Become a part of the TranceAddict community!Frequently Asked Questions - Please read this if you haven'tSearch the forums
TranceAddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > 20,000 more U.S. troops inside America for purposes of “domestic security”
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6]   Last Thread   Next Thread
Share
Author
Thread    Post A Reply
{b.s.e.}
savant garde



Registered: Oct 2001
Location: The Source

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 I've waded through a vast number of web sites, many of which point to orders that are no longer in effect or have been changed.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

Old Post Dec-04-2008 03:44  Canada
Click Here to See the Profile for {b.s.e.} Click here to Send {b.s.e.} a Private Message Add {b.s.e.} to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Halcyon+On+On
Liebchen



Registered: Sep 2004
Location: midcoast

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.


___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Old Post Dec-04-2008 03:47 
Click Here to See the Profile for Halcyon+On+On Click here to Send Halcyon+On+On a Private Message Add Halcyon+On+On to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
{b.s.e.}
savant garde



Registered: Oct 2001
Location: The Source

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;


Throughout modern history, these type of acts usually precede the establishment of dictatorial governments.

But whatever, right? No big deal.

Old Post Dec-04-2008 03:55  Canada
Click Here to See the Profile for {b.s.e.} Click here to Send {b.s.e.} a Private Message Add {b.s.e.} to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
pkcRAISTLIN
arbiter's chief minion



Registered: Jul 2002
Location:

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.


___________________

Old Post Dec-04-2008 03:57  Australia
Click Here to See the Profile for pkcRAISTLIN Click here to Send pkcRAISTLIN a Private Message Add pkcRAISTLIN to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Halcyon+On+On
Liebchen



Registered: Sep 2004
Location: midcoast

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.


___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Old Post Dec-04-2008 04:05 
Click Here to See the Profile for Halcyon+On+On Click here to Send Halcyon+On+On a Private Message Add Halcyon+On+On to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
pkcRAISTLIN
arbiter's chief minion



Registered: Jul 2002
Location:

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!


___________________

Old Post Dec-04-2008 04:09  Australia
Click Here to See the Profile for pkcRAISTLIN Click here to Send pkcRAISTLIN a Private Message Add pkcRAISTLIN to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Halcyon+On+On
Liebchen



Registered: Sep 2004
Location: midcoast

FUCK! International entrapment!


___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Old Post Dec-04-2008 04:11 
Click Here to See the Profile for Halcyon+On+On Click here to Send Halcyon+On+On a Private Message Add Halcyon+On+On to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
atbell
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: May 2007
Location: Toronto, Canada

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.

Old Post Dec-04-2008 14:42  Canada
Click Here to See the Profile for atbell Click here to Send atbell a Private Message Add atbell to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
guerra-monstru
Suspended User



Registered: Jan 2008
Location: D.F., Mexico

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.

Old Post Dec-04-2008 14:47 
Click Here to See the Profile for guerra-monstru Click here to Send guerra-monstru a Private Message Add guerra-monstru to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
{b.s.e.}
savant garde



Registered: Oct 2001
Location: The Source

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.

Old Post Dec-04-2008 17:34  Canada
Click Here to See the Profile for {b.s.e.} Click here to Send {b.s.e.} a Private Message Add {b.s.e.} to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
{b.s.e.}
savant garde



Registered: Oct 2001
Location: The Source

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.

Old Post Dec-05-2008 08:54  Canada
Click Here to See the Profile for {b.s.e.} Click here to Send {b.s.e.} a Private Message Add {b.s.e.} to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Q5echo
asymetrical scepticism



Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Dallas

bump

Old Post Dec-05-2008 11:16  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for Q5echo Click here to Send Q5echo a Private Message Add Q5echo to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message

TranceAddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > 20,000 more U.S. troops inside America for purposes of “domestic security”
Post New Thread    Post A Reply

Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6]  
Last Thread   Next Thread
Click here to listen to the sample!Pause playbackTrack needs identification! [2011] [0]

Click here to listen to the sample!Pause playbackRicky Fobis - "No Regular" [2005]

Show Printable Version | Subscribe to this Thread
Forum Jump:

All times are GMT. The time now is 16:12.

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
 
Search this Thread:

 
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict

Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
Support TA!