Did Bush just bypass the Insurrection and Posse Comitatus Acts?

Found this little snippet on Slashdot. On the same day Bush signed the Military Commissions Act, he signed this bill as well.
http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/

Quote:

---

In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.

Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."

---

Section 333, for those that like sausage...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Sec. 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law

`(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies- (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--

`(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--

`(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

`(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or

`(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

`(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--

`(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

`(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

`(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

`(b) Notice to Congress- The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.'.

(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by inserting `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'.

(3) HEADING AMENDMENT- The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:

CHAPTER 15--ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS TO RESTORE PUBLIC ORDER'.

(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS- (A) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and inserting the following new item:

331'.

(B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to sections 333 and inserting the following new item:

`333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law.'.

(b) Provision of Supplies, Services, and Equipment-

(1) IN GENERAL- Chapter 152 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 2567. Supplies, services, and equipment: provision in major public emergencies

`(a) Provision Authorized- In any situation in which the President determines to exercise the authority in section 333(a)(1)(A) of this title, the President may direct the Secretary of Defense to provide supplies, services, and equipment to persons affected by the situation.

`(b) Covered Supplies, Services, and Equipment- The supplies, services, and equipment provided under this section may include food, water, utilities, bedding, transportation, tentage, search and rescue, medical care, minor repairs, the removal of debris, and other assistance necessary for the immediate preservation of life and property.

`(c) Limitations- (1) Supplies, services, and equipment may be provided under this section--

`(A) only to the extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession concerned are unable to provide such supplies, services, and equipment, as the case may be; and

`(B) only until such authorities, or other departments or agencies of the United States charged with the provision of such supplies, services, and equipment, are able to provide such supplies, services, and equipment.

`(2) The Secretary may provide supplies, services, and equipment under this section only to the extent that the Secretary determines that doing so will not interfere with military preparedness or ongoing military operations or functions.

`(d) Inapplicability of Certain Authorities- The provision of supplies, services, or equipment under this section shall not be subject to the provisions of section 403(c) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b(c)).'.

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`2567. Supplies, services, and equipment: provision in major public emergencies'.

(c) Conforming Amendment- Section 12304(c)(1) of such title is amended by striking `No unit' and all that follows through `subsection (b),' and inserting `Except to perform any of the functions authorized by chapter 15 or section 12406 of this title or by subsection (b), no unit or member of a reserve component may be ordered to active duty under this section'.

I have no idea about the bias of this website (seems pretty anti-Bush to me, but that doesn't necessarily mean much these days), so I don't know if these guys are a bunch of tin-foil hat wearing wack jobs, or if they actually have some credibility. Anybody else hear of this? Is this something snuck in, or just an ill-advised response to the Katrina fiasco?

https://img251.imageshack.us/img251/...psyduckvv0.gif https://img128.imageshack.us/img128/6800/emotwtcae8.gif https://img251.imageshack.us/img251/...psyduckvv0.gif

Is/was there any reason, published or specified anywhere, as to why this was necessary ? Did he justify this in any way ?
Because if there is, well, then maybe we can understand why this was signed.

Honestly, drone, things like this and the Comissions Act don't surprise me one bit anymore. Modest intelligence perhaps, but in my little mind I think I've a pretty good idea where all this is heading - and by all this I mean several things that have happened during the last few years. Yeah, sure, tinfoil hat, whatever.

And even if in and of itself each step is a small step, when you start putting them together, well... But whatever, I won't repeat myself yet again.

So, in the meantime, let's wait for the pro-Bush supporters who will claim that there are other laws that will balance this, and the lockdown of the three branches of government and all that. Sure, sure.

And since there's already been one reply, and this vital question hasn't been asked yet, I'll be the one: why do you hate freedom, drone ?
:balloon2:

I find this post severely offensive. Moderators, do your job for once and please delete it and ban drone. He has gone out of his way to cross the line this time.

drone: I encourage you to withdraw what you have posted and admit to being the scum of the world and turn yourself in to whomever it is necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

I find this post severely offensive. Moderators, do your job for once and please delete it and ban drone. He has gone out of his way to cross the line this time.

Drone: I encourage you to withdraw what you have said and admit to being the scum of the world and turn yourself in.

---

The drunkards thread is a few posts farthur up...


As for OP, it's probably nothing much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

The drunkards thread is a few posts farthur up...


As for OP, it's probably nothing much.

---

Wonderful answer.:thumbsup: Hopefully you noted the sarcasm and responded in kind on purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Wonderful answer.:thumbsup: Hopefully you noted the sarcasm and responded in kind on purpose.

---

No, I didn't notice any sarcasm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

No, I didn't notice any sarcasm

---

Wow. I'm speechless. I'm sorry...

Please don't think badly of me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Wow. I'm speechless. I'm sorry...

Please don't think badly of me.

---

Your "outraged" act is a little too convincing, sorry. :clown:

You'd get a better hit if you declare yourself a Patriot (or a Very Loyal Friend) of the USA and drone's a liberal wimpish teletubby who Hates Freedom or whatever. Oh, and terrorist. People will then get the joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

Your "outraged" act is a little too convincing, sorry. :clown:

You'd get a better hit if you declare yourself a Patriot (or a Very Loyal Friend) of the USA and drone's a liberal wimpish teletubby who Hates Freedom or whatever. Oh, and terrorist. People will then get the joke.

---

That is very sad to know that most people will fail to see the reference of the second statement and instead will only recognize that generic banter you mentioned.

EDIT: Seriously, no one would actually post something like my post in seriousness, would they?!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

EDIT: Seriously, no one would actually post something like my post in seriousness, would they?!!

---

In the backroom, yes. :sweatdrop:

Who the hell is John Warner?

I remember something similar to this being brought up in the Ollie North, and the Senator who was asking North if he was part such a program kept being cut off by the chairman of the committee. The chairman said "we will discuss this later, Senator, but not at this time and place." God, I can't remember any of these guys names, I was like 10 or something.

Sounds alot like a response by the congress to Katrina. Allowing the president to bypass the governor to be able to use the guard would have made things easier. Being able to have installed martial law imediately would have also made things calmer. Havent read all of it but the websites seems to be a little over the top.

Still makes ya wonder the fore thought that the founding fathers had with the 2nd amendment when its signed the same day as the military commisions act.

So Bush signs one bad piece of legislation (Comissions Act) and one good piece (this one) on the same day. :dizzy2: The guy can't do anything right. Still being able to put troops anywhere in the country at the sole discression of the federal executive is only a good thing. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

EDIT: Seriously, no one would actually post something like my post in seriousness, would they?!!

---

Oops, already perma-banned Drone...

I can see it now at the next presidental debates:

"Where is the Democratic Canadiate, he's 2 hours late?"

"Hehe, he had a little run in with the "law"."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Still being able to put troops anywhere in the country at the sole discression of the federal executive is only a good thing. :2thumbsup:

---

Right, so now if there's a protest or something, it'll be easier to haul some tanks and mow everyone down and finish the job with firing squads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

So Bush signs one bad piece of legislation (Comissions Act) and one good piece (this one) on the same day. :dizzy2: The guy can't do anything right. Still being able to put troops anywhere in the country at the sole discression of the federal executive is only a good thing. :2thumbsup:

---

I would see it as a good thing, if the president didn't have sole power. I really think Congress should have to authorize this decision before it is a made. I have always been a fan of a stronger central government, weaker state governments, and less power to the executive branch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

I would see it as a good thing, if the president didn't have sole power. I really think Congress should have to authorize this decision before it is a made. I have always been a fan of a stronger central government, weaker state governments, and less power to the executive branch.

---

I think balanced state and central governments with a thumb-twiddling, but significant executive branch is better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

I think balanced state and central governments with a thumb-twiddling, but significant executive branch is better.

---

It just feels like an elected king to me. I don't think one man or a few people should have that much power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

It just feels like an elected king to me. I don't think one man or a few people should have that much power.

---

I mean the power should be spread out so that the original intent of US bureaucracy becomes realized (slow so that irrational moves are not made, but not so slow that it becomes a vulnerability) and that the executive position can't be used by others to put a figure head puppet who will do their whim (what is happening now).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

It just feels like an elected king to me. I don't think one man or a few people should have that much power.

---

Yep, and an un-elected Queen is actually cheaper. Any time you want to back into the Commonwealth, just let us know.

Now that my account has been reinstated (:laugh4: )...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Who the hell is John Warner?

---

John Warner is the senior Republican Senator from Virginia, fairly moderate, WWII veteran, chairman of the Senate Armed Forces Commitee, used to bang Elizabeth Taylor :2thumbsup: .

These provisions were placed into the gi-normous spending bill for the military. I think I fell asleep trying to read some of it, I think I know why immigrants are getting immunity, apparently the folks in Congress don't speak english either.

There are a few possible explanations for this. One, the website in question (and Leahy, I suppose) are completely overblowing the scope of these provisions. Two, someone thought it a good idea to put this in as a backup plan for Katrina-like disasters (although the LA gov did ask for the NG if I'm not mistaken, so this would not be necessary), but didn't really think about it carefully. Three, someone in Congress snuck it in without anyone knowing (and really, how can anyone read all this stuff?). I'm sure there are more slants.

From a straight political standpoint, even if he opposed this, Bush would not refuse to sign this bill just because of a small section like this, a military spending bill must take a tremendous effort to put together and pass (got to make sure everyone gets a slice of the pie). Congress is mainly responsible for this, they write and pass the laws in the first place. I'm not really sure what to make of this yet, but it does seem to be a step closer to consolidating power in the federal executive.

And, yes, I do hate freedom.

EDIT->Here is a bit from Sen. Leahy about this. His main beef seems to be the misuse and abuse of the National Guard.
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/091906a.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

That is very sad to know that most people will fail to see the reference of the second statement and instead will only recognize that generic banter you mentioned.

EDIT: Seriously, no one would actually post something like my post in seriousness, would they?!!

---

Smilies are extremely useful when making remarks that otherwise could be misinterpreted.

Your post was extreme, but as has been said in the Backroom it doesn't mean it wasn't genuine.

A Dictator is the best form of government when the dictator is "Good". But it leaves no method to remove a "Bad" one. So, when things are good, there's a very dynamic government, but when things get bad, illegal wars can be started, people are tortured in camps... uh... But under a Democracy, the person can only be around for 14 years... :thumbsup:

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Right, so now if there's a protest or something, it'll be easier to haul some tanks and mow everyone down and finish the job with firing squads.

---

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

I would see it as a good thing, if the president didn't have sole power. I really think Congress should have to authorize this decision before it is a made. I have always been a fan of a stronger central government, weaker state governments, and less power to the executive branch.

---

Legislators should be kept as far away from this sort of thing as possible. This is the type of thing that the executive needs sole discression on, and in fact should have been given in the first place. Besides what your describing is what was in place before the bill was signed. I beleive in an almost all powerful executive branch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

:rolleyes:




Legislators should be kept as far away from this sort of thing as possible. This is the type of thing that the executive needs sole discression on, and in fact should have been given in the first place. Besides what your describing is what was in place before the bill was signed. I beleive in an almost all powerful executive branch.

---

This was not in place at all. I'm talking about even less power. Why do you think our founding fathers created a Vice President? To try to split up the power. They hardly wanted another king. I forget who it was, but one prominent father wanted to have 3 different presidents at one time.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

:rolleyes:

---

That's fine. I'm just worried at how people seem to indifferent to the fact that these bandits in power seem to be willing to sacrifice what the US once stood for to keep their own power.

Honestly, look at what they are doing. They are hopping over the law as if it were nothing. They engage in illegal operations and go unpunished. They write these illegal acts for questionable purposes and manage to secure support. All of this under the guise of fear.

I agree that my statement was extreme though it actually contained dark humor. If I ever make a direct statement, it usually does.

I thought it was a real comment, until I read the rest of the thread... yes people make worse comments in the backroom, yes they accrue warning points... just ask DevDave :juggle2:

So a smiley or some other hint like the above comment after what you intially said so that I don't have to go get my bricks out for an ironic statement thinking it was straight up and down.

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

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