PDA

View Full Version : Congressional martial law declared on C-span?



corax
09-28-2008, 06:24 PM
kinda, sorta on Friday 9/26 . . .


saw this one on youtube,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi5VxyaOZzU
here's the actual video - I love the Bush quote at the end . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrlQNz31n34
here's a bit of clarification, listen and think about what this really means
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUx7xETJvJs




The House Republican Leadership has announced its intention to have the House vote, before adjourning on Friday or Saturday, on several major pieces of legislation that are not yet available to House members in final form because behind-closed-door negotiations on the proposals are still going on. The Leadership apparently intends to use a process known as “martial law” to allow these bills to be brought to the floor very shortly after negotiations are completed, with the result that Members of the House are likely to have virtually no time to examine and consider the details of the legislation before they will be required to vote on it.

Under the martial law procedure, longstanding House rules that require at least one day between the unveiling of significant legislation and the House floor vote on that legislation — so that Members can learn what they are being asked to vote on — are swept away. Instead, under “martial law,” the Leadership can file legislation with tens or hundreds of pages of fine print and move immediately to debate and votes on it, before Members of Congress, the media, or the public have an opportunity to understand fully what provisions have been altered or inserted into the legislation behind closed doors. This is the procedure that the Leadership intends to use to muscle through important bills in the next two days.

This procedure diminishes democracy. When major legislation is being considered that would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the debt or affect millions of Americans in other ways, Members of Congress should have an opportunity to study the legislation for more than a couple of hours and to know what they are voting on.

thook
09-28-2008, 09:03 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiFlouOozpk&feature=related

fustercluck
09-28-2008, 09:15 PM
This is what happens when Congress is engaged in CYA... Who controls the House and Senate? Which party do they represent? Who is responsible for oversight of Fannie/Freddie? Which party claimed it would be the most ethical ever?

Which party are you endorsing this fall?

corax
09-28-2008, 09:39 PM
not to be alarmist, I think this goes beyond party lines . . . look up Posse Comitatas and the Insurrection Act

not the absolute definitative reference, but from Wikipedia:
"HR5122 also known as the John Warner Defense Authorization Act was signed by the president on Oct 17, 2006 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Section 1076 Text of Hr5122 is titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies". Removing the legalese from the text, and combining multiple sentences, it provides that: The President may employ the armed forces to restore public order in any State of the United States the President determines hinders the execution of laws or deprives people of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. The actual text is on page 322-323 of the legislation. As of 2008, these changes were repealed, changing the text of the law back to the original 1807 wording, under Public Law 110-181 (H.R. 4986, Section 1068,) however in signing H.R. 4986 into law President Bush attached a signing statement which indicated that the Executive Branch did not feel bound by the changes enacted by the repeal.

President Bush Signs H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 into Law

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The Act authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, for military construction, and for national security-related energy programs.

Provisions of the Act, including sections 841, 846, 1079, and 1222, purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as Commander in Chief. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

January 28, 2008."

fustercluck
09-28-2008, 09:57 PM
This is why I declare that the people have a right to any and all weapons likely to be used against them by their govt.

corax
09-28-2008, 10:02 PM
This is why I declare that the people have a right to any and all weapons likely to be used against them by their govt.


x2, all I need though is my Glock and my Mossberg Maverick. If I need more than that, I'm already sunk . . .

oly884
09-28-2008, 10:14 PM
This is why I declare that the people have a right to any and all weapons likely to be used against them by their govt.


I'll go for an M1A1...

Well, maybe I'll just get a few M4's

Toss an M249 in there.

fustercluck
09-29-2008, 06:27 AM
Yeah, baby!.....and an m82a1, twin m2hb's, One of those neato 30mm vulcan cannon dealies, some 'flash/bangs' for the 4th of July, and I'd like to upgrade my HK MK23 LAM to IR capability too. :hillbill: