STATE OF EMERGENCY: forget any rights you thought you had.

I thought hat was the case too, but was too lazy to look it up.

But isn't it the President who actually declares the "State of Emergency" and not the Congress?

At least this is something done by congress and is within some legal bs rules...

These executive decisions (bush,obama continue) are not within the checks and balances at all and are much more dangerous.

Executive decision to start a aggressive unneeded war for example.

Check every administration back to Roosevelt's, you will find that each has extended "emergency powers" in one form or another since 1933 under different premises/bills/names.

The destruction of America goes much further back than either Bush or Reagan. It goes back to 1876 when it became incorporated.

The last true President worth anything was Andrew Jackson. Sad statement isn't it?

That was my understanding, as well. I am unaware of any state of emergency which has been declared by congress. Under the US constitution, the President has that right, although the constitution does not specifically outline the process by which a state of emergency is declared.

from Irish Eyes link:

Don’t worry about martial law being declared anytime soon. The fact is, American’s have been living under a permanent state of emergency since 1933 and the Roosevelt administration. Actually, many states of emergencies.

Every President since Roosevelt has used these proclamations for the sole purpose of maintaining and extending their own unconstitutional, Caesar-like powers, and those Executive powers continue to increase. In fact, since 1976, every President has either proclaimed new, or reaffirmed an existing state of national emergency.


relevant parts bolded.

ABSOLUTE POWER, CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY

-MACHIAVELLI

Quite right on the bolded portions. I was speaking to the state of emergency specifically cited by Roosevelt. Any state of emergency declared before 1972 has expired unless specifically extended by the presidend on a yearly basis. Likewise, any state of emergency declared after 1972 must specify the specific powers that the POTUS cedes himself. Agreed that multiple concurrent states of emergency have been, and continue to be, in effect.

Ok fine, bush was a fantastic president and he did nothing wrong.

[link to www.phrases.org.uk]

Lord Acton was actually the person who said this, although Machiaveli certainly understood the current nature of our republic.



"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." -- Lord Acton

Now, no one said that.

Thanks for the correction.. I have always thought it was G Machiavelli who said this. It is certainly true and he would have understood our current situation.

Can't you see yet that it hasn't matter what "party" a President is, they are all in collusion?

Do a search here on GLP for "1876" or Federal Reserve, Jekkyl Island...hell even search for threads on the Titantic.

You may seriously think that the concept of a "shadow gov't" is only a theory but as you research more and more about history and what went on behind the scenes you will see that the two party system has long been a sham.

Here is a great website to help you find how everyone ties together. Put in any name you want and follow the relationships. [link to www.muckety.com]

Well not you for sure, but that is the sole reason Irish Eyes responded to defend bush.

Wow nice change of tune from your prior partisan ways...

What happened?

LOL

Nice scifi fantasy scenario even if it is totally unoriginal.

Have you considered how much military would need to actaully be in the major cities to do what you suggest?

Have you considered how business would respond to such a plan, a plan that would shut down commerce for a untold amount of time.


Have you considered at all? Reality is a lot more complex than you are making it out to be with regards to a martial law scenario.

Again from Irish Eyes link...something to wrap your heads around.

quote:

National Emergencies Declared a Necessity

In the “Foreword” to Senate Report 93-549, Senators Mathias and Church wrote, “[T]here is no present need for the United States Government to continue to function under emergency conditions.” Later, in the body of the report, they added, “In the view of the Special Committee, an emergency does not now exist. Congress, therefore, should act in the near future to terminate officially the states of national emergency now in effect.”(12) The U.S. Attorney General, however, was of a different opinion:

The Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917 has been amended frequently, and in the process its original purpose and effect have been altered significantly. The Act was originally intended to “define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy.” 40 Stat. 415. Directed primarily to meeting the exigencies of World War I, its drafters intended the Act to remain on the books for future war situations. 55 Cong. Rec. 4908. Accordingly, when other war powers were terminated in 1921 an exception was made for the Act and it remained valid law. 41 Stat. 1359.
On March 5, 1933, President Roosevelt relied on Sec. 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act as authority for his Proclamation 2039 which closed all banks for five days. This was clearly a time of financial crisis, not of war, and hence was not within the literal terms and purposes of the Act. Congress rectified the situation five days later when it ratified the President’s proclamation and amended Sec. 5(b) to give the President the broad wartime powers of that section in times of declared national emergency as well. 48 Stat. 1. The desperate economic circumstances of the time dictated the passage of this sweeping change….
Another declaration of national emergency was made in Proclamation 2914 of December 16, 1950 during the Korean War. Trading With the Enemy Act powers were exercised pursuant to this proclamation throughout the war. Because the state of emergency so declared has never been terminated, however, this proclamation has continued to serve as the basis for invocation of powers under the Act. Most notably, President Johnson used Sec. 5(b) as authority for Executive Order 11837 of January 1, 1968, imposing controls over transfers of private capital to foreign countries….
On August 15, 1971, President Nixon, in Proclamation 4074, declared an emergency concerning America’s declining worldwide economic position. He imposed an import surcharge and devalued the dollar, among other things. One year later, when the Export Control Act lapsed for a month, he invoked Sec. 5(b) to regulate exports, basing his authority to do so both on his Proclamation 4074 and on President Truman’s proclamation of 1950.
The current law, which has thus accreted over a period of 50 years, gives the President a wide range of powers, but only in time of war or declared national emergency. Although the Korean war has ended, those powers are being exercised solely on the basis of the 1950 emergency; or, on the basis of the President’s unilaterally designating as “emergencies” situations which have only the most tenuous relationship to the serious national crises for which the Trading With the Enemy Act was originally intended. The President, with the approval of Congress,(13) has thus used as authority for extraordinary actions laws which have no real relationship whatsoever to existing circumstances. As a consequence, a “national emergency” is now a practical necessity in order to carry out what has become the regular and normal method of governmental action. What were intended by Congress as delegations of power to be used only in the most extreme situations and for the most limited durations have become everyday powers; and a state of “emergency” has become a permanent condition [emphasis in original].(14)

The importance of the above words must not be missed. What the Attorney General was saying is that the Government has operated for so long under the auspices of a national emergency, that an attempt to terminate that emergency status would itself inaugurate a crisis of monumental proportions. For example, most, if not all, of the welfare programs upon which millions of Americans depend for their sustenance — the most notable of which is Social Security — would cease to exist without the emergency powers which gave them life. More importantly, the entire credit-based economy is also firmly rooted in emergency powers and would instantly collapse should the Government be “restored to normalcy.” Americans have become accustomed to using Federal Reserve Notes in their everyday transactions, and since gold and silver have long ago gone out of circulation, nearly every business in the country would have to close its doors should paper money lose its emergency “legal tender” status. Unemployment on a much larger scale than during the Great Depression would also result, because employers would no longer have a way to pay their employees. It may seem fantastic to some that nearly the entire social, political, and economic structure of the country is balanced precariously on a single subsection of an obsolete Act from the first World War — but it is true nonetheless. Because of the unchecked wickedness of their late leaders, Americans are caught on the horns of a dilemma very much like that which the institution of slavery presented to Southerners in the Nineteenth Century; to quote Thomas Jefferson, “We have the wolf by the ears and can neither hold him nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.”

end quote

How does that bold part grab ya?

"The Prince" is one of my favorite reads. Mind you, it can be boring as hell at times, but it really points out the state of politics in the world. You have my respect for being willing to slog through it.

You do know what happens when you ASSUME don't you?

My reason for pointing it is to show YOU the bias that the media has been feeding you. It did not just start with Bush, it goes much further back. But I guess you still want to play the "Dems are better" game, sorry but they are just as culpable, if not more than Republicans.

All politicians suck, they closely resemble the world's oldest profession.

Nothing happened, I have known the above information for a few years. I just don't believe in big government, I don't believe in a nanny state, I believe in personal responsibility, I believe in hand UPs, not hand OUTS. I want the gov't out of my life as much as possible and a free capitalistic market system. So you would most likely still consider me a conservative if wont to put a label to such beliefs.

Last Edited by Smilin' Irish Eyes on 11/15/2010 09:59 AM

LOL there is still some of that partisan left in you, i guess it takes time to get that out?

First, if you look at my user number, its stays the same from post to post so you can see what i have written prior even if i do not have a user name, you stating "But I guess you still want to play the "Dems are better" game" shows you did not read anything i have stated prior.


Second, read what you wrote....

"the bias that the media has been feeding you"

There is no media bias, bush did in fact implement some hard core executive orders that were more constitutionally dangerous than any others in my life time.

That is not media bias, its a issue not just because its bush but because it is the reality we are living in now and not 1933.

And again most rational valid voters have noted obama has sat on the abusive executive orders and is just part of the prolbem, bushes 3rd term...



Well at least you are somewhat waking up to the bullshit left right gimmick finally....

This was the point of my response to this issue. As I understand the law (and I am not a lawyer) any emergency powers which were initiated by a president prior to 1972, but which have not been specifically extended by Executive Order on a yearly basis by every president since, are not in effect. Social Security exists under the Social Security Act, now, as codified by legislators and since altered to meet the needs and desires of every administration since. But that's a whole different can of worms to be discussed in a different thread. I agree with the basic premise of the post, although I think some of it is factually incorrect as it does not take into account Congress' reaction to the Watergate scandle which delineated and limited the powers of the POTUS in this respect.

Sigh.... the martial law you describe is far and away from the scenario being proposed by the OP, lets not get into the difference in population etc... that would require thinking abou it...

But yeah i dont have a clue, martial law next week!
Even if it makes no sense...

Hey KID tard....remember this post, when they take your DNA and your DETAINED IN A FEMA CAMP BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE YOU TO BE A THREAT

How about a true free enterprise market system instead?




What's the difference one might ask?

quote:

Carson’s central thesis is that “capitalism”, defined in the traditional Marxist/socialist/left-anarchist sense of separation of labor from ownership and the subordination of labor to capital, would largely be impossible under genuine free market arrangements. Most Americans are accustomed to thinking of capitalism and free enterprise as being one and the same. This is certainly the perspective taught in the state’s educational institutions and promoted by the corporate media. Carson lambasts fake populism of the type promulgated by corporate-sponsored afternoon talk radio which ignores the role of corporations, banks and other elite economic interests in fostering statism and instead works to channel the hostility of the working and middle classes away from the elites for whom most state intervention is actually done and towards the lower classes and the urban poor in a type of “divide and conquer” strategy. According to this ideology, the real enemies of free enterprise and proponents of statism are welfare recipients and the residents of homeless shelters and public housing projects. But it is the ruling class that is the primary beneficiary of state intervention. The primary role of such intervention is to redistribute wealth upward and centralize economic power. The tools used to obtain these objectives are as old as modern corporate states themselves. These tools include the state-imposed money monopoly, patents and subsidies.

Under the present system of federal government monopoly on the issuance of legal tender and central banking via the Federal Reserve, interest rates are kept artificially high, an artificial shortage of credit is maintained and access to finance capital is constricted. These arrangements centralize wealth and concentrate economic power in a myriad of ways. Carson argues that under a system of free banking, cooperative banks would be able to form and issue private bank notes as credit against the output of future production. Genuine competition among free banks would dramatically reduce interest rates, perhaps to the cost of administrative overhead. Access to cheap credit would make self-employment possible for nearly any industrious person with marketable skills or services. As the price of capital diminished, interest upon bonds, dividends upon stock and rents upon land and buildings would also fall. The proliferation of new businesses and the increased viability of self-employment would greatly enhance the bargaining power of workers, both individually and collectively. Workers would have a wider variety of potential employers to choose from in addition to greater opportunities to work for themselves. Employers would be forced by market pressures to make their workplaces more attractive to prospective employees. Workers would gain the collective power to demand the right of self-management in the workplace and could pool their credit to buy out their employers if they wished. This greatly enhanced bargaining power would essentially allow workers to control industries, even industries that remained nominally stockholder-owned. The virtual elimination of interest through market competition would also significantly lower mortage payments and credit card debt. The cost of housing would drop and overall workers’ savings would increase. Part-time employment would become a more viable option for many workers as would earlier retirement. Involuntary unemployment would also shrink.

end quote

more on this here:

Capitalism Versus Free Enterprise: A Review of Kevin Carson’s “The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand”
[link to attackthesystem.com]

LOL

And remember the post you made years from now when your fantasy martial law scenario never happened..


DNA detained in fema camp,LOL.


Seriously.... get with reality and stop jerking off to alex jones videos all the time.

If you perhaps got a job i think that would occupy your time enough to get you out of this doom wishing rut you are obviously in.

Irish, I would consider you a Laissez-Faire Liberal, like myself. That's not meant as an insult (since many don't understand it's meaning, I feel obliged to point that out). A Laissez-Faire liberal is pretty much akin to the views of our founding fathers in the US... do what you want, but don't ask me to pay for it and don't try to do it to others. Laissez-Faire liberalism is as close as you can come to anarchy without chaos. But even that can be taken too far. The anathema to laissez-faire liberalism would be progressivism. But again, that's another topic for another thread. And FWIW, the suckage of any given politician is directly proportional to their proximity to power.

Yeah, and doesn't that state of emergency still exist?

I don't know which mountains are in your neck of the woods, but around where I live "bugging out" to those mountains in the winter would be suicide for most.



Just sayin