Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack

[chess9]

XZII:

I think your facts in support of your conclusion are strong, but you've left out one important fact. The American people will put off the inevitable until they are absolutely certain they have to act. I truly believe that despite their laziness and stupidity, Americans will not let their freedoms die without a major battle. If this were to happen and I was 70 I'd be in the streets fighting Ashcroft, Franks, or whoever and so would most of the people here. It just won't happen because Americans-despite their warts, faults and many stupid foreign policy blunders-will not let the U.S. turn into Georgia...or Texas. ,

-Robert

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Czar
people should be worried but somehow arent, very strange i think

Worried about what? FEMA? If you are worried about FEMA, you obviously don't understand its purpose.

And if you are not worried about FEMA at least a little bit, you're obviously sleeping through your History classes. Ever hear the phrase, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"? How about, "those who foget history are doomed to repeat it"? You will find many examples throughout history of oppressive forces that grew from benign roots.

Will FEMA become one of them? Unlikely. Could it? Absolutely.

 

[Nocturnal]

I think this will happen sometime next year. Or it will start up a Civil war sometime next year. Yes, John Titor told me so.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
That's BS . . . I don't believe a US President can summarily suspend ALL Constitutional provisions.

he can, martial law is just what it says, ion the case of the united statres, the code of law would not be the constitution, but the uniform code of military justice.

anyone that joins the military also fall under the USMJ, not the constitution.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: chess9
XZII:

I think your facts in support of your conclusion are strong, but you've left out one important fact. The American people will put off the inevitable until they are absolutely certain they have to act. I truly believe that despite their laziness and stupidity, Americans will not let their freedoms die without a major battle. If this were to happen and I was 70 I'd be in the streets fighting Ashcroft, Franks, or whoever and so would most of the people here. It just won't happen because Americans-despite their warts, faults and many stupid foreign policy blunders-will not let the U.S. turn into Georgia...or Texas. ,

-Robert

This goes back to the old saying (which I will butcher, for your amusement): If you throw a frog into a kettle of boiling water, he will jump right out and bite your head off. However, if you put a frog in a kettle of cool water, and slowly heat the water, by the time the frog realizes what's happening, he won't be able to jump out anymore. Yea, it's butchered, but you get the point.

 

[Shad0hawK]

DP

 

[ReiAyanami]

is that how the french cook their frogs?

do they surrender when the frog bites them?

 

[fwtong]

Theoretically, the president can do whatever he wants, because he is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. All he needs to do is declare martial law because of national security. Supreme Court will let him do that, because in times of National Security, the law of survival trumps everything. Not to mention, beforehand, the President will ensure that the Supreme Court is packed with his people. Since the president has the ultimate enforcement tool, the Armed Forces, not much stands in his way to do whatever he wants.

 

[rickn]

military rule, in a country where everyone owns a gun and isn't afraid to use it = not a very good idea. I think if the US was hit with WMD, Americans would accept martial law for brief duration. It certainly would not be a good long term strategy. We would never elect our government officials. Imagine Bush's running the country for the next 100 years. Quite frankly I'd rather be dead

 

[dualsmp]

Originally posted by: fwtong
Theoretically, the president can do whatever he wants, because he is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. All he needs to do is declare martial law because of national security

Technically the President is not the Commander in Chief even with these illegal wars going on (Iraq and Afghanistan). The President is ONLY the Commander and Chief when Congress delcares war. It doesn't really matter though because the President side steps Congressional authority with Executive Orders, and as you said can declare National Security on just about anything. Then of course, he can sign everything over to FEMA which will ditch the Constitution altogether. Lots of unconstitutional policy going on these days.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: dualsmp

Originally posted by: fwtong
Theoretically, the president can do whatever he wants, because he is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. All he needs to do is declare martial law because of national security

Technically the President is not the Commander in Chief even with these illegal wars going on (Iraq and Afghanistan). The President is ONLY the Commander and Chief when Congress delcares war. It doesn't really matter though because the President side steps Congressional authority with Executive Orders, and as you said can declare National Security on just about anything. Then of course, he can sign everything over to FEMA which will ditch the Constitution altogether. Lots of unconstitutional policy going on these days.

It is Commander in Chief, not Commander and Chief and he is always the Commander in Chief. A declaration of war is not necessary. Sorry.

 

[dualsmp]

No, a declaration of war must be made by Congress for the President to become Commander and Chief. During peace time he is not the Commander and Chief. And before you say we are at war, we are not, because Congress has never declared war (Right now we have an illegal act of aggression against two sovereign courtries). Declaration of war is a specific act, and war has never been declared by Congress. Therefore Bush is not Commander and Chief. You can call him Commander and Chief all day, but he is not.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: dualsmp
No, a declaration of war must be made by Congress for the President to become Commander and Chief. During peace time he is not the Commander and Chief. And before you say we are at war, we are not, because Congress has never declared war (Right now we have an illegal act of aggression against two sovereign courtries). Declaration of war is a specific act, and war has never been declared by Congress. Therefore Bush is not Commander and Chief. You can call him Commander and Chief all day, but he is not.

Once again for the synaptically slow. It is Commander in Chief not Commnader and Chief. Article II Section II of the Constitution is very clear about the President being Commander in Chief without any other qualification. If you have other information please link to it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Any government official who decides to do away with the Constitution and attempts to do so loses his rights to office. The people may then attempt to remove him, by force if necessary, and it will be more than interesting to see if the average soldier choses the Constitution or the dictatorship. It would be a sad thing indeed to have the need for a civil war.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: dualsmp
No, a declaration of war must be made by Congress for the President to become Commander and Chief. During peace time he is not the Commander and Chief. And before you say we are at war, we are not, because Congress has never declared war (Right now we have an illegal act of aggression against two sovereign courtries). Declaration of war is a specific act, and war has never been declared by Congress. Therefore Bush is not Commander and Chief. You can call him Commander and Chief all day, but he is not.

You are just wrong. Almost as sad as the guy who thought constitutional ammendments could be challenged in court. WTF????

 

[Zebo]

Will? Every single right in the constitution has been severly buchered by the police state already. Go to New York and try to own or carry a gun, they have basically eliminated your second amendment permit. Habeus Corpus is gone for "terror" suspects, cash carriers like limbaugh and "drug dealers" or IRS "cheats". DUI check points are drug testing are clear violations of the fourth. The tenth amendment has zero meaning since congress decided *everything* falls under congressional domain of "commerce" now, spelled out in thier article one. President Clinton gave the power to use the armed services against the civilian population, neatly nullifying the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. President Bush continued the assault with the patriot act which was basically drafted before he came to power.

I agree with him though the courts, congress, president will bend and twist the written law until the consititution is a mere shell of it's former self in the intrest of "secuity".

Shelton/Franks 04' baby. Funny how these two life long military men know more about liberty and rights than any civilian running the show latly.

 

[ThePresence]

Ooops, never mind.

 

[fwtong]

Wrong!
Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution says:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
Please kindly point out where it says that he's Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces only when Congress declares war.

Originally posted by: dualsmp
No, a declaration of war must be made by Congress for the President to become Commander and Chief. During peace time he is not the Commander and Chief. And before you say we are at war, we are not, because Congress has never declared war (Right now we have an illegal act of aggression against two sovereign courtries). Declaration of war is a specific act, and war has never been declared by Congress. Therefore Bush is not Commander and Chief. You can call him Commander and Chief all day, but he is not.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Czar
people should be worried but somehow arent, very strange i think

Worried about what? FEMA? If you are worried about FEMA, you obviously don't understand its purpose.

And if you are not worried about FEMA at least a little bit, you're obviously sleeping through your History classes. Ever hear the phrase, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"? How about, "those who foget history are doomed to repeat it"? You will find many examples throughout history of oppressive forces that grew from benign roots.

Will FEMA become one of them? Unlikely. Could it? Absolutely.

Anything is possible. However, if something BIG were to happen to our country, in which a large portion of the civilian population was wiped out, and the entire D.C. area was obliterated, we'll be thankful that our leaders took the time to set up a government that could rise up and continue in its place.

So, the chances of something that big happening in the U.S. is small; and the chances of FEMA abusing its power when that time came is even smaller than that. Combine the two, and the chances are so small I don't feel the need to be all that worried.

But you are right, in the back of my mind, it is kinda scary when you consider just how much power FEMA could have.

 

[xyyz]

me thinks the executive branch has been granted too much power. i thought this branch's responsiblity was to enforce the law, not to issue executive orders to circumvent the legislative. if anything, the legislative branch should be able to strong-arm the executive, not the other way around.

the legislative would do very well in serving this country in the future, by scaling back the powers of the executive. i feel that there should also be a clause that allows the legislative to recind the powers of the executive for a brief period of time. i feel much better in having critical decisions made through debate by groups of representative, even if it takes some time to do, than having one potentially inept individual repeatedly making a wrong decisions.

again, these are my personal views.




"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

 

[alm4rr]

This thread needs a poll for when they think civil war is gonna break out

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: alm4rr
This thread needs a poll for when they think civil war is gonna break out

There is a Civil War thread but the AT experts are happy with a Nanny State so they'll most like;y just bow down to Authoritarian Control so there won't be a War according to them.

 

[Pliablemoose]

I actaully know a guy who's mother in law is dating Ret Gen. Franks, he says Tommy's a stand up guy.

I have no doubt FEMA would step in as a temporary government, and one could be needed if WMD were used in a way to knock out our current government.

Fact is, our gov is pretty sturdy & I think it would take some serious attack to trigger FEMA's assuming this role, and frankly most of us wouldn't be around to care if it did happen, we'd prob be dead.