The CONSTITUTION: Why the tinfoil hatters are WRONG about the President cancelling the election

For all of you tinfoil hatters on DU who seem to have forgotten:

George W. Bush is NOT a monarch with life-long power.

He is an elected servant of the people, subject to the Constitution and his powers are expressly limited by that document.

No Executive Order can override what is explicitly written into the Constitution.

The Constitution has a great deal of explicit instruction regarding the elections process so as to PREVENT an Executive from canceling elections and such an EO if issued would be grounds for impeachment for among other reasons that it is illegal, unconstitutional, constitutes a violation of separation of powers, a violation of the Presidential Oath of Office to "preserve protect and defend the Constitution", and is an abuse of power.

The Constitution GUARANTEES in WRITING that no matter what else happens, on JANUARY 20TH, 2009 at NOON - PRESIDENT BUSH BECOMES PRIVATE CITIZEN BUSH. ELECTION OR NO ELECTION, BUSH's TERM STILL ENDS.

At that point he has NO POWER TO TElL ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING.

The military and the people who work for the government dislike this guy as much as we do (probably more since they have to work with him) so they are NOT going to keep following his orders one nanosecond after the clock runs out!

To go into detail I have included the relevant portions of the Constitution and will highlight in bold the operative phrases that make MY POINT:


Article I Section 2 - The House

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.


MY POINT: If the President cancels the elections he is preventing the House of Representatives from being elected on the biannual schedule required by the Constitition. If the Representatives terms should lapse without a replacement Congress then one branch of the government would effectively be dissolved by another. This is a violation of the separation of powers between Congress and the President and a Consittutional crisis justifying impeachment.

Article I Section 3 - The Senate

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

MY POINT: Same problem but this time it's with the Senate. Again separation of powers breach.

Article I Section 4 - Elections, Meetings

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.


MY POINT: To cancel the elections is to interfere both with the powers of the individual states in our Federal system and ALSO with Congress power to set the time, place, date, manner of elections.


The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall (be on the first Monday in December,) (The preceding words in parentheses were superseded by the 20th Amendment, section 2.) unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

MY POINT: Congress is REQUIRED by the CONSTITUTION to meet at least once a year. If their terms were to lapse because no one replaces them because of a missing election then the Congress then the President would have forced Congress to violate its Consitutional duty - a Constitutional crisis and more violation of separation of powers.


Article II Section 1 - The President

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

MY POINT: If the President cancels the election, it doesn't really matter - he STILL ceases to be the President at the end of his 4 year term. On January 20th, 2009, regardless of whether there is a successor elected, President Bush REVERTS to beng MR. Bush at noon.


Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

MY POINT: AGAIN another violation of the rights of individual states. They have legal rights under the Constitution and could act under the Federal Courts to seek a remedy to FORCE the election to proceed.


The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

MY POINT: CONGRESS decides the day of the election - NOT the President. This would be a direct usurpation of Congressional power delegated by the CONSTITUTION. It would a violation of separation of powers and an abuse of power and thus grounds for impeachment.

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

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 Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

MY POINT: It's not what you see here - it's what you DO NOT see here.

This is the sum total of the President's legal authority under the Constitution - Article II Section 2 - NOWHERE in it is he given ANY authority to cancel, delay, or alter the elections or otherwise ignore, obliterate, alter, wave, mangle, spindle, fold, mutilate or violate the terms of the Constitution.

Therefore he has NO legal authority granted to him by the Constitution to suspend elections against the Constitution edict that they SHALL occur. (See Amendment 10 for more on enumerated and unenumerated powers)

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

MY POINT: To cancel the elections would result in cancellation of state level elections as well and would violate the guarantee of republican (i.e. representative) government.

One might reasonably also argue that merely cancelling the Federal elections would deprive those states of a republican/representative government in that they would no longer be providing Congressmen and Senators to the Congress and therefore would be deprived of the representation they are required to have under the Constitution as states.
Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

MY POINT: The CONSTITUTION is the supreme law in our nation - NOT Executive Orders, in fact EO's have less power than statute because the Congress can pass a law to override an EO. Statutes in turn have less power than the Contitution. In short no EO can override the Constitution so Bush can make up any EO he likes but when it comes down to it, if it doesn't follow the Constitution, it isn't the law and is not enforceable or legal. In fact if it goes astray of the Constitution it could be grounds for impeachment.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.


Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

MY POINT: We liberals have all heard this called the "states rights" amendment. What it really is is the LIMITED POWERS OF GOVERNMENT amendment - it so constructs the Constitution as to limit the powers to what are written down on paper in the Constitution so that the President (or Congress for that matter) doesn't simply get to make things up as they go.

All government power is derived from the consent of the governed and reserved unto it unless it is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. There ARE NO unenumerated powers that the Executive Branch can simply pull out of thin air. They are either in Article II Section 2 or the don't exist.

The design of our government is such that it LIMITS the power and scope of the President's powers to those explicitly written down on paper and RESERVES the balance of power to the States and people from whom any powers were granted in the first place. We the People own power in this country, the President just gets to borrow certain powers as defined in Article II Section for a 4 year term of office.

If the President goes around wantonly making up powers that don't exist that TOO is grounds for impeachment as an abuse of power and a violation of the Constitution.


Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President. Ratified 6/15/1804. The Electoral College

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

MY POINT: It doesn't say "may" or "could" or "should" or "might" meet. It says SHALL. This is the imperative (command) form which means that it is REQUIRED that the Electoral College meets, NOT OPTIONAL. The President doesn't have any authority to interfere with the operation of the Electoral College because it is REQUIRED explicitly by the Constitution. If he does again we have a violation of the Constitution and an abuse of power and grounds for impeachment.

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

MY POINT: Again we see "shall", not "may" or "should" or "might". Again this is a Constitutional REQUIREMENT upon the Congress to count the electoral college votes. If the President interferes either by preventing Congress' election so that they can count the votes or by preventing the EC from meeting we have a violation of separation of powers and an abuse of power - grounds for impeachment.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

MY POINT: If the Presidential election were not to take place and/or the EC did not meet then Congress would get to pick the President - remember George Bush is NOT the President after 1/20/09 no matter what else happens becaus his term has lapsed and he has no authority outside of his 4 year term. Supposing Congress were still somehow elected then they would pick President Obama.

Assuming however that NO elections were held then NO ONE could be president because Dick Cheney's term lapses WITH the President's and therefore he couldn't become President under this clause either. In short TWO branches of the Federal gov't would disappear leaving only the Judiciary and 2/3's of the Senators.


The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

MY POINT:

The SENATE (or the 2/3's still in office) would then pick a Vice President who would act as President to replace President Bush since no Representative would exist who could pick the President in the House of Representatives. Again if there's no election -we'd be picking the Democrat folks. I guess that would make it President Biden?? Maybe they could still pick Obama as (Vice) President in this scenario?? No matter what though, Bush ain't President after 1/20/09.

Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote. Ratified 4/8/1913. History

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

MY POINT: Again interference with the rights of the states and of the people and interfering with the operatin of the Senate. You can't cancel the elections because the terms of the Senators would lapse.


Amendment 20 - Presidential, Congressional Terms. Ratified 1/23/1933. History

1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

MY POINT: It is is EXPLICIT. No matter what else happens the President stops being President on 1/20/09. If there is no replacement then the office is vacant. In any event, President Bush becomes Private Citizen Bush on that day at NOON. He has NO lawful authority to issue any orders or execute ANY powers delegated to the President under Article II Section 2 after that time and no military or civillian federal offical can take such an order from him after that point.

2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

MY POINT: This just reinforces the notion that in the absence of an election CONGRESS picks the President and Vice President. President Bush LOSES his authority and office on 1/20/09 and Congress (well the Senate) gets to pick the replacement.


5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

Amendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits. Ratified 2/27/1951. History

1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

MY POINT: Even assuming that there were no EC election or Presidential election by the voters, President Bush is ineligible to be elected by the CONGRESS to that role because the 22nd Amendment STILL prohibits that.

2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

...without MASSIVE protesting around the country from Republicans AND Democrats.

...because anyone who disagreed with him was promptly silenced, so he claimed a mandate.

But without approval of the people, Bush is NOTHING.

in 1933.

George W. Bush has NONE of these things. Think of him more like Hitler in April of 1945

An actual king would have very hard time holding onto a kingdom with that approval rating.

Some folks are so bored with our present set of problems (ya know trifling shit like Iraq, 50 million uninsured Americans, the financial crisis/recession, genocide in Darfur, etc.) that they construct dystopian fantasies to stay amused.

Bush went in with a 49.9% approval rating based on the 2000 election and he' leaving with a 24% (or less) rating. He really has no one who would support a coup, even his own party would help us throw him out if it came to that. Moreover HOW would you actually PREVENT an election? The logistics simply make canceling an election impossible to prevent. There are 300 MILLION Americans, and 225 MILLION don't like the guy.

Doug D.

This site was founded to protest the illegal selection on 2000.

I'm SURE I've done more to volunteer and work on campaigns and donate to them than 99% of the people even on DU.

I LIVE in Florida. In FACT I saw Al Gore on South Beach the night before the election and I lived just down the street from the famous astroturf "riot" over hanging chads.

The fact is that we will NEVER know who won in Florida on Nov 2, 2000 because all the ballots weren't recounted. That is what it is and the Supreme Court should NOT have stopped the count but Al Gore deserves some blame for NOT campaigning more in the South (especially TN) and for NOT asking for a state wide recount of all 67 counties but rather trying to cherry pick Palm, Broward and Dade.

Doug D.

You are clearly not well informed on this issue.

Torture? Lying us into a war? Outing a Spy in wartime?

Bush has gotten stuffed by the SCOTUS in several high profile cases including the Guantanamo cases regarding Habeas Corpus.

It's EASY to be a defeatist and be paranoid and say "why bother" because Bush will just prevent the election - the truth is though HE CAN'T and there WILL BE AN ELECTION.

Doug. D.

However, we currently do not have a working Constitution.

Among many other egregious actions. The PATRIOT Act and Military Commissions Act come immediately to mind.

We, The People are weak. The Legislative is weak. The real Judiciary is weak. The Executive rules. Balance is a joke. Ergo, the Constitution is in mortal danger.

That the Congress hasn't asserted it's authority in this area is shameful but it does NOT change the Constitution. The PEOPLE simply won't stand for any more BUSH..he's NOT going to stay with a 24% approval rating - the whole nation would rise up and prevent that.

Doug D.

Lead THE PEOPLE.

ugh...

Or at least I hope.

in his new book, "Constitutional Peril-The Life and Death Struggle For Our Constitution and Democracy", copyright Bruce Fein: "If the American people neglect to understand and venerate the Constitution's philosophy, the text will not save the day".

Even Bush's own Supreme Court picks have thrown Habeas in his face.

such as with the use of the State Secrets Privilege to cover illegal and/or unConstitutional behavior.

And the mere fact of the abuses coupled with military deployment here is something we should stay aware of. That's precisely what the founding fathers feared.

a realistic possibility, assuming that it is a bad outcome, that is. Only positive outcomes are to be completely ruled out in the situation this country is in.

They'd carry the guy out in a strait jacket if he tried it.

General Shinsecki for one.

And that was 5 years ago. They haven't had a moment's rest in five years constantly being redeployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. They've had it with him. The MILITARY will be voting for Obama this time.

Doug D.

They got CAUGHT didn't they?

Because the military isn't this mindless monolithic robot that does whatever Bush tells it without question.

There were honorable people who exposed the scandal.

Most of the time Bush gets CAUGHT - he got caught lying about WMD's - he got caught on the torture and kidnapping - he got slappd down on the Habeas Corpus by the SCOTUS - he got caught on the wiretaps. Everytime he's pushed the limits he got pushback and got caught and humiliated.

So thanks again for making my point, Bush is a WANNABE dictator, not the real deal and he's out the door on Jan 20 2009.

The end..never again.. no more Bushes..

Doug D.

:rofl:

How can you be so naive?

How can you be so arrogant?

:eyes:

Bush has gotten caught on the torture and Rumsfeld and Gonzales are gone over it and we now have a Democratic Congress. I can't say for certain that Gates isn't torturing but it would seem fool hardy to continue doing bad things as the new guy after your predecessor get caught.

In any event it will end on January 20, 2009 for certain.

Doug D.

Are you speaking of the Democratic Congress that's refused to hold these criminals accountable?

Since it's perfect reasonable to assume that the CIA will sneak into your house at night and either kidnap or kill you.

Come on. I'm just saying that things are really fucked up, and there is no sign of things getting any better. I'm talking about everything IN GENERAL. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. There has been a move to take away rights, though, so nothing would really surprise me. I even said that suspending the election isn't likely.

"It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

otherwise you're just a dickhead in a stupid uniform in front of a microphone with some creepy guys behind you.

The military's had it with Bush... Do YOU think they want to keep doing tours in Iraq? Not really... it's killing military families and destroying morale.

Bush is done and the Constitution isn't "just a piece of paper" it is THAT piece of paper which keeps Bush from being Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin.

Doug D.

it would just be hard to get to the polling places with the armed guards patrolling the streets "for your protection" during the middle of a national emergency ...

You people act as if there:

a) Are enough people to keep us from having an election. (There aren't most of our military is tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan and isn't available.)
b) The people that work for the government would simply go along - they would not. They are NOT robots, they are people with minds of their own.

Doug D.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it would hurt big business worldwide. Just think it through. His own base, the "have mores", need to keep up at least a semblance of democracy and freedom for the "free trade agreements" that allow them to remain in power to work.

Bushler and the Cheneygang are utterly desperate to salvage whatever they can of their tattered power base right now.

enough power to still create a lot more damage--

The Bush base is losing billions upon billions as we speak. And their head honchos are calling for OVERSIGHT, RE-REGULATION, TRANSPARENCY and all those good things they've allowed the necons to drown in the proverbial bathtub.

Have you seen Hank Paulson speak today (MSNBC) and then answering follow-up questions?

I saw a desperate man stuttering, frightened, red-in-the-face. Their karmuppance has arrived. They've lost control and were forced to openly admit it. Loss of power, loss of face, loss of influence worldwide. They're done if you ask me.


:hi:

these guys aren't lame ducks they're toast.

The British Prime Minister emphasized several times that his party wasn't following the American bailout model. Very poignant. He fell just short of calling the Paulson plan a failure and/or fraud.

Today, Paulson announced that his plan now also included the measures taken by the Brits.

Just wanted to point out that Bush stops being President on Jan 20 no matter what happens!

Just wanted to point out that Bush stops being President on Jan 20 no matter what happens!

to start over again --

The public is calling for remedy and reregulation --- Pelosi is giving them another
$150 Billion --

They have the money now . . . you have the loans to repay and the destruction to
aright --

And, as always, they'll begin again on same path ---



Hmm, there's a new game in town and it's called REGULATION.
Posted by Kaleko
The Bush base is losing billions upon billions as we speak. And their head honchos are calling for OVERSIGHT, RE-REGULATION, TRANSPARENCY and all those good things they've allowed the necons to drown in the proverbial bathtub.

Have you seen Hank Paulson speak today (MSNBC) and then answering follow-up questions?

I saw a desperate man stuttering, frightened, red-in-the-face. Their karmuppance has arrived. They've lost control and were forced to openly admit it. Loss of power, loss of face, loss of influence worldwide. They're done if you ask me.

the swearing in, something will happen where bu$h will declare Martial Law and stay where he is. There is no way with all the war crimes and crimes against humanity this administration is guilty of can they just walk away. Ain't gonna happen. The have amassed way too much power to leave it in the hands of the "enemy", i.e., the Democrats.

show it to me in Article II, Section 2.

He doesn't just get to make this shit up. If he does that he will be impeached or after Jan 20th at noon simply arrested. He CEASES to be President on 1/20/09, nothing he can do will change that. The military CEASES to have to follow his orders at that same time. In order to have a "coup" he'd have to have a military willing to follow him. It won't.


Doug D.

That damn piece of paper hasn't stopped them yet.

I agree questionable that they could let someone else in who could hold them

criminally responsible for so much TREASON that has gone on --

from bankrupting the Treasury -- to TORTURE -- gutting Constitution --

These aren't people who will let go -- and think the economic disasters are

timed to create new shock and awe ---

And even if you just look back at Carter and Clinton -- they tortured them and

attacked their administrations from the first moments!!!

This new depression will tie the hands of any new adminitration re social programs

which are so desperately needed.

He's gonna pardon everyone, blanket pardons all around probably will include himself even.

That's all he's got to do.

Mr. deClue,

You know that and I know that. The important question here is: does Bush know that?

/s/

My mark placed here with the assistance of
the University of Kansas

He's had it... even if he could I don't think he would... He is just gonna go back to Texas and be a bitter old man who f'd up and didn't live up to his daddy after all.

Doug D.

And I agree with your post number 34 above to the effect that one brigade isn't going to enforce martial law from coast to coast. It might do nothing more than keep his worthless hide intact were he to even think out loud about declaring martial law beyond an assembled group of congressmen and then by a surrogate. In fact, were he to publicly discuss the possibility, he'd probably need that brigade to protect his hide.

More than believing he doesn't really have the power, he's more afraid of being tarred and feathered.

He has proven for 8 years that he will do whatever the fuck he wants

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and those guys are on their way to Dubai.

Game over.

Whatever they need him to do. Wasn't on here we argued that all those facial bruises, black eyes, cuts etc. weren't from his clumsiness, but something that might be being inflicted on him?

http://www.alternet.org/rights/101958/thousands_of_troops_are_deployed_on_u.s._streets_ready_to_carry_out_%22crowd_control%22/?page=entire


I interviewed Vietnam veteran, retired U.S. Air Force Colonel and patriot David Antoon for clarification:

"If the President directed the First Brigade to arrest Congress, what could stop him?"

"Nothing. Their only recourse is to cut off funding. The Congress would be at the mercy of military leaders to go to them and ask them not to obey illegal orders."

"But these orders are now legal?'"

"Correct."

"If the President directs the First Brigade to arrest a bunch of voters, what would stop him?"

"Nothing. It would end up in courts but the action would have been taken."

"If the President directs the First Brigade to kill civilians, what would stop him?"

"Nothing."

"What would prevent him from sending the First Brigade to arrest the editor of the Washington Post?"

"Nothing. He could do what he did in Iraq -- send a tank down a street in Washington and fire a shell into the Washington Post as they did into Al Jazeera, and claim they were firing at something else."

"What happens to members of the First Brigade who refuse to take up arms against U.S. citizens?"

"They'd probably be treated as deserters as in Iraq: arrested, detained and facing five years in prison. In Iraq a study by Ann Wright shows that deserters -- reservists who refused to go back to Iraq -- got longer sentences than war criminals."

"Does Congress have any military of their own?"

"No. Congress has no direct control of any military units. The Governors have the National Guard but they report to the President in an emergency that he declares."

"Who can arrest the President?"

"The Attorney General can arrest the President after he leaves or after impeachment."

instructions to do any damage --- if they came -- be ignored.

Nixon was psychotic ---

as was LBJ in last days --

Bush was psychotic when he moved in --!!!

because like Bush, no one in the military would follow such orders.

Also like Bush, they both have a 24% approval rating at the end.

Doug D.

The President wouldn't have any legal authority to order anyone to do anything after Jan 20 anyways.

The Congress has the power to RAISE and REGULATE the military, deciding what the punishments are, they could even order the disbandment of the military so NO your guy is wrong..Read Article I Section 8.

You are an idiot if you believe the military would follow unlawful orders from the President, especially THIS one. Orders have to be LAWFUL.

Doug D.

Vietnam veteran, retired U.S. Air Force Colonel and patriot David Antoon

plain and simple.

what would "stop" him would be the members of the first brigade- what makes you think that they would follow such orders?

one brigade will NOT hold 300million pissed-off people hostage.

sheesh....:eyes:

the Constitution!

Here's a check list from Wolf for those in denial:


-Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy. Check
-Create secret prisons where torture takes place. Check
-Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens. Check (what the hell is Blackwater anyway...)
-Set up an internal surveillance system. Check
-Harass citizens' groups. Check
-Engage in arbitrary detention and release. Check
-Target key individuals. Check
-Control the press. Check
-Treat all political dissidents as traitors. Check
-Suspend the rule of law.

If think the third and the last go hand and hand - I'd say we are about there.

Bush has been reined in and is an inpotent lame duck at this point. His own party deserted him in droves last Monday over the bailout. He would be impeached and thrown out on his ass if he didn't leave. After Jan 20th, they would arrest him - for trespassing if nothing else.

Doug D.

The DOJ? They haven't yet. The corporatIons own our government, both Parties. Shrubco is intimate with those masters.

keep dreaming.

There are not yet 300 million people in the US. At least 40% of that number is too young or too old to protest in the streets. Around 50% of those remaining are somewhat okay with Republicans. Many of those remaining will not take to the streets, but hide in the closet. Many of those who don't hide will deny that there is even a problem and continue to watch television.

The millitary and police combined can easily subdue a million protesters scattered across the US the same way that they always do.

Not that I believe they will cancel an election. Why would they do something so bold and obvious when all they need to do is steal another election?

http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

if there was any type of dictatorial moves to cancel an election- there would be SUBSTANTIALLY more than 5 million people in the streets, and no- the police and/or military(those even willing to go along with such a move) would NOT be able to subdue the mobs.

eventually it doesn't happen and people either rationalize r come to your understanding. Unfortunately, they are often replaced by new people.

If you have a cartoon view of the world, the only antidote is experience.

...again and again.

Spying on U.S. citizens - violation. Illegal war based on a lie - violation.

Need I go on?

...is the sense that time has passed. At the height of his powers, Bush could get away with such things. But at the end of his reign, he can't. That, it seems to me, is the fundamental point the OP made. As Niebuhr said, one uses power as it corrupts; in Bush's case, his unfettered access to absolute power in his first term ruined his authority in the second term. Now he is a joke, winding up his days in the Oval Office a shell of a man.

I think, based on his recent half-stoned performances that he is looking forward to Texas, if not Paraguay and doesn't really want to be 'Dick Tater' any more. After 8 years, it's just not *fun* anymore. You need an organized, charismatic SOB to dictate and I don't see the PTB being able to bring forward such a person. Certainly not Dick 'negative polls' Cheney. Or the current clowns running for the republican mantle.

They will fuck us for everything we have then leave, possibly before Christmas, leaving us broke and forced to perform an emergency inaguaration of Obama.

It will take awhile to recover, but we will be stronger for it.

Posse Comitatus Act, HR5122, pp. 322-323 or H.R. 4986, Section 1068 and their relevance to this discussion?

Very curious but equally convenient.


Keep creating these threads, and I'll keep asking you the same questions that no one of you have taken on to this point.

"Posse Comitatus Act, HR5122, pp. 322-323 or H.R. 4986, Section 1068"

Whatthehellsgoingonhere, can you explain what these are in a nutshell for the sake of those not familiar? I'll research into them but it would be helpful to have a slight overview beforehand.

Thanks.

This isn't directed at you. I've posted this elsewhere, so I'm just doing a c/p.

This is a dangerous precedent, don't you agree? Could it not lead to abuses down the road? Were there not safeguards put into place after the Civil War to prohibit something like this from happening? In the wake of Katrina, did Bushco--with the blessing of both liberals and conservatives--not rewrite the language of this 1878 safegaurd to expand the conditions underwhich the president can waive it? Isn't that alone bothersome to you? Was one of the chief concerns, in fact, that those changes made it easier for a president to declare martial law? When first alerters--not you or your cohorts here--made a fuss about this, were those new conditions not repealed just this year and the original language restored? Is there reason for pause: financial market meltdown, reports from the counterterroism community, presidential election?






Again, this isn't directed at you, either. I posted it elsewhere but didn't get a response because I misspelled martial in a previous post.

A brigade to deal with "civil unrest" and "crowd control" was deployed here in the U.S. The significance of that is that since the end of the Civil War, deployment of the U.S. military inside the U.S. has been prohibited under the Posse Comitatus Act.

There is a provision in the "Posse Act" that states that the president can waive the statute if he invokes the Insurrection Act under a number of specific conditions. In the wake of Katrina (2006), these conditions were expanded and endorsed by liberal (Kennedy) and conservatives alike (hallmarks of the rush to war, "Patriot" Act and the Shock Doctrine). It was passed on Sep 30, 2006. The only objection came just days before (Sep 19), when D-Sen Patrick Leahy warned, "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law," but his alarm got no response. Mainstream Media was, not surprisingly, complicit here. But the bloggosphere was all over it, and in January 2008, the language was repealed and the original 1878 wording was restored. BUT, when signing off on the bill, Bush attached a signing statement which indicated that the Executive Branch did not feel bound by the changes enacted by the repeal.

Fast forward to Sep 2008. What everyone knows is that we are in the midst of a global financial crisis and a heated presidential election. ALSO on Sep 30, America's counterterrorism community warned that Al Qaeda may launch more overseas operations to influence the presidential elections in November.

So to come full circle, it's just not my opinion that the deployment is a dangerous precedent that could lead to abuses down the road.

Like I said, we don't have to go so far as assume this implies MARTIAL Law is imminent. Several troops in a few swing states could cause more havoc than one Gov. Blackwell.


Sources
Army Times
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army... /

Salon
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...

Congressional Quarterly
http://public.cq.com/public/20061201_homel...

HR5122, pp. 322-323
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...

H.R. 4986, Section 1068
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?b...


WTH :)

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 1878 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.

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

I just don't get it.

How about FDR in 1944? Did he cancel elections?

In 1944, the U.S. was involved in the largest war in human history, had more than 12 million of it's men overseas fighting in two fronts, had shortages of food, gas, rubber, and other materials at home because of the war effort.

Yet, FDR didn't cancel elections in the middle of all that. What possible logical reason would Bush have to cancel this election?

owned by international elite who are shifting the world scenario into a one world govenment for their complete control over all resources, wealth and populations of potential servants and consumers.

Bush is capable of anything, so there's a pretty good likelihood he'll drop a nuke on Kansas City later this month.

Oh yeah I understand he's all up in the Constitution's business. He's a regular play by the rules kind of guy, isn't he? He and Cheney wouldn't lie to Congress to start a war because that would be wrong...oh wait, yeah they did do that. They wouldn't subvert the operation of the Justice Department by firing anyone who questioned them then install in their place puppets to do their bidding...oh wait, they did that too. George Bush certainly wouldn't disregard the Posse Comitatus Act and involve military troops in civil matters on a permanent basis...oh wait, wasn't that in a thread around here somewhere?

Well he certainly woulnd't declare an "other condition" and invoke martial law for a short period of time which would unfortunately require the postponement of the election for a few weeks, or months, well years at most. Nah, he wouldn't do that, I mean George Bush and Dick Cheney are reasonable guys who have nothing to gain from maintaining their current position of power, right?

Right?

just sayin'

The courts could be tied up w/them for years after we are all FUCKED.

this thread has turned ridiculous because of your stubborn insistence that an invocation of emergency needs to hinge on Bush's personal popularity, or that the Constitution would automatically render such an invocation null and void. It would under constitutional law, but the whole point is that what happens in reality depends on whether state bureaucracy and military follow orders, and on the level of resistance from civil society and the people.

Of course, an invocation of emergency would be presented as coming from an outside force, just like 9/11. It might not require a real-world prompt, however, in the post 9/11 world we have seen that the executive can simply announce that it has discerned some imminent threat and put the nation on an alert footing (as with the "Code Orange" days).

Doing so would be daring the media and the Congress to call a bluff on seven years of war-on-terror rhetoric, which they have until now supported.

And I'd never expect the Bush regime to cancel the election, but to attempt to determine the outcome. Imagine a "Code Red" or similar invocation, based on intelligence that cannot be revealed for national security purposes. A small number of troops could be stationed at key points in certain media-saturated big cities, at which point the images are beamed to the world 24/7. Are you pretending this couldn't serve to suppress the vote, distract from potential election fraud, and sway many swing voters to the dark side?

We're already in extraordinarily panicky times with the ongoing financial crisis; any such fear-mongering would be accordingly magnified. The question unfortunately is not just what the Constitution says about all this, but again, how people react: do they call a bluff?

As far as shrub canceling the election, that is asinine. Ruby Giuliani couldn't pull that off in NY after 9/11...no way could shrub do it in a national election now.

My fear has been that the repubs would steal this one again through caging or Deibold or what have you. And that if that happened, and we the people did not rise up in rebellion, then all is lost...that and the ancillary scenarios were causing me heartburn, although it has been Blackwater I feared more than our own army.

It is looking better I must admit, b/c O is pulling in some big numbers, in some cases well above MOE. So it would be much harder to steal outright. I'm feeling...cautiously optimistic...

have been violating its rules and regulations about the power of the executive, adherence to international law and treaties,
suspension of due process, arrest and imprisonment without probable cause, Preemptive war, domestic spying on American Citizens, signing statements saying that the law does not apply to him or his administration, allowing his staff to ignore court summonses,
the pardoning of a person who is a betrayer of the identity of a CIA operative, signing executive orders giving himself dictatorial power in the event of him defining and declaring a national emergency where he will take over all three branches of Government, all military and all law enforcement.

Bush refers to the constitution as "that piece of paper". He see's himself as appointed by God and above the law. He is deluded into thinking that whatever he does is the best for the country and for saving civilization as we know it. He has been told that the "ordinary people just don't understand" and need therefore to be ignored. He thinks that everything he does is sanctioned by God and that anyone who disagrees with him is automatically evil.

"that piece of paper" is not going to stop this administration if they don't want to give up power. They have setup detention centers all around the US and have setup Military Tribunals in order to avoid the normal judicial system. They have established an armed force outside the control of congress (Blackwater) and they have taken control of the mainstream media and now in their latest move they have taken over most of the financial sector of the economy (in a similar fashion to the German takeover of the financial system in the 1930's)

This administration is controlled by Neocons which is a form of Fascist philosophy put forward by Leo Strauss. (He reinvented Nazi ism with out the antisemitism) This administration and the US Government is particular has been infiltrated by these Neocons over the past 30 years. We all know their names such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearl, Kristol, Feith, Rove, and all of the Cheney appointees that were rubber stamped by Bush. See the website for the Neocons at PNAC

For God's sake open your eyes and don't think that this is going to be easy, but if we all work together and unite as one then there is a chance we can stop the takeover of America by these new age Nazi's. We need to take them to court every time they try to stop people voting. We need to force Diebold to show us the code they use to count votes, we need to get off our butts and actually do more than just type and blow wind about the problems our country faces.

Grr, these damn neocons

:puke:

It's that mesh of evil fuckers who make sure the federal government moves billions their direction we need to worry about. They will remain, and come 2009, they'll have different kinds of "crises" to force Obama's hand early. They always do that.

get too hot here he can always use some of the $100 billion he was given in the bailout scheme (as Presidential discretionary spending, with no strings of any sort) to pay off the local officials so they won't send him right back to stand trial.

I think certain people acting with a certain psychology talk themselves into nutty conspiracy theories in the same spirit that other other people talk themselves into "believing" that they were grand historic figures of grand in importance in their past lives.

Unless they have been brainwashed by a cult or suffer serious psychosis, they don't REALLY believe this nonsense; not really. This just feel a need to imagine that they are members of a select group. It is flight of fantasy and make-believe; not something that they honestly believe will actually happen.

...I think we'll all be surprised at what he gets away with.

I doubt it will include canceling an election, though. I think * is tired, and has long since gotten bored with this job. He loves being a big shot, but may finally have realized that he can kick back and drink away the rest of his life in perfect comfort.

Whatever stops him ain't going to be that quaint old piece of paper.

And the Constitution really is just a piece of paper, unless Congress and SCOTUS are willing to enforce it.

That reassures me more than any Constitutional barrier. Bush doesn't care about the Cons., but he does care about himself. He is a miserable, miserable man right now & just wants all this to be over so he can go get drunk on his Crawford ranch (or a Paraguay ranch). IMO he's wanted to quit since at least Katrina.

the election will happen but between the time of the election and when Obama actually takes over as president, "something will happen" that will allow moron* to use executive order #51. he* will declare a national emergency and suspend the government.

the elections will happen.

Now that the 1st Brigade has been brought in to fight terrorism* here (remember, we were going to fight terrorism there, so we don't have to fight it here?), how hard would it be for mysterious packages to "turn up" throughout several swing states and the call put out to the 1st Brigade? IMO, not hard at all.

*Were they brought in to keep order in the case of a natural disaster, like Ike? Then why aren't they in Galveston rather than prepping for civil unrest? They'll be in Cuyahoga Co before they are turn up in Galveston.

and that is the way it is.

:eyes:

If Obama is elected on November 4th then you are right. If not, well then we will have other things to worry about.

He said it's just a goddamn piece of paper.