TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- 20,000 more U.S. troops inside America for purposes of “domestic security”
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN no, i only follow the CTers around. im rather respectful to most of the rest of the people. like i said, you already displayed a certain reluctance to engage in real debate and the weighing up of factual evidence, so now this is just what we're reduced to. i'll leave you alone as soon as you stop posting obvious BS regurgitated from the likes of prisonplanet.

Right. I'm really not interested.

quote:

Originally posted by guerra-monstru I did some research and the congress never passed those bills. So none of those are LAWS. Plus, most people are overreacting. The military will not do anything crazy.

Wait, are you German? Chilean? Philipino? Chinese? Burmese? Sudaness? Cogoless? South African?

I'm sure I've heard this before...

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} Executive Orders bypass congress. n00b.

Do you have a source for this?

Where can I find, in US governmental documentation, what exactly an executive order is?

quote:

Originally posted by guerra-monstru Nope, you are still mistaken. Everything you posted is ILLEGAL and will never be enforced.

ILLEGAL???

Typeing things is not illegal. What do you mean by this?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN you believe that christianity is really sun worship. you believe central banks are out to get you. you believe 911 was orchestrated by the US government. you believe anything films like zeitgeist tell you. and you think im the joke!?

This is a fairly strong argument....

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh, canada doesn't have a central bank (like every other country in the world)?

Our central bank is a bit of a joke and has even been criticized as such.

The big problem is that the job is a bit of a no brainer, look at what goes on in the US, modify slightly, cross fingers that the retards down south don't get to much power.

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} You've mistaken me with someone else. You'll find that I haven't made a comment on the Central Banking scheme in months. You will find, however, statements implying I have no interest.

Central bank, ... no intrest... good one!

Don't Executive Orders override constitutional laws under the Patriot Act? I don't feel like doing research at work because the connection on this computer is slow, so please [like I even have to ask around here] correct me if I am wrong.

I don't really think this is up for conspiracy theory though, as it is - the essence here is that the US Government seems to be increasingly stationing troops within its own country, with anticipation for a terrorist attack - why now? Why not 5 years ago?

I don't think anyone is actually trying to say that Bush is about to tell all his soldiers to open fire on American civilians tomorrow or something - there's no indication of something so radical, and you'd have to be some paranoid internet nut to think so... Uhhh...

But that's just how encroachment works - you move slowly and cautiously, under the red flags of most peoples' sensibilities. I mean, most people are probably totally ok with this - after all, if it's in the name of homeland security, and I don't have to give up anything, sure, why not? It's really quite innocuous and barely even affects my everyday life, so why should I care? You close a road one day. Three the next. Then you start installing military checkpoints, but only at large events at first. Then all over the place. Soon you have troops marching in the streets, asking people for their Identifications - you're lenient at first, so as not to stir up people's concernes in the matter, but then people begin disappearing - you probably see where this is going. You tighten the grip gradually, eventually making any uprising by the people impossible, and you do this by convincing them that they've nothing at all to fear anymore.

I'm not saying this is going to happen, of course - I have no evidence of such. It could be truly harmless precautions, just as stated. But it seems to me that people who allow themselves to be under the rule of an invasive and militant Government deserve to be subjugated as such and most certainly have been in the past.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Don't Executive Orders override constitutional laws under the Patriot Act?

how is it possible to circumvent the constitution (assuming there is a direct contradiction) with legislation?

quote:

Originally posted by atbell Do you have a source for this?

I'm sure if you did a little research on your own, you would find your answers much more convincing. A simple Google search brings up enough.

[size=1]http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2007/11/16/bushs-newest-tack-bypass-congress.html
Bush's Newest Tack: Bypass Congress
By Kenneth T. Walsh
Posted November 16, 2007
Since the start of his administration, President Bush has disdained what he calls "small ball," preferring to confront big problems with big solutions. Not anymore. As he tries to end-run a balky Congress, Bush is taking a page from Bill Clinton's playbook by adopting a series of mini-initiatives to change policy through executive orders and administration actions that don't require legislation.[/quote]

quote:

Where can I find, in US governmental documentation, what exactly an executive order is?

If you're that concerned with it, you'll have to find it yourself. Wikipedia has a sufficient description of its function.

quote:

Originally posted by atbell Central bank, ... no intrest... good one!

This forum is so redundant. I took part in threads concerning it, found myself out of depths in the arguments and rescinded.

People need to realise that the world moves on much quicker than text disappears. Moving on?

quote:

Originally posted by atbell This is a fairly strong argument....

..Unlike many of yours. Jesus. I believe 9/11 was an inside job, and I think Christianity is utter jokes, I'm not interested in the American Federal Reserve Banking system [remember?] and the fourth on the list is utterly useless. A generalised statement that holds no water. I'm anything but a sheep.

Why the need for circular arguing and semantics? It's such a waste of time.

from http://www.buddylogan.com/newlaws.html
Here's the deal:
Executive orders, by precedent, seem to bypass Congressional legislative authority. This is unconstitutional. Congress can overturn an executive order by passing legislation opposing it or by refusing to fund it. In the case of legislation, the president can veto the legislation. Congress can override the veto with a two thirds majority, which may be difficult if the majority is supporting the president. The president does not have, and Congress cannot grant the president, the power to create laws. However, given the above, shit happens.

Executive orders have been put into place that allow the president to declare martial law, suspend the constitution, and disallow the ability of Congress to review such actions for a period of six months. The reasons for declaring martial law no longer need to be defined. Orders have been put into place that not only severely limit our privacy, but remove other controls designed to protect us from abuse by our own government.

Wading through the mass of executive orders is a time consuming task. Executive orders are amended, revoked, or changed over time, sometimes altering the very nature of the original intent. I've waded through a vast number of web sites, many of which point to orders that are no longer in effect or have been changed. The only way to obtain valid information is to pour through the National Archives.

If you are up to the task, you can go to the Federal Register in the National Archives at

http://www.archives.gov/federal-reg...isposition.html

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN how is it possible to circumvent the constitution (assuming there is a direct contradiction) with legislation?

Hence why the Patriot Act is so controversial. It basically empowers them to do whatever they want to do, since we are "at war" or are facing "threat". Hurrrrrrrrr.

The Patriot Act This act allows the government to effect

i)secret FBI and police searches of your home and office without your knowledge;
ii)secret government wiretaps on your phone, computer, and Internet activity;
iii)secret investigations of your bank records, credit cards, and other financial records;
iv)secret investigations of your library and book activities;
v)secret examinations of your medical, travel and business records;
freezing of funds and assets without prior notice or the right to appeal;

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Hence why the Patriot Act is so controversial. It basically empowers them to do whatever they want to do, since we are "at war" or are facing "threat". Hurrrrrrrrr.

so why hasn't it been challenged in the courts and struck down? i dont understand how anything can work outside the umbrella created by the constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN so why hasn't it been challenged in the courts and struck down? i dont understand how anything can work outside the umbrella created by the constitution.

I honestly do not know, but you are right to question it because many millions of Americans disagree with it entirely - I'd say a far disproportionate amount according to how many of our elected officials were seemingly all for it or not present for the vote at all.

If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say it's because anyone publicly opposing it would be a prime target for everything it empowers certain agencies to do - incarceration and "interrogation" not seemingly excluded.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say it's because anyone publicly opposing it would be a prime target for everything it empowers certain agencies to do - incarceration and "interrogation" not seemingly excluded.

oooh, i hope they visit you to check your temperature!

FUCK! International entrapment!

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} from http://www.buddylogan.com/newlaws.html Here's the deal: Executive orders, by precedent, seem to bypass Congressional legislative authority. This is unconstitutional. Congress can overturn an executive order by passing legislation opposing it or by refusing to fund it. In the case of legislation, the president can veto the legislation. Congress can override the veto with a two thirds majority, which may be difficult if the majority is supporting the president. The president does not have, and Congress cannot grant the president, the power to create laws. However, given the above, shit happens. Executive orders have been put into place that allow the president to declare martial law, suspend the constitution, and disallow the ability of Congress to review such actions for a period of six months. The reasons for declaring martial law no longer need to be defined. Orders have been put into place that not only severely limit our privacy, but remove other controls designed to protect us from abuse by our own government. Wading through the mass of executive orders is a time consuming task. Executive orders are amended, revoked, or changed over time, sometimes altering the very nature of the original intent. I've waded through a vast number of web sites, many of which point to orders that are no longer in effect or have been changed. The only way to obtain valid information is to pour through the National Archives. If you are up to the task, you can go to the Federal Register in the National Archives at http://www.archives.gov/federal-reg...isposition.html

Thanks for posting this stuff. I'll try to get some time to look at it. Need to get some real work out of the way first.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Don't Executive Orders override constitutional laws under the Patriot Act? I don't feel like doing research at work because the connection on this computer is slow, so please [like I even have to ask around here] correct me if I am wrong.

The problem with these executive orders. Is that they were signed by the president. Not BUSH but JFK. No one in congress liked it or the senate liked it. After his death. The orders were repelled and made illegal.

quote:

Originally posted by guerra-monstru The problem with these executive orders. Is that they were signed by the president. Not BUSH but JFK. No one in congress liked it or the senate liked it. After his death. The orders were repelled and made illegal.

lol...all so wrong. Stop spreading ignorance, you silly bastard. I'll only state this once more, because you seem to be taking the piss with this level of logic and shallow research. There are thousands of EOs in the Registrar.. Kennedy wrote only 113.

quote:

Originally posted by atbell Thanks for posting this stuff. I'll try to get some time to look at it. Need to get some real work out of the way first.

I'm thankful someone appreciates it.

bump

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.