Bush Moves Toward Martial Law

[Popeyesays]

Most people think that Lincoln was so supportive of the union that he would have done no wrong; but he did in fact declare martial law and the suspension of habeus corpus right in 1862.

The Supreme Court ruled that even martial law could not suspend constitutional rights and then one should remember that elections on that Tuesday in November are constitutionally demanded.

Regards,
Scott

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The Supreme Court ruled that even martial law could not suspend constitutional rights and then one should remember that elections on that Tuesday in November are constitutionally demanded.

Regards,
Scott

Gracias

Perhaps we would have a tyrant if there were no Congress and Supreme Court.

Sheesh

 

[lilithu]

Most people think that Lincoln was so supportive of the union that he would have done no wrong; but he did in fact declare martial law and the suspension of habeus corpus right in 1862.

Actually, he suspended it twice, in 1861 and again in 1862.

The Supreme Court ruled that even martial law could not suspend constitutional rights

If you are refering to the case in 1866, Ex parte Milligan, what the Supreme Court actually ruled was that military courts had no authority over civilian citizens of the U.S. when civilian courts are in operation. The ruling did NOT say that suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional.

and then one should remember that elections on that Tuesday in November are constitutionally demanded.

Elections must be held and yet the right to vote is not guaranteed. :sarcastic

(Did you read the article that cardero posted btw?)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

(Did you read the article that cardero posted btw?)

The article that cardero was referring to only addressed the right of Americans to directly vote for members of the electoral college and not about the American right to vote in general.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

A high school civics course is in order. And perhaps some critical thinking lessons.

But the great and powerful wiki helps us review:

15th Amendment (1870): no law may restrict any race from voting
19th Amendment (1920): no law may restrict any sex from voting
23rd Amendment (1961): residents of the District of Columbia can vote for the President
24th Amendment (1964): neither Congress nor the states may condition the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other type of tax
26th Amendment (1971): no law may restrict those above 18 years of age from voting

And also helpful for review is how a bill becomes a law in the United States:
http://www.vote-smart.org/resource_govt101_02.php

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And also helpful for review is how a bill becomes a law in the United States:
http://www.vote-smart.org/resource_govt101_02.php

Yes..

If a bill has to pass though a tedious and long democratic process of being proposed by a member of Congress, passed though committees and subcommittees of other Congress-people (8 steps), debated on the floor, sent to a conference committee, and finally signed by the President, then the rhetoric used to portray Bush as an autocrat are utterly baseless and empty.

Particularly on this thread:

Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally-odious Military Commissions Act of 2006

The author of course fails to argue using the code itself as evidence and completely ignores the history of the bill in Congress. It is as if the author is either stupid and does not know how a bill becomes law or is purposely deceiving the reader into thinking that Bush is a dictator or is acting like one. The simple truth is that Bush is not seizing anything, but signing into law that which was proposed, debated, and approved by a variety of elected representatives of the people of the United States.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The author of course fails to argue using the code itself as evidence and completely ignores the history of the bill in Congress. It is as if the author is either stupid and does not know how a bill becomes law or is purposely deceiving the reader into thinking that Bush is a dictator or is acting like one. The simple truth is that Bush is not seizing anything, but signing into law that which was proposed, debated, and approved by a variety of elected representatives of the people of the United States.

Yes. It has been my experience that people who argue and follow or promote such rhetoric both know nothing about the American democratic process and refuse to participate in it by voting, writing their representatives, financially supporting candidates, or volunteering.

Ironic that those are both ignorant of the democratic process and refuse to participate in democracy accuse their representatives of being tyrants. Both their rhetoric and refusal to participate are unfortunate.

 

[lilithu]

The article that cardero was referring to only addressed the right of Americans to directly vote for members of the electoral college and not about the American right to vote in general.

And the functional significance of that distinction is??

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And the functional significance of that distinction is??

That the electoral college are not voted on is not evidence that Americans do not have a constitutional right to vote.

Wheras these amendments to the Constitution are evidence of the constitutional right to vote:

15th Amendment (1870): no law may restrict any race from voting
19th Amendment (1920): no law may restrict any sex from voting
23rd Amendment (1961): residents of the District of Columbia can vote for the President
24th Amendment (1964): neither Congress nor the states may condition the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other type of tax
26th Amendment (1971): no law may restrict those above 18 years of age from voting

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That the electoral college are not voted on is not evidence that Americans do not have a constitutional right to vote.

Wheras these amendments to the Constitution are evidence of the constitutional right to vote:

15th Amendment (1870): no law may restrict any race from voting
19th Amendment (1920): no law may restrict any sex from voting
23rd Amendment (1961): residents of the District of Columbia can vote for the President
24th Amendment (1964): neither Congress nor the states may condition the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other type of tax
26th Amendment (1971): no law may restrict those above 18 years of age from voting

In light of this constitutional evidence, this statement is the acme of stupidity:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060206/jackson

And yet the right to vote is not a fundamental right in our Constitution.

 

[lilithu]

That the electoral college are not voted on is not evidence that Americans do not have a constitutional right to vote.

Do you even know what case the article was refering to??! Bush v. Gore, 2000. Gore wanted more time before a winner was officially declared so that everyone who voted could have their vote properly counted. Bush sued in order to force an immediate decision.

And the Supreme Court, led by Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia, sided with Bush, saying that:
"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States."
In other words, you do not have a fundamental right to vote for the president of the United States.

Wheras these amendments to the Constitution are evidence of the constitutional right to vote:

15th Amendment (1870): no law may restrict any race from voting
19th Amendment (1920): no law may restrict any sex from voting
23rd Amendment (1961): residents of the District of Columbia can vote for the President
24th Amendment (1964): neither Congress nor the states may condition the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other type of tax
26th Amendment (1971): no law may restrict those above 18 years of age from voting

You cite these laws which expand the right to vote to more and more people without seeming to understand that they in essence prove that we do not have a fundamental constitutional right to vote. If we did, then these amendments would not be necessary.

Think about it. If the Constitution said, "Everyone over 18 has the right to vote" then all of these amendments would have been superfluous.

And the fact is that there is a world of difference between making something legal and making it accessible. If it's not accessible, then functionally speaking it might as well be illegal for those who don't have access. So theoretically, the powers that be can hold elections as mandated by the Constitution and yet make it extremely difficult for certain segments of the population to cast votes in that election.

Oh wait, that's not theoretical; that's already happened. :sarcastic
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/palast
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/036218

A constitutional right to vote means that everyone who is eliglible and wants to vote:
1) is allowed to vote
2) is able to vote (ie - no unreasonable obstacles), and
3) has his or her vote counted

 

[nutshell]

Do you even know what case the article was refering to??! Bush v. Gore, 2000. Gore wanted more time before a winner was officially declared so that everyone who voted could have their vote properly counted. Bush sued in order to force an immediate decision.

And the Supreme Court, led by Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia, sided with Bush, saying that:
"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States."
In other words, you do not have a fundamental right to vote for the president of the United States.

Stop twisting words...that's not what they meant at all.

What are you really worried about? Bush is gone in two years or do you think he's going to declare he must stay to protect the country and extend his term through martial law?

 

[lilithu]

Stop twisting words...that's not what they meant at all.

Oh, then you tell us what they meant.

What are you really worried about?

I'm worried about the erosion of our rights. Some people seem to think that our rights and liberties are set in stone, protected by some kind of magic, when in essense they need to be constantly defended. Complacency is what causes us to lose our rights.

 

[lilithu]

That the electoral college are not voted on is not evidence that Americans do not have a constitutional right to vote.

I was reading up on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in the mighty wiki:

"While the title of the Voting Rights Act might imply that it established an explicit right to vote for U.S. citizens, there is no such federal right. However, the Voting Rights Act and three constitutional amendments that prevent discrimination in granting the franchise have established in United States Supreme Court jurisprudence that there is a "fundamental right" in the franchise, even though voting remains a state-granted privilege."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I was reading up on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in the mighty wiki:

"While the title of the Voting Rights Act might imply that it established an explicit right to vote for U.S. citizens, there is no such federal right. However, the Voting Rights Act and three constitutional amendments that prevent discrimination in granting the franchise have established in United States Supreme Court jurisprudence that there is a "fundamental right" in the franchise, even though voting remains a state-granted privilege."

 

[cardero]

Lilithu writes:I'm worried about the erosion of our rights. Some people seem to think that our rights and liberties are set in stone, protected by some kind of magic, when in essense they need to be constantly defended. Complacency is what causes us to lose our rights.

The signing of the Patriot Act in October 26, 2001 alone compromises our Constitution and there are most likely going to be many new laws and acts waiting to be signed between now and 2008 to insure not what is best for the people of this country but what is best for the people running this country. Our Constitution is being amended even now as we speak. We can either faithfully reread an ancient text written centuries ago or we can believe our own eyes by reading the writing on the walls.

Nutshell writes: What are you really worried about? Bush is gone in two years or do you think he's going to declare he must stay to protect the country and extend his term through martial law?

Bush isn’t gone until he is gone.

 

[Simon Gnosis]

Bush Moves Toward Martial Law

by Frank Morales

Thursday, October 26, 2006 -- In a 'stealth' maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.

Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally-odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."

Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."

For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry -- protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.

The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration emergency" and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.

An article on "recent contract awards" in a recent issue of the slick, insider "Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International" reported that "global engineering and technical services powerhouse KBR [Kellog, Brown & Root] announced in January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency." "With a maximum total value of $385 million over a five year term," the report notes, "the contract is to be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers," "for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) -- in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs." The report points out that "KBR is the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton." (3) So , in addition to authorizing another $532.8 billion for the Pentagon, including a $70-billion "supplemental provision" which covers the cost of the ongoing, mad military maneuvers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places, the new law, signed by the president in a private White House ceremony, further collapses the historic divide between the police and the military: a tell-tale sign of a rapidly consolidating police state in America, all accomplished amidst ongoing U.S. imperial pretensions of global domination, sold to an "emergency managed" and seemingly willfully gullible public as a "global war on terrorism."

Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and jurisprudence. The 1878 Act, which reads, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both," is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the cover of 'law enforcement.' As such, it has been the best protection we've had against the power-hungry intentions of an unscrupulous and reckless executive, an executive intent on using force to enforce its will.

tbc

Hehehe

The US government has long considered its primary enemy to be it's own people.

Stalin would have been proud of Bush Jr.

 

[nutshell]

Oh, then you tell us what they meant.


I'm worried about the erosion of our rights. Some people seem to think that our rights and liberties are set in stone, protected by some kind of magic, when in essense they need to be constantly defended. Complacency is what causes us to lose our rights.

They meant exactly what they said.

 

[gnomon]

Oh, then you tell us what they meant.


I'm worried about the erosion of our rights. Some people seem to think that our rights and liberties are set in stone, protected by some kind of magic, when in essense they need to be constantly defended. Complacency is what causes us to lose our rights.

The governments activity regarding Trails End Ranch and the death of Donald Scott basically in practice obliterated some notions of civil rights. What else can you call it when a police department and several federal agencies raid someone's property under false pretenses, kill an innocent civilian, avoid any criminal charges and settle out a pittance $5 million dollar civil suit and in the end wind up grabbing the property anyway under the authority of the IRS.

Or when the Supreme Court determines that indoor plumbing is an excuse for law enforcement to kick in someone's door unannounced on the shakiest evidence of a confidential informant.

To me the Democratic and Republican parties are no longer viable. Neither take any serious issue with the current state of federal law enforcement and their responses to Supreme Court decisions in Raich, Hudson and Kelo are hardly stellar. These cases allow regulation of interstate commerce, wide lattitude in executing warrants and the power of eminent domain to make the Amendments meaningless. It also removes the concepts of private property and due process as the foundation of the Republic.

Some states are beginning to take action through voter referendums to counteract questionable Supreme Court decisions and Congressional laws but you would think that the killing of innocent civilians by the State in a basically democratic nation would provoke more alarm.

I think more Americans are more concerned with being granted a proper respect from other citizens rather than preserving their basic rights.

So basically, this screed agrees with you. Anyone who thinks a right is set in stone in this nation is sorely misinformed.