|
20,000 more U.S. troops inside America for purposes of “domestic security” (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| {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, 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 I've waded through a vast number of web sites, many of which point to orders that are no longer in effect or have been changed.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 |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
how is it possible to circumvent the constitution (assuming there is a direct contradiction) with legislation? :conf: |
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. |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
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. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| 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. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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! |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| ! International entrapment! :stongue: |
|
|
| atbell |
| 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, 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. |
|
|
| guerra-monstru |
| 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. |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
| 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.
 |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
| 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. :wtf: |
|
|
|
|
