Bush moves toward Martial Law


This would have course literally sets aside Constitutional rights
During the night of October 27, President George W. Bush has signed a bill into law that changes the Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335). Public Law 109-364 allows the president to declare a state of emergency anywhere at any time and move United States troops to suppress any public disorder. It also allows the president to take control of any state troops, forces, or National Guard.

Why do you suppose he has made this move?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Bush moves toward Martial Law


This would of course literally sets aside Constitutional rights
During the night of October 27, President George W. Bush has signed a bill into law that changes the Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335). Public Law 109-364 allows the president to declare a state of emergency anywhere at any time and move United States troops to suppress any public disorder. It also allows the president to take control of any state troops, forces, or National Guard.

Why do you suppose he has made this move?

---

Because both the House (398-23) and Senate (unanimous) voted for changes to the original act in late September of 2006.

One passage was changed.

The original wording of the act which was worded thusly:

.. . insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.. .

Was changed to include the following:

.. . natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition.

Frankly, I'm not seeing how this changes much of anything in regards to Presidential powers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamgrowler

Because both the House (398-23) and Senate (unanimous) voted for changes to the original act in late September of 2006.

One passage was changed.

The original wording of the act which was worded thusly:

. . .insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy. . .

Was changed to include the following:

. . .natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition.

Frankly, I'm not seeing how this changes much of anything in regards to Presidential powers.

---

Incident, or other condition are darn Vague

Yes, there is always a order that allows that, just as governors have power to bring out the national guard in emergencys. Nothing new, just updating old orders

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Yes, there is always a order that allows that, just as governors have power to bring out the national guard in emergencys. Nothing new, just updating old orders

---

This gives the president and not the Governor power over National Guard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamgrowler

Because both the House (398-23) and Senate (unanimous) voted for changes to the original act in late September of 2006.

One passage was changed.

The original wording of the act which was worded thusly:

. . .insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy. . .

Was changed to include the following:

. . .natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition.

Frankly, I'm not seeing how this changes much of anything in regards to Presidential powers.

---

Public Law 109-364 allows the president to declare a state of emergency anywhere at any time and move United States troops to suppress any public disorder. It also allows the president to take control of any state troops, forces, or national guard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

This gives the president and not the Governor power over National Guard

---

The President has had the power to take control of the National Guard from State Governors under the Insurrection Act since 1807.

Hello DC:

You were laughing at me earlier when I spoke about the makeup of the troops and the arming of Americans. I wondered whether they would point their guns at Americans... THIS is why I said that, and who do you think the troops he can call out are going to be pointing their guns at??

excon

PS> Well, at lest you're going to be safe in Mexico.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Public Law 109-364 allows the president to declare a state of emergency anywhere at any time and move United States troops to suppress any public disorder. It also allows the president to take control of any state troops, forces, or national guard.

---

Right, just as it has since it's passage and ratification about 200 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello DC:

You were laughing at me earlier when I spoke about the makeup of the troops and the arming of Americans. I wondered whether or not they would point their guns at Americans...... THIS is why I said that, and who do you think the troops he can call out are gonna be pointing their guns at???

excon

PS> Well, at lest you're gonna be safe in Mexico.

---

What people fail to recognize is that not only this President, but ones to come can implement martial law when they want; America has been established as a war zone.
One major attack and martial law can be declared; even though there is a car bombing at a military base in Virginal, troops can be policing the streets of San Diego.

The President is instilling fear almost every day in his comments; when the terrorist cannot possible do the harm Russia could have during the cold war.

Mexico, I have more freedom here than I had in the US since the 60s; and guess what, I can walk down the street with a cigarette with-out worrying about some whacko screeching for me to stop killing her kids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamgrowler

Right, just as it has since it's passage and ratification about 200 years ago.

---

Right, the law was changed but not really changed, because congress needed the experience.:D

So a President can have an extensive number of soldiers under his command... thus, no need to institute a draft??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

So a President can have an extensive number of soldiers under his command...thus, no need to institute a draft????

---

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) spoke out vehemently against the provision, as part of an overall defense of the National Guard as a body, which is best employed locally, by the Governor of the state in which the Guard is stationed, and not siphoned off as an auxiliary national force by the White House and Pentagon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) spoke out vehemently against the provision, as part of an overall defense of the National Guard as a body, which is best employed locally, by the Governor of the state in which the Guard is stationed, and not siphoned off as an auxiliary national force by the White House and Pentagon.

---

And yet it passed unanimously in the very same body Leahy is a member of.

Go figger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamgrowler

And yet it passed unanimously in the very same body Leahy is a member of.

Go figger.

---

Yes, for that moment even congress succumbed to fear by the Profit of Doom- but that was because of the administration's poor response to the Hurricane Katrina.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Yes, for that moment even congress succumbed to fear by the Profit of Doom- but that was because of the administration's poor response to the Hurricane Katrina.

---

You're really a piece of work, DC.

I'd sure hate to live my life seeing bogeymen under every bed and behind every curtain as you seem to do.

I'm sure everyone remembers during Katrina that President Bush had to inform the Gov of Louisiana ;Gov. Blanco that under Posse Comitatus it was the responsibility of the Gov. to request the use of Federal forces in the state before he could order them there . This in my view contributed to the over-all poor response . The same did not happen in Mississippi .Governor Haley Barbour requested fed. Assistance on Saturday . Blanco did not request fed. Assistance until the Wed. after the storm .

The U.S. military has intervened in domestic affairs some 167 times since the founding of the Republic dating back to President Jefferson .But only when President Bush signs bills to update the provisions are conspiracies of intent concocted .

But I agree with DC and Excon somewhat in that I would tread on restrictions of military use for domestic reasons lightly . Excon hit on the key reason on another posting. I have already seen the Clintonoids with their hands on military power for domestic use. They fire bombed the Branch Davidian's complex at Waco .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamgrowler

You're really a piece of work, DC.

I'd sure hate to live my life seeing bogeymen under every bed and behind every curtain as you seem to do.

---

I don’t understand, I don’t see bogeymen under every bed and behind every curtain….Bush seems to.

You know I remember the cold war quite well, especially that in all those years we never had a Patriot Act.

Whatever the case, your comment does not fit with what I have said.

Someone touched on the vote, so here it is...

Jun 22, 2006: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each representative's position was not kept.

House: Ayes: 398 (92%) Nays: 23 (5%) No Vote: 12

Why does Bush get the blame when there were only 23 votes against the measure between both houses?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'm sure everyone remembers during Katrina that President Bush had to inform the Gov of Louisiana ;Gov. Blanco that under Posse Comitatus it was the responsiblity of the Gov. to request the use of Federal forces in the state before he could order them there . This in my view contributed to the over-all poor response . The same did not happen in Mississippi .Governor Haley Barbour requested fed. assistance on Saturday . Blanco did not request fed. assistance until the Wed. after the storm .

The U.S. military has intervened in domestic affairs some 167 times since the founding of the Republic dating back to President Jefferson .But only when President Bush signs bills to update the provisions are conspiracies of intent concocted .

But I agree with DC and Excon somewhat in that I would tread on restrictions of military use for domestic reasons lightly . Excon hit on the key reason on another posting. I have already seen the Clintonoids with their hands on military power for domestic use. They fire bombed the Branch Davidian's complex at Waco .

---

I’m reminded by an event discussed just a few days ago; one of the States just recently removed from law the crime of inter-racial marriage.

Once a law is passed, it only seldom is repealed, but most dangerous of all, is that it can be used as a precedent for getting another law passed; laws are stepping stones to more laws.

On the other side of the isle there was Kent State too; Some of the students who were shot were protesting the American invasion of Cambodia which President Richard Nixon announced in a television address on April 30. However, other students who were shot were merely walking nearby or observing the protest at a distance.

And then came a student strike of eight million students across the country.

When the National Guard are Policing in our streets, there will always be some evil that occurs, but to have our armed forces police the streets will even be worse.