Moderator: Community Team
true, from a certain point of view. many of the rights that our constitution said were inalienable, that no man could take away.2dimes wrote:Well this is as good a place as any to ask.
There's a guy at work talking about something that just passed in you're little country. He claimes it basically revokes the constitution except the right to bear arms.
Sounds too ridiculous to be true but I'm stuck wondering about it.
If you get right down to the brass tacks of the matter, there isn't a whole lot of difference between this 2007 provision and the original Insurrection Act of 1807. It has been modified to include events that had not been considered in the past such as disease epidemics, acts of terrorism or natural disasters on the scale of Hurricane Katrina. Furthermore, there is a provision which requires the President to answer to Congress every 14 days after such an emergency is proclaimed.vtmarik wrote:So now, not only can we torture anyone we think is a terrorist, we can also declare martial law whenever we want.
I can't help saying that I saw this coming. The last phase is the revocation/revision of the Posse Comitatus Act which disallows the military from being used as law enforcement.
If it happens, don't say there was no warning...
the military is used for law enforcement. coast guard, national gaurd among other thingsvtmarik wrote:So now, not only can we torture anyone we think is a terrorist, we can also declare martial law whenever we want.
I can't help saying that I saw this coming. The last phase is the revocation/revision of the Posse Comitatus Act which disallows the military from being used as law enforcement.
If it happens, don't say there was no warning...
They're used as security forces operating outside the mainland most of the time. The Coast Guard intercepts drugs and refugees and the national guard gets sent to war.terrafirma wrote:the military is used for law enforcement. coast guard, national gaurd among other things
Except under certain circumstances. The Posse Comitatus Act was originally conceived to prevent US Marshalls from calling on help from the Army on their own. It does not totally disallow the use of federal troops for domestic purposes - otherwise federal troops would not have been allowed to help quell the LA riots in 1992.vtmarik wrote:They're used as security forces operating outside the mainland most of the time. The Coast Guard intercepts drugs and refugees and the national guard gets sent to war.terrafirma wrote:the military is used for law enforcement. coast guard, national gaurd among other things
I mean patrolling the streets, operating jails, and eating doughnuts type law enforcement. The Posse Comitatus act disallows the military to be used in place of conventional law enforcement agencies.
That's what I'm getting at. There are a lot of reasons to be paranoid of the powers of the federal government, but this isn't one of them. The President must have (and constitutionally *does* have) the power to use federal troops in cases of national emergencies. What constitutes an emergency? That's for the acting administration to decide. But I'm confident that if the power is abused, the checks and balances that our brilliant Founding Fathers put in place will kick in.And no, I'm not saying he's going to start a military coup.
In the event of a coup, what makes you think the military is gonna be on the president's side?
No President can dismiss the Constitution with stroke of a pen by signing an executive order. Again, the checks and balances built into our federal government should preclude any serious abuse by any one person. We must have faith that our elected leaders and representatives will, above all, uphold the Constitution. And if we have doubts that they will, then it is up to us, the people, to make sure they're not re-elected.And if we are getting down to brass tacks, you're right. This does revise the original act to allow for new types of events but with a congress that does mostly nothing to naysay the administration, how would reporting to them every 14 days have any effect. All he's gotta do is sign an executive order saying that the congress is subject to him, not the other way around and we're all fucked.
Stop whom from doing what, exactly?strike wolf wrote:I disagree there is a lot of people in congress who naysay him, there's just no1 who will take a stand to stop him from doing this.
Not true.2dimes wrote:Well this is as good a place as any to ask.
There's a guy at work talking about something that just passed in you're little country. He claimes it basically revokes the constitution except the right to bear arms.
Sounds too ridiculous to be true but I'm stuck wondering about it.
Please cite an example.strike wolf wrote:Bush and from doing just about whatever he wants.DogDoc wrote:Stop whom from doing what, exactly?strike wolf wrote:I disagree there is a lot of people in congress who naysay him, there's just no1 who will take a stand to stop him from doing this.
No, they don't. You see, each of those required approval by Congress, so "he" isn't doing "anything" he wants. It is all within the framework of the Constitution. And I'm fine with that. I may not *like* what's being done but that's why we hold elections - to remove the people who aren't doing what we sent them to do. Once anyone starts to work outside the Constitution, I've got problems with.vtmarik wrote:Patriot Act, the Real ID act, the signing statement regarding the torture ban, Operation Iraqi Fuckup...DogDoc wrote:Please cite an example.
Those work for you?
He's the President. That's what he gets to do. The laws are passed by Congress who represent us, the people. If this bothers you or you think we're on the wrong track, you have a civic duty to vote your representatives out of office and tell the newly elected members they need to start making better decisions.strike wolf wrote:Maybe they are in the boundaries of constitutional rights but I can't remember the last time the congress did not pass one of his laws.
Yes, but the president wanted them in congress, and they were passed without so much as a "Hey, wait a minute, you're sneaking a National ID Card law into a Defense Spending Bill!"DogDoc wrote:No, they don't. You see, each of those required approval by Congress, so "he" isn't doing "anything" he wants. It is all within the framework of the Constitution. And I'm fine with that. I may not *like* what's being done but that's why we hold elections - to remove the people who aren't doing what we sent them to do. Once anyone starts to work outside the Constitution, I've got problems with.
And please don't go down the "torture" road. When we start beheading terrorists and then put the video on the internet so the family can watch then I'll say you have a point.
