[tomder55]

DC

I generally agree with that. Often Federal Troops were used to enforce fugitive slave laws ,but on the other side of the coin ,Posse Comitatus passage derailed Reconstruction and gave rise to a century of lost progress in civil rights.

Was it wrong after that for Kennedy to use Federal troops in Little Rock ? Not as cut and dried a question as it appears .

[Dark_crow]

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?

Because he could have vetoed it; because he did not make a public stand against it.

Interestingly enough, the bill that went in to committee came out completely different than when it went in. My guess, they should have waited a sufficient time until their emotions settled. They were all too quick because they wanted to seize the moment with the voters.

[excon]

Hello:

We get hung up too much on WHO did it. I care more about WHAT we did. We get into trouble when we make laws reactively. You'd think we'd stop doing that. Nope.

excon

[ETWolverine]

DC,

Assuming your catagorization of Bush's move toward martial law is true (and I question that), would you care to revisit your position on the right to bear arms and it's purpose as a deterrant to the type of martial law that you so obviously fear?

In truth, though, it seems clear to me that the change in the law just makes it easier to declare a state of emergency and take control of military assets in case of a natural disaster or terrorist attack.

Imagine if Bush had been able to decalre a state of emergency in New Orleans after Huricane Katrina without having to wait 3 days for the Governor of Louisiana to declare it? Might that not have helped prevent the "failed" response that everyone seems to blame Bush for? That's what this change in law accomplishes. It expands the president's ability to declare a state of emergency in cases where one exists and take control of local assets without having to wait for local authorities to act.

I really don't see how this is a bad thing. But if you do, aren't you happy there is a right to bear arms to prevent the tyranny you fear?

Elliot

[tomder55]

Excon

I think what was more important in my replies is why it was done . As I mentioned there were reasons that Fed. Troops were used that were wrong and reasons I believe were justified. The bigger issue I think is that there is not a Constitutional prohibition against it. I also find it curious that when new laws are considered or old laws revised under President Bush it is treated as some kind of outrageous exception to our history .

The laws regarding the use of troops for domestic reasons have been modified from time to time since Jefferson wanted to use troops against Aaron Burr. Revising and reviewing laws is a function of the respective branches of government .

[ETWolverine]

One more thing: This move by Bush keeps getting called a "stealth maneuver" that Bush did in the "dead of night". But if that is what it was, it wasn't very stealthy. Both the House and the Senate approved the bill after extensive debate. Ted Kennedy was in agreement with the bill (I think I'm going to shoot myself... I actually am in agreement with Ted Kennedy), while Pat Leahy disagreed. The Senate vote was UNANIMOUS and the House vote was with an overwhelming majority. So this was hardly a "stealth maneuver" at all.

[Dark_crow]

DC,

Assuming your catagorization of Bush's move toward martial law is true (and I question that), would you care to revisit your position on the right to bear arms and it's purpose as a deterrant to the type of martial law that you so obviously fear?

In truth, though, it seems clear to me that the change in the law just makes it easier to declare a state of emergency and take control of military assets in case of a natural disaster or terrorist attack.

Imagine if Bush had been able to decalre a state of emergency in New Orleans after Huricane Katrina without having to wait 3 days for the Governor of Louisiana to declare it? Might that not have helped prevent the "failed" response that everyone seems to blame Bush for? That's what this change in law accomplishes. It expands the president's ability to declare a state of emergency in cases where one exists and take control of local assets without having to wait for local authorities to act.

I really don't see how this is a bad thing. But if you do, aren't you happy there is a right to bear arms to prevent the tyranny you fear?

Elliot

If you believe that my OP subject is another way of saying, “Bush is engaged it a plot to declare Martial Law,” you are sadly mistaken.

The right to bear arms will do nothing against tanks, fire bombs and hand held rockets. What it will do is help the citizen-soldier who has been pushed into secluded mountainous areas, and that would be a long struggle…as Castro and many others can attest to.

But why rely on that as a last defense rather than limiting government power as a first defense.

That we need an army in the streets to respond to terrorist or a major event is just silly, given we have National Guard units.

Are we to give-up all state rights to a National Democratic State.

I am tiring from the elevated security alerts, vague warnings of imminent terrorist attacks? Patrick Henry did not say, Give me absolute safety or give me death.

Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

[speechlesstx]

Because he could have vetoed it; because he did not make a public stand against it.

Interestingly enough, the bill that went in to committee came out completely different than when it went in. My guess, they should have waited a sufficient time until their emotions settled. They were all too quick because they wanted to seize the moment with the voters.

I see, in spite of what anyone else does, Bush should be blamed not only for what he does, but what he doesn't do? Sorry, but this blame Bush game is just getting more ridiculous (if that's possible). What exactly do these changes mean anyway? Here is the troubling section:

`Sec. 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law

`(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies- (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--

`(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--

`(I) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
←→

`(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
←→

`(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
←→

`(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--

`(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

`(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
←→

`(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

`(b) Notice to Congress- The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.'

Sounds to me like the primary function of this law is to protect the US and our constitutional rights. I could be wrong... but then again as Elliot keeps pointing out, one of those rights is the right to keep and bear arms.

[Dark_crow]

I see, in spite of what anyone else does, Bush should be blamed not only for what he does, but what he doesn't do? Sorry, but this blame Bush game is just getting more ridiculous (if that's possible).

What! You don’t believe a person should not be blamed for what they don’t do?

Amazing, isn’t it? How many times have I heard Clinton blamed for not getting Osama Bin Laden when he had the chance; more than anyone could possibly count.

Why don’t you just fess-up, your ‘Fuehrer’ can do no wrong in your book.

[speechlesstx]

What! You don’t believe a person should not be blamed for what they don’t do?

Amazing, isn’t it? How many times have I heard Clinton blamed for not getting Osama Bin Laden when he had the chance; more than anyone could possibly count.

Why don’t you just fess-up, your ‘Fuehrer’ can do no wrong in your book.

LOL, your use of the word "Fuerhrer" for Bush helps make my point. There's nothing to "fess-up" on this end, I'm more interested in the reality of things than conspiracies.

Absolutely, Clinton was dogged and still is at times, but the hatred for this president among Americans has to be unprecedented, and surely even you have to admit that Bush gets blamed for everything. Everything he does, everything he doesn't do, and a lot of things that other people do. There were hundreds of other names accountable for this legislation, it's just typical that Bush gets all the blame - in spite of I believe a veto-proof passage.

It seems to me Bush caught all kinds of hell for not getting the National Guard in after Katrina, which was Gov. Blanco's responsibility to request, so it seems this gives the president authority to bypass incompetent governors and get help to where it's needed - something congress apparently felt was necessary. So what's the guy to do, veto it and risk another disaster and catch hell for that, or sign it and catch hell for it anyway?

[Dark_crow]

Helps you make what point; the point of referring to him as “Your Fuehrer” was simply that in your adoration of him as one who can do no wrong flies against all reason.

[ETWolverine]

The right to bear arms will do nothing against tanks, fire bombs and hand held rockets.

Certainly not if you don't have 'em.

What it will do is help the citizen-soldier who has been pushed into secluded mountainous areas, and that would be a long struggle…as Castro and many others can attest to.

ALL wars are long struggles. Nothing new there. The Revolutionary War lasted close to a decade. But there are things that can be done to fight against tanks and such.

But why rely on that as a last defense rather than limiting government power as a first defense.

No disagreement there. But having one doesn't preclude having the other as well. And once the government has taken tyrannical power, all that's left is our ability to defend ourselves... the 2nd Amendment.

need an army in the streets to respond to terrorist or a major event is just silly, given we have National Guard units.

Agreed. Nevertheless, if we had US Army S&R teams available to us in the wake of Katrina, should Bush not have used them?

to give-up all state rights to a National Democratic State.

Nope. Just the ones provided for the Federal Government in the Constitution... including the power "to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" (Constitution, Article I Section 8).

I am tiring from the elevated security alerts, vague warnings of imminent terrorist attacks? Patrick Henry did not say, Give me absolute safety or give me death.

I'm tired of them too. We should just bomb the hell out of them and be done with it. Barring that, what other options do we have.

Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Yes, he did. But notice the wording: "ESSENTIAL liberty" and "A LITTLE TEMPORARY safety". I see nothing "essential" that we are being asked to give up. Not do I see what Bush is trying to accomplish as "little" or "temporary". I see us giving up pretty much NOTHING OF CONSEQUENCE for a WHOLE LOT of PERMANENT safety. And I think that's a bargain that Ben Franklin would have approved of.

Elliot

[Dark_crow]

Certainly not if you don't have 'em.



ALL wars are long struggles. Nothing new there. The Revolutionary War lasted close to a decade. But there are things that can be done to fight against tanks and such.



No disagreement there. But having one doesn't preclude having the other as well. And once the government has taken tyrannical power, all that's left is our ability to defend ourselves... the 2nd Amendment.



Agreed. Nevertheless, if we had US Army S&R teams available to us in the wake of Katrina, should Bush not have used them?

Nope. Just the ones provided for the Federal Government in the Constitution... including the power "to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" (Constitution, Article I Section 8).



I'm tired of them too. We should just bomb the hell out of them and be done with it. Barring that, what other options do we have.



Yes, he did. But notice the wording: "ESSENTIAL liberty" and "A LITTLE TEMPORARY safety". I see nothing "essential" that we are being asked to give up. Not do I see what Bush is trying to accomplish as "little" or "temporary". I see us giving up pretty much NOTHING OF CONSEQUENCE for a WHOLE LOT of PERMANENT safety. And I think that's a bargain that Ben Franklin would have approved of.

Elliot

Elliot

You appear to be as obsessed with The Right to bear arms, as anti-Semites are with Zionism…you never pass-up the chance to bring it up no matter how irrelevant.

I find it illogical that you break down my argument into particulars so that the intended context of the whole is lost to separate particular contexts.

I will charitably mark it down to you occupation rather than simple argumentative dishonesty.

[speechlesstx]

Helps you make what point; the point of referring to him as “Your Fuehrer” was simply that in your adoration of him as one who can do no wrong flies against all reason.

Dark, assumptions do not become you. I'm not going to spend another minute trying to convince people I'm not a blind follower of the president, nor do I "adore" him. Feel free to think whatever the hell you want to think, I know who I am and I know the facts don't warrant your insult... just like that asinine David Duke remark.

[Dark_crow]

Dark, assumptions do not become you. I'm not going to spend another minute trying to convince people I'm not a blind follower of the president, nor do I "adore" him. Feel free to think whatever the hell you want to think, I know who I am and I know the facts don't warrant your insult...just like that asinine David Duke remark.

Aww c'mon, you have such a thin-skin all I need to do is prod you a tiny bit and you go to pieces, and your arguments are awful, your conclusions almost never follow from your premises. I apologized for a comment you should have apologized for over your feeling insulted.. And you accepted my apology like you were doing me a favor, I still wonder if you understand you had no legitimate right to feel insulted.

Anyway, you're a well meaning kid and I like you even though your not much on abstract thought, yet anyway.

BTW. There is no thinking without making assumptions, by anyone at anytime. :p

[speechlesstx]

Aww c’mon, you have such a thin-skin all I need to do is prod you a tiny bit and you go to pieces, and your arguments are awful, your conclusions almost never follow from your premises. I apologized for a comment you should have apologized for over your feeling insulted.. And you accepted my apology like you were doing me a favor, I still wonder if you understand you had no legitimate right to feel insulted.

Anyway, you’re a well meaning kid and I like you even though your not much on abstract thought, yet anyway.

BTW. There is no thinking without making assumptions, by anyone at anytime. :p

Dark, my skin's jut fine. I take it if someone related you to David Duke and said something about "your Fuehrer" you'd be fine with that? No big deal, they're just associating you with the former Grand Wizard of the KKK and a man responsible for the deaths of some 6 million Jews, right? I can't imagine why anyone should take offense, can you?

When someone makes it personal is it a surprise when it comes right back at you? Come on DC, you're smarter than that, and you should understand why the "Red Neck Crackers" remarks were offensive. Replace "Red Neck Crackers" with some other pejorative like faggots, niggers, dikes, kikes and tell us how it sounds. It sounds like something that Al Sharpton, GLAAD and/or the ADL would consider "hate speech." Yet, for my coming to the defense of white southerners, and African-Americans being patronized by Democratic candidates I should apologize? I guess I really do need to work on my "awful" arguments and abstract thought.

With that said, do you have any more criticism or can we just move on, now?

[Dark_crow]

Dark, my skin's jut fine. I take it if someone related you to David Duke and said something about "your Fuehrer" you'd be fine with that? No big deal, they're just associating you with the former Grand Wizard of the KKK and a man responsible for the deaths of some 6 million Jews, right? I can't imagine why anyone should take offense, can you?

When someone makes it personal is it a surprise when it comes right back at you? Come on DC, you're smarter than that, and you should understand why the "Red Neck Crackers" remarks were offensive. Replace "Red Neck Crackers" with some other pejorative like faggots, niggers, dikes, kikes and tell us how it sounds. It sounds like something that Al Sharpton, GLAAD and/or the ADL would consider "hate speech." Yet, for my coming to the defense of white southerners, and African-Americans being patronized by Democratic candidates I should apologize? I guess I really do need to work on my "awful" arguments and abstract thought.

With that said, do you have any more criticism or can we just move on, now?

What a selective memory you have…remember when I suggested you must come from a Recluse family because you were somehow ignorant of racism when you grew-up, and did not know it existed around you, even though Texas had just intergraded the large city school systems and had a long history of violent racism.

So far as the comment about sounding like David Duke, that was directed at your…you right, saying, “Red Neck Crackers", not me, I never called you that.

So you see, I was right in both instances and you do owe me an apology for getting up-tight over a perceived insult that did not take place.

I can only conclude that you are blinded by your own far right extremism.

[ETWolverine]

I don't think the issue of 2nd amendment rights is irrelevant at all. If you believe that Bush is taking steps toward martial law, then you should be happy at the ability to protect yourself from the tyranical government he's creating. It's a pretty easy connection to make.

Elliot

[Dark_crow]

I don't think the issue of 2nd amendment rights is irrelevant at all. If you believe that Bush is taking steps toward martial law, then you should be happy at the ability to protect yourself from the tyranical government he's creating. It's a pretty easy connection to make.

Elliot

This is a curious argument, the entire rationale of an individual right to keep and bear arms is to defend against a tyrannical central government; the militia, or National Guard as it is now called is that defense. But somehow, you see nothing wrong with turning control of the National Guard to that supposed tyrannical government.

[tomder55]

The milita had a broader meaning than that . That argument has been used many times by those who would restrict individual gun ownership.

But if as you say the militia or National Guard's role is defense against the gvt. Then the US has freely turned them into the sword of the government many times before President Bush( Which also happens to fits in nicely with my premise on this posting ) .

The militia was used extensively in the Mexican American war ;the early civil war and the Spanish-American war and 40% of the AEF in WWI and in all subsequent wars of the 20th century . I would have to say that if they are the protection against the tyrannical central gvt. We are up the creek .