• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Under what pretext could the President of the United States declare a state of emergency?

N

Narmer

Diamond Member
Seeing what's happening in Pakistan right now got me wondering if terrorism could be used to declare martial law in this country. Given the fact that America more than 90% christian, could a President declare a state of emergency if a few non-christian terrorists kill 10,000 Americans? Would the action be logical? I've never lived through such an event before so how would it play out? Could it be regional or would it have to be national?
 
America isn't more than 90% Christian.

He could declare that state, but it'd mostly be put into effect using state-controlled forces like the National Guard. All the feds would really do is centralize information and control.
 
Take a look here.

Not familiar with the credibility of this writer or site.

And then we have this year:
Executive Directive 51 which defines a ?national emergency? as ?any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.?. It also allows for the President to personally declare when this state is reached without any congressional oversight. This directly goes against the separation of powers in our constitution and also the National Emergencies Act which makes sure that Congress oversees the declaration of a state of emergency. This directive states that in this case an ?Enduring Constitutional Government,? comprising ?a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government,? will replace the current form of government and will solely be coordinated by the President himself. This effectively changes Bush into a dictator and gives him the ability to disassemble our current government and implement a new Enduring Constitutional Government - under his totalitarian rule.
What?s even more disturbing than that is the fact that all this that we know - is only the declassified information. The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive contains an entire portion that is completely classified. In fact, its so secret that Congress is not even allowed to see it.
Click to expand...
 
I think technically he could do it if somebody took a nasty dump in a public restroom at the Whitehouse. In reality, we just have to trust that it's done for more reasonable things like a couple of nukes going off in different cities or something.
 
Originally posted by: Narmer
Seeing what's happening in Pakistan right now got me wondering if terrorism could be used to declare martial law in this country. Given the fact that America more than 90% christian, could a President declare a state of emergency if a few non-christian terrorists kill 10,000 Americans? Would the action be logical? I've never lived through such an event before so how would it play out? Could it be regional or would it have to be national?
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with religion but the situation, suspending habeas corpus happened during the civil war and was considered a possibility during the cold war in case it went hot.

More on the ability to suspend habeas corpus under former President Bill Clinton and current President George Bush.

AEDPA
In 1996, following the Oklahoma City bombing, Congress passed (91-8-1 in the Senate, 293-133-7 in the House) and President Clinton signed into law the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The AEDPA was to "deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, provide for an effective death penalty, and for other purposes."

The AEDPA contained the first limitations on habeas corpus since the Civil War. For the first time, its Section 101 set a statute of limitations of one year following conviction for prisoners to seek the writ. It limits the power of federal judges to grant relief unless the state court's adjudication of the claim resulted in a decision that was (1) contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. It absolutely barred second or successive petitions. Petitioners who had already filed a federal habeas petition were required to first secure authorization from the appropriate United States Court of Appeals.


War on Terror
The November 13, 2001, Presidential Military Order gave the President of the United States the power to detain a non-citizen suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism as an unlawful combatant. As such, it was asserted that a person could be held indefinitely without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without entitlement to a legal consultant. Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus and the United States Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

 
It would have to be something really bad.
But I don?t think we would ever see something similar to what we are seeing in Pakistan.

However I could see him delaying the election if there was a major attack a few days before the election. By delay I mean a month or maybe two, but not long enough to extend his term as Presidency.

Otherwise you could set off a nuke in New York or Washington and the rest of the country would still be able to go about its daily life. In the case of something like that I suspect you would see some limited use of a ?state of emergency? to prevent the entire collapse of the stock market or the banking system etc.

BTW if there was another 9/11 type attack the day before the election would it be the Republicans or the Democrats calling for a delay in the national elections?
 
The closest event to declaring a state of emergency I can think of is the grounding all aircraft after the Sept 11, 2001 attack.
 
Would have to be some sort of horrible attack, like the nuclear type. Of course, no country would be dumb enough to do it in this day and age, so it's moot. In the far off future, who knows.
 
What does it even matter if dude says it's a state of emergency. Does that somehow make it all better?

"Look, ma! A nuclear-lookin-thing just fell on Sally-Paul's house!"

"Don't worry, son, they just declared a state of emergency...It'll all be better in 15 minutes I promise!"

:roll:
 
Declaring a "state of emergency" means nothing in the United States (it is regulalrly done such as during the California wildfires in October).

Here in the U.S., there is no emergency procedure to unilaterally suspend/change the Constitution or disband the Congress. If a president tried to do either, he would be committing treason, and I would be the first person in line to try to blow his head off with a sniper rifle.

To answer your question, if the entire Congress were killed, I imagine the president (or new president) would have the power to temporarily issue executive orders that would carry the weight of law.

If you are asking, "what would it take to get troops in U.S. cities".... again, that happens regularly, when state Governors order state National Guard units into cities.

It is illegal under the Posse Comitatus Act to use Federal troops in the U.S. unless there is an invasion or an actual insurrection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act

Unlike Pakistan, we have laws for everything, and we usually follow them.
 
Originally posted by: LordSegan
Declaring a "state of emergency" means nothing in the United States (it is regulalrly done such as during the California wildfires in October).

Here in the U.S., there is no emergency procedure to unilaterally suspend/change the Constitution or disband the Congress. If a president tried to do either, he would be committing treason, and I would be the first person in line to try to blow his head off with a sniper rifle.

To answer your question, if the entire Congress were killed, I imagine the president (or new president) would have the power to temporarily issue executive orders that would carry the weight of law.

If you are asking, "what would it take to get troops in U.S. cities".... again, that happens regularly, when state Governors order state National Guard units into cities.

It is illegal under the Posse Comitatus Act to use Federal troops in the U.S. unless there is an invasion or an actual insurrection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act

Unlike Pakistan, we have laws for everything, and we usually follow them.
Click to expand...


Hahahahaha! You have no idea what you just blathered out. We usually follow them. Try and sell that concept to the parents of this nation, who have lost thousands fighting this illegal war of lies. Bush & Co. will use any means at their disposal to serve their twisted interests and as already demonstrated, will change the running rules on the fly.
 
Originally posted by: yllus
America isn't more than 90% Christian.

He could declare that state, but it'd mostly be put into effect using state-controlled forces like the National Guard. All the feds would really do is centralize information and control.
Click to expand...

OP is a troll. That's why he had to use the Christian slur as though it were relevant.

The President could declare a state of emergency only under the circumstances that the people would accept and allow him to. Does that make sense? Many people like to pretend that evil "Satanic" forces work against them, when in fact it is only their hatred of their fellow human beings being mirrored back at them.
 
Originally posted by: Narmer
Seeing what's happening in Pakistan right now got me wondering if terrorism could be used to declare martial law in this country. Given the fact that America more than 90% christian, could a President declare a state of emergency if a few non-christian terrorists kill 10,000 Americans? Would the action be logical? I've never lived through such an event before so how would it play out? Could it be regional or would it have to be national?
Click to expand...


Troll on.
 
used for every dictator to stay in power, they shut down the Justice branch , the president is the only Law in the land
 
if the president of the US tried to do this, the revolution that Dave keeps preaching about would probably finally happen.
 
The revolution would be dependant on who controls the military, don't think that the President would take any chances or hold back on military casualties when it's his own arse on the line.

Most of the time it's the military that takes control and appoints a leader, like in Pakistan or Thailand, they rarely get around to holding elections either.

The "armed militia of the people" is a joke, i mean, at the time, handguns was state of the art weapons technology, today such a militia would have no chance at all, especially in the US where the military resources are plentiful, with tanks, choppers and fighter jets, a well trained military with several specialist branches that all carry weapons superior and has training far beyond anything the people have.. It would be a genocide.
 
The revolution would be dependant on who controls the military, don't think that the President would take any chances or hold back on military casualties when it's his own arse on the line.
Click to expand...

I think the difference is that the US military is incredibly spread out and diverse... I can't imagine them supporting an illegal coup.
 
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
The revolution would be dependant on who controls the military, don't think that the President would take any chances or hold back on military casualties when it's his own arse on the line.

Most of the time it's the military that takes control and appoints a leader, like in Pakistan or Thailand, they rarely get around to holding elections either.

The "armed militia of the people" is a joke, i mean, at the time, handguns was state of the art weapons technology, today such a militia would have no chance at all, especially in the US where the military resources are plentiful, with tanks, choppers and fighter jets, a well trained military with several specialist branches that all carry weapons superior and has training far beyond anything the people have.. It would be a genocide.
Click to expand...

Then why haven't the insurgents in Iraq been wiped out yet since the military resources are plentiful, with tanks, choppers and fighter jets, a well trained military with several specialist branches that all carry weapons superior and has training far beyond anything the insurgents have?
 
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
The "armed militia of the people" is a joke, i mean, at the time, handguns was state of the art weapons technology, today such a militia would have no chance at all, especially in the US where the military resources are plentiful, with tanks, choppers and fighter jets, a well trained military with several specialist branches that all carry weapons superior and has training far beyond anything the people have.. It would be a genocide.
Click to expand...

Then by your logic, the constitutional militias should not have been able to usurp the British because at that time, they were also going up against a well trained, well organized, well supplied military.

And "handguns was state of the art weapons technology;" do you even know what you're talking about?
 
Originally posted by: loki8481
The revolution would be dependant on who controls the military, don't think that the President would take any chances or hold back on military casualties when it's his own arse on the line.
Click to expand...

I think the difference is that the US military is incredibly spread out and diverse... I can't imagine them supporting an illegal coup.
Click to expand...

Then like in so many other cases the military takes charge, like in Cuba, Pakistan and a whole heap of other countries, they usually get support by saying they will arrange elections when things settle down, that is, when no one is protesting them anymore.

I admire the US constitution and system a lot because no branch has absolute power and control, but now the executive branch can have all power and control without anyone else having any say in it, the text could mean anything, it could mean "something really bad" or it could mean a minor incident, it's not clear what it would take.

Or it's clear to any normal human being what it would take, it would take a man who has no patience and wants to get things done by forcing them through rather than being patient and await the information needed to make an informed decision. Someone who thinks that you're either with him or against him.

You know, like any great dictator who wants to silence all opposition.
 
It could happen in a terrorist attack, natural calamity, invasion, disease or anything that threatens many lives across the country and needs mass-mobilization of the army without the problems of red tapism.
 
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
The "armed militia of the people" is a joke, i mean, at the time, handguns was state of the art weapons technology, today such a militia would have no chance at all, especially in the US where the military resources are plentiful, with tanks, choppers and fighter jets, a well trained military with several specialist branches that all carry weapons superior and has training far beyond anything the people have.. It would be a genocide.
Click to expand...

Well said... Horse's were primary transport as well. America would be crippled within a week if the oil stopped flowing. You could try shoving your 2nd amendment in your tank but it's not going to get you far.

If you're going to resist, in this day and age, you'll need explosives, fuel, anti-armor/anti-air, as well as small arms (probably in that order). The only way this would succeed in the US would be with foreign support.
 
Yes, just like those insurgents are fighting against us with their anti aircraft guns, tanks, well organized logistical trains, hierarchical command structure, and usage of modern technology. You know, like those home made EFP's set off with garage door openers that take out a 20 million dollar M1 Abrams.
 
Originally posted by: LordSegan
Declaring a "state of emergency" means nothing in the United States (it is regulalrly done such as during the California wildfires in October).

Here in the U.S., there is no emergency procedure to unilaterally suspend/change the Constitution or disband the Congress. If a president tried to do either, he would be committing treason, and I would be the first person in line to try to blow his head off with a sniper rifle.

To answer your question, if the entire Congress were killed, I imagine the president (or new president) would have the power to temporarily issue executive orders that would carry the weight of law.

If you are asking, "what would it take to get troops in U.S. cities".... again, that happens regularly, when state Governors order state National Guard units into cities.

It is illegal under the Posse Comitatus Act to use Federal troops in the U.S. unless there is an invasion or an actual insurrection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act

Unlike Pakistan, we have laws for everything, and we usually follow them.
Click to expand...

Might want to dust off that there sniper rifle and get a little target practice under your belt my friend. Posse Comitatus does not exist any longer in this country. Do a search on NSPD51 and HSPD20 for further information on the subject. Basic gist of the directive is the President can take control of the National Guard without the consent of the Governor of whatever state happens to "own" the division being sequestered. If you couple this directive with several others that have become law since the executive began it's coup, you would see that legally at this point the executive could seize power on whatever whim The President feels justifies the action. Any "subversives" will be arrested and detained as enemy combatants and will not be entitled to representation, trial or even formal charges(think Haliburton detention centers.) They are already collecting all internet and voice traffic through the NSA so identifying anyone who might actually stand up and fight will be a simple task. The only thing we can do at this point is pray that enough people will take notice of how flagrantly wrong this is and rise up and overthrow those "who would be king." Remember, if it comes down to it, military units cannot function effectively without fuel and food!

As to the OP's question, I don't believe the Pakistan situation would be the pretext used here. For the executive coup to truly succeed, you would need events which frighten the masses sufficiently to make them overlook what's really going on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top