Well, here goes Amendment IV & V Respectively

Treason is specifically defined in the Constitution. How, exactly, does this action meet the definition?
Click to expand...

Well Buzz, isn't it pretty apparant to you? These clowns who voted this into "law" took, or supposedly took, and oath or affirmation to defend the Constitution itself. That was an original contract entered into forming this nation. And they swore (or supposedly did) to protect it's promises. ALL OF THEM.

Now they come to us with the idea that one person, with NO CHECK NOR BALANCES OF ANY MANNER, in direct defiance of the very INTENT of the Constitution, may declare martial law and put you to death, for expressing your viewpoints.

(Read the Military Commissions Act, in conjunction with the John Warner Defense Appropriations Bill, and it becomes pretty apparant)

Being that these clowns voted FOR this, it constitutes a direct violation of their oath of office and was intended to CHANGE our Constitution by subversion of our very system of government.

Is that enough to rise to the level of treason? I think so. In fact, it is probably worse than what Sandy Burger did, when he heisted top secret documents from the National Archives to cover up some other subversions done by the Clinton Administration, and got by with a Washington Insiders version of a traffic ticket fine.

But if you think it's okie dokie for your Congressman and Senators to pass a law that allows you to be put to death for protesting something the Govenrment does under the guise of a "Defense Appropriations Act" then let's just leave it at that.
 
Laws have been broken

In viewing the Constitution, at constitutionparty.com, Article 2 sec 1&4 Oath of office. Article 3 sec 2&3 trials and juries. Article 4 sec 4 protection against invasion, [ illegals]? Article 6 oath of all Senators and Representatives. I think that these laws have been broken, and due to the fact the war powers act has been abused, No [ WMD's] this takes the "war" excuse off the table for the Administration. So if portions of the Congress that is supposed to enact the Impeachment process are actually accessories to the crime, they too are treasonous. I personally hope that Pelosi does not become speaker, so John Cornyn goes ahead with impeachment proceedings for we know that at the very least misdemeanors, high crimes and possibly treason has occurred. The Bill of Rights has been unlawfully been over turned which is serious. We the people would have good cause at this point of establishing a new and uncorrupted government according back to the Constitution. We would not be 'combatants" doing this but patriots.
 
Well Buzz, isn't it pretty apparant to you? These clowns who voted this into "law" took, or supposedly took, and oath or affirmation to defend the Constitution itself. That was an original contract entered into forming this nation. And they swore (or supposedly did) to protect it's promises. ALL OF THEM.
Click to expand...

What is apparent is that people who supposedly support the Constitution tend to believe it says what they want it to say. Specifically, it says that "[t]reason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against htem, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." How does passing this law constitute levying war or giving aid and comfort to a declared enemy of the United States?

By the way, the point of this excercise is to get away from the rhetoric and try to have a discussion about the law itself. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with it, and I'd like to be able to explore what it entails without being told how evil and bad the nefarious characters are for doing something that may or may not be Constitutional.
 
Buzz. I agree, that is the point of my thread.

And the fact is, this law violates my right to free speech if a president decides my free speech is "civil disobedience" and can put me to death for it.

How in gods name, is that constitutional? And how does voting in favor of such an Act, constitute "protecting" the Constitutions promises?

I can't seem to understand why, in a country where there is zero civil disobedience, conpiracy, or any other action described in the Acts we are discussing, Congress feels compelled to pass such an obviously unconstitutional law. And it IS unconstitutional, as it is NOT in pursuance of the Constituion in accordance with Article VI.

For what reason is this assumption that we are all out of control necessary, in that they feel one person should be able to declare martial law on their own, with no check nor balance?

How is it justified, and how is it constitutional?
 
If by this you mean the National Guard is supposedly the "Militia" you are incorrect. This nationalizes the guard without the consent of the Governor of the State. It makes every National Guard member at a moments notice, part of the U.S. Military. The U.S. Military cannot be a citizen militia by definition.
Click to expand...

Gary, "by this," I am quoting the applicable wording in the Constitution.

And the National Guard is part of the Militia, as defined by statute, at 10 USC 311; it being the organized branch of the United States Militia, and the rest of us males from 17 to 45 or whatever it is are part of the unorganized branch of the United States Militia. And the President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the Militia when called forth into the service of the United States. If the governors have a problem with it, they should have a word with the congressmen from their state.

The Constitution empowers Congress to define how the militia is to be called forth, and nowhere does it specify that the governors of each state must consent. Congress gets to decide that.
 
The President may employ the armed forces [to] ... suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy [where] ...any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law
Click to expand...
How is this inspired by Katrina or the WOT? It sounds to me like something from the reconstruction era.
 
any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law...
Click to expand...
Such as the fundamental human right of self-defense and the constitutional right to keep and bear arms?
 
Many on this thread seem to be reading this law in a "vaccum." Remember, the same system of checks and balances exists today as before this bill was signed. Posse Comitatus? That's still the law of the land.

This bill gives the President the power to use the NG to restore the State government in such events as give rise to the conclusion that the State governmental structure has collapsed. Gary, your "free speech" would only amount to sufficient "civil disobedience" under the statute if your speech resulted in the loss of the Constitutional rights of another. I would certainly hope that you are not that good an orator! And, if you are, then you should be stopped!

This bill is a disaster-relief measure. It doesn't give the President the ability to attack domestic citizens. And, even if the President could twist the wording of this bill around to use it to a nefarious end, he would eventually be held accountable for it under the laws of posse comitatus through impeachment.

Everybody BREATHE!
 
"if the President could twist the wording of this bill around to use it to a nefarious end, he would eventually be held accountable for it under the laws of posse comitatus through impeachment."

That worked well when we impeached Clinton. What consequences did he suffer?

"Everybody BREATHE!"

In through nose, out through mouth.
Wax on, wax off. (sorry, couldnt resist!)

SW
 
This bill gives the President the power to use the NG to restore the State government in such events as give rise to the conclusion that the State governmental structure has collapsed.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the portion about the president using the ARMY also, to police any area in the country? It is right before the portion where it strips the Governor of his authority to be the one to determine if this extreme measure is necessary, and it strips the Governor of the power to call for it to stand down.

By the way, one person said I am "assuming the worst" of a president. Let me ask you, what huge big problem is extent, which would make this draconian act necessary?

Is there some huge public riot going on that is not on the news or something? Is there a huge problem with civil disobedience on your street that you haven't mentioned?

In other words, if I am the one "assuming the worst", how come it is ME that is saying that this ACT is uncalled for?
 
Everyone awake out there??

:eek: :eek: :eek:

I'm shocked there aren't more people outraged over this. You guys are so worried about your 2nd amendment rights you don't know misdirection when you see it. The dict--err...President just creates some bogus bird flu scare or mock terroristic threat to our country then with the might of the military and NG goes house to house and takes your weapons.

Never happen? Anybody remember katrina? Do you forget so quickly?

It's all there. Even detention centers constructed by Dicks boys at Haliburton.

You can say it would never happen, but it already has, so that argument is pretty much dead in its tracks. And once it starts, there's nothing anyone can do about it. The requirements for declaring this thing are so vague they are meaningless.

And don't you have to ask yourself why the prez and his boys would want to pass such a law, when adequate laws exist in terms of response to real national disasters? Think about it. This enables the president to use the military and NG as a police force in YOUR community.

That's called martial law.

It's popular in dictatorships and communist republics around the world.

It seems that apathy is the government's best friend. "Hey Dick, look at the rider I put on this bill. He he. Woo doggie!":eek: :eek:
 
Where does one start?

Do I remember Katrina? Yup. I also remember that despite the media calls and hype, it was the Governor of LA that would not call for federal aid. The law at that time required it, in order for the feds to interfere.

Were mistakes made? Yes. On both the State and Federal levels. And lest we forget, it was at the local level that the biggest mistakes were made. It was at the local level that the confiscations took place.

Despite the hype in this thread, there is a law in place that denies the Feds the ability to go after your guns, in an emergency. That law was passed in response to Katrina.

Despite the hype in this thread, this new law only improves Federal response time to an actual disaster. Again, a response to Katrina. What we don't know is if this particular rider will even stand up to challenge in the courts. I'm thinking it won't. But the fact remains, we simply don't know as yet. I would venture the opinion that in the case of a "made-up" disaster, the Governor of a that State would have some mighty strong opinions about Federal interference.

As for Martial Law, the Court has already provided for when it can be enacted and when it can't. Those precedents were set in response to the Civil War and its aftermath.

The Sky Is Not Falling.
 
Despite the hype in this thread, there is a law in place that denies the Feds the ability to go after your guns, in an emergency. That law was passed in response to Katrina.
Click to expand...

There can't be any such law. I mean, I read on this board that since 2001, gun owners have received nothing worthwhile from Congress. They haven't lifted a finger to help us, so that law can't exist.

Or, are you telling me that what those who are justifying their votes against Reps. are saying isn't true? I'm shocked, shocked I say.:rolleyes:
 
thought it was the responisibility of the govenor of said state to control the NG in the event of a katrina-esque disaster.
Click to expand...

Under this the president has the power to make a determination that the state government is ineffective. The President has to answer to no one to make this determination.
 
The President's determination is required to fit within specific criteria, so there is opportunity for a court to find the determination was invalid. The fact that he/she has to report to Congress on an ongoing basis indicates that Congress has an oversight role, as well as its traditional power of the purse.

One can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders.”
Click to expand...

Sen. Leahy apparently doesn't get out much. Governors and mayors have been dealing with this for years, every time they ask FEMA for assistance.
 
Quote from Antipitas:
Despite the hype in this thread, there is a law in place that denies the Feds the ability to go after your guns, in an emergency. That law was passed in response to Katrina.
Click to expand...


Actually, the law was passed in response to concerns about oppressive government, and was the Supreme law, known as the 2nd Amendment.

As far as that law "passed in response to Katrina" the City of New Orleans is STILL in defiance of that one, by their continuing refusal to return the weapons stolen by their city employees, and accomplices who "volunteered to help."
 
There can't be any such law. I mean, I read on this board that since 2001, gun owners have received nothing worthwhile from Congress. They haven't lifted a finger to help us, so that law can't exist.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and the NRA is ineffective at best, and anti-gun at worst, so nobody should become members. :rolleyes:
 
Gary Conner said:
Actually, the law was passed in response to concerns about oppressive government, and was the Supreme law, known as the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...
As we all know Gary, until the SCOTUS rules on whether or not the 2A is a personal right, and therefore it's being infringed, the current laws are Constitutional.
As far as that law "passed in response to Katrina" the City of New Orleans is STILL in defiance of that one, by their continuing refusal to return the weapons stolen by their city employees, and accomplices who "volunteered to help."
Click to expand...
Actually, the law I'm talking about was just recently passed by Congress (were you asleep?). Since it is not retroactive, it doesn't affect what went before. It merely withdraws all federal funding from any group (that receives federal funds) who would attempt to confiscate personal firearms in the event of a disaster or other similar emergency as happened with Katrina.

Either admit you don't know what I'm talking about or perhaps you can quit being facetious...

I say again, the Sky is Not Falling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top