINDS"

lol



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join