Did Bush just bypass the Insurrection and Posse Comitatus Acts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

You people need to get me more. No.. seriously... friends? Fellas??

---

'Irony in an American is like good taste in an Australian, so unexpected no one takes them seriously when it happens.' :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Power shouldn't be split much. Allowing a group like congress to control something as important as disaster relief is a recipe for trouble. Oh and they're your founding fathers not mine. I live in the land still ruled (if only in name) by the decendants of that king. Many things in the US constitution are there seemingly for no other reason then to impede good government. Which is what is most important.

---

When I said "our" I was refering to my countrymen and myself's founding fathers. I totally disagree with you. I believe that putting to much power in one place is a recipe for disaster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

And yes it was. Before this bill was signed it took an act of congress to actively deploy the regular army inside the US.

---

I wasn't refering to the law, but the overall power status of our executive branch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

When I said "our" I was refering to my countrymen and myself's founding fathers. I totally disagree with you. I believe that putting to much power in one place is a recipe for disaster.

---

Democracy is inherently a crap-shoot. You could get a gomer with much backing who couldn't lead and govern their way out of a paper bag (Bush/Harper). You could get someone with a clear agenda who spends enough time in office that they fall victim to corruption (Blair/Creitien). In the end it doesn't matter how you set things up the wrong people in the right place in the worst curcumstnnaces will cause a disaster. But you have a better chance to ride out the storm if you keep the number of people needed to act small. Preferably 1-3, but a dozen will be able to work too. I don't trust large bodies of elected officials to do anything important. Partisanism and politics will cause delays, and lockups. :no: Executive needs the power to lead and decide. Legislators should legislate and nothing more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Democracy is inherently a crap-shoot. You could get a gomer with much backing who couldn't lead and govern their way out of a paper bag (Bush/Harper). You could get someone with a clear agenda who spends enough time in office that they fall victim to corruption (Blair/Creitien). In the end it doesn't matter how you set things up the wrong people in the right place in the worst curcumstnnaces will cause a disaster. But you have a better chance to ride out the storm if you keep the number of people needed to act small. Preferably 1-3, but a dozen will be able to work too. I don't trust large bodies of elected officials to do anything important. Partisanism and politics will cause delays, and lockups. :no: Executive needs the power to lead and decide. Legislators should legislate and nothing more.

---

I'd rather take my shot with a large group of people, rather then a few. It is pretty hard for someone very idiotic to mess it up if you have a lot of other people to even them out. It is isn't when they are almost the only sole leader.

Maybe but the paralysis that comes with a large group means that action will be sacrificed for arguing.

OT, for the record, it was obvious to me that Crossloper's post was tongue-in-cheek, not only because it was extreme, but also because it was right after my post, following in the same vein (and my post was obviously sarcastic).
However, my friend, until you've been around long enough in the Backroom so that people know what to expect of you, it's better to be safe and use them smilies. Nobody is surprised when, say, Dave makes an outrageous statement, and we all know he doesn't mean it, 'cause we've seen him do it a thousand times. I should also point out, though, that he got warning points 999 times of those. :laugh4:
Dave, my apologies for using you as a bad example ~:grouphug:

Aw, heck, Crossloper, I guess I gotta re-read ALL your posts now, cos I'm sure I must have you so wrong by now :book: Man, I really thought you must be a pig-ignorant red-necked GOP-loving blowhard :oops:

Re Lars:

Quote:

---

Many things in the US constitution are there seemingly for no other reason then to impede good government.

---

As I read it, the constitution is mostly there to impede BAD government, and the fact that it may just impede the (rare) good government too is just a price worth paying....

Is there some clause in the US Const. that allows for the forcible overthrow of the Government by its people IF they are not happy with that Govt. ??
I've looked on the net but I haven't found what I'm looking for, mostly articles about US vs Dennis.
I was just wondering about that, because in the case of such a rebellion, it would seem that this law would allow the government to use the Army against its own citizens.

Another thing I wonder about is; why were national guard were called into Kent State Uni. with loaded rifles? Was that legal?
Edit: ok I looked up the Kent State thing and it seems there was a legal battle, but it was hardly Justice. Still, if the National Guard can shoot you, why not the regualr army as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

'Irony in an American is like good taste in an Australian, so unexpected no one takes them seriously when it happens.' :laugh4:

---

...but I'm neither!

Quote:

---

Is there some clause in the US Const. that allows for the forcible overthrow of the Government by its people IF they are not happy with that Govt. ??

---

I can't quote the whole constitution (but I do believe someone in another thread very helpfully posted the text), but the provision that allows US citizens to bear arms is all about that possibility, though it's all hedged about with provisions about forming militias etc.

Still, it seems to justify why Joe Bloggs should keep a loaded M16 in his Ute just in case someone badmouths his momma [/sarcasm]



So why do Bush, Rummy, Cheney and co hate the constitution so much???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ezrider

Is there some clause in the US Const. that allows for the forcible overthrow of the Government by its people IF they are not happy with that Govt. ??
I've looked on the net but I haven't found what I'm looking for, mostly articles about US vs Dennis.
I was just wondering about that, because in the case of such a rebellion, it would seem that this law would allow the government to use the Army against its own citizens.

---

The constitution does not say anything about overthrowing the government, although that would be a bad idea anyway. The US constitution does not say much directly about martial law either, though Ex parte Milligan holds that martial law cannot take place while civilian courts are in working order. Posse Comitatus states that the military cannot budge without congressional approval. The National Guard may be deployed, but under state control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ezrider

Another thing I wonder about is; why were national guard were called into Kent State Uni. with loaded rifles? Was that legal?

---

It's a shaky topic, but I'll try to break it down.
The protest started with a group of 100 protesting the invasion of Cambodia. They were rowdy, but not extremely dangerous.
By day two, the ROTC building was set on fire, and attempts to put it out where halted by students. The National Guard was already called out. They began countering rocks and bottles with teargas. On student was bayonetted.
On day three things got a little bit worse. A state of emergency had not been declared though many thought it had been. More rioting and more damage. Some students came into town to help clean-up after the protest. Curfew was setup. When it was being forced onto some no compliant students, more teargas was used and another student was bayonetted.
On day four, armored cavalry came in. It retreated after the jeeps were under heavy fire... from rocks. A group of 77 National Guardsmen were sent to clear a hill near the shool. They began with teargas and then proceeded to advance with bayonets. The protesters ran. The Guardsmen, confused as to what to do next, withdrew. Protesters began to advance. At this point, the rear of the Guardsmen opened fire. Some fired into the air and ground. Some fired at students. At the end of the day, four students had been killed and nine injured. Of those killed, only two were protesters. The other two were walking to class. One of those hit was almost three hundred feet away. (Wiki).
The way in which the situation was handled was condemned and Nixon, who had earlier called the protesters "dissidents", said the actions were callous, though he acted indifferently. The NG was apparently simply untrained to deal with riots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ezrider

Is there some clause in the US Const. that allows for the forcible overthrow of the Government by its people IF they are not happy with that Govt. ??
I've looked on the net but I haven't found what I'm looking for, mostly articles about US vs Dennis.
I was just wondering about that, because in the case of such a rebellion, it would seem that this law would allow the government to use the Army against its own citizens.

Another thing I wonder about is; why were national guard were called into Kent State Uni. with loaded rifles? Was that legal?
Edit: ok I looked up the Kent State thing and it seems there was a legal battle, but it was hardly Justice. Still, if the National Guard can shoot you, why not the regualr army as well?

---

There is no such provision (I read it when Redleg linked to it). The declaration of independnece has a bunch of stuff aobut over throwing a bad government. And the writings of Thomas Jefferson have a bunch of allusions to the same. But neither document have any legal bearing on the US constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macsen rufus

I can't quote the whole constitution (but I do believe someone in another thread very helpfully posted the text), but the provision that allows US citizens to bear arms is all about that possibility, though it's all hedged about with provisions about forming militias etc.

---

It really depends on how you read it. I read the whole thing and the ammendments, I really like to know where Regleg found it BTW. Anyway the vague way the 2nd ammendment is wordered is such that it either means. 1)In order to quickly raise a militia units to fight invaders every man capable of bearing arms needs to be able to keep them in his home. Or 2)The only citizens who are exempt from any kind of gun control are members of militia units. These militia units also had a double use, bolstering the army in war time and civilian policing in peace time. Don't forget modern police departments are a child of the industrial age. The very first civilian police force was raised in 1825, in London. IMO they were origianlly intended to be like Gendarmes, but the rise of civilian police forces mean't they became reserve soldiers only. And became of such doubious quality that they were done away with in 1903 and replaced with the national guard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

The constitution does not say anything about overthrowing the government, although that would be a bad idea anyway. The US constitution does not say much directly about martial law either, though Ex parte Milligan holds that martial law cannot take place while civilian courts are in working order. Posse Comitatus states that the military cannot budge without congressional approval. The National Guard may be deployed, but under state control.

---

Lars is correct most times the right to overthrow the government is expressed in the Declaration of Independence not the United States Constitution

Posse Comitatus establishes the conditions for when the military can intervene in domestic issues. Not only does it take an act of congress - it requires a declartion of emergency by the President. The National Guard also has some limitations on how it can be used when under state control, ie the state often has to declare a state of emergency also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars

It really depends on how you read it. I read the whole thing and the ammendments, I really like to know where Regleg found it BTW. Anyway the vague way the 2nd ammendment is wordered is such that it either means. 1)In order to quickly raise a militia units to fight invaders every man capable of bearing arms needs to be able to keep them in his home. Or 2)The only citizens who are exempt from any kind of gun control are members of militia units. These militia units also had a double use, bolstering the army in war time and civilian policing in peace time. Don't forget modern police departments are a child of the industrial age. The very first civilian police force was raised in 1825, in London. IMO they were origianlly intended to be like Gendarmes, but the rise of civilian police forces mean't they became reserve soldiers only. And became of such doubious quality that they were done away with in 1903 and replaced with the national guard.

---

Your idea number one was most likely the orginial intent of the majority of the consitution, with an additional intent to create a healthy fear of the citizenry for the government, hince the vague wording of the ammendment in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

...but I'm neither!

---

So which patch of dirt do you hail from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So which patch of dirt do you hail from?

---

The Russian Federation.

Well that bushwacked me, I thought you were an American.

Don't you people get it? Freedom isn't free- we must earn it from the government.

President Bush is just trying to enforce freedom.





Why do you hate freedom?

Freedom costs a buck o five