Originally posted by Schecter
waaaaaaaaah.im through arguing with the coffeeshop buddhist troll
You were the one who started entertaining the idea that conspiracy mongers might be right. In effect, you were saying that the sky was falling.
How would you compare me saying you are over reacting to you insulting my religion? I think you are the toll.
To the conspiracy theories:
No. Failure.
President Bush has only a little time left in office before he steps down. While I believe that, in theory, a dictatorship would be beneficial in the event of an organization (simply to expedite the otherwise cumbersome process of achieving anything in the United States government), I feel slightly disquieted at the thought of a dictatorship that has no clause for it to be ended at the will of the people.
However, the sentence "the President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government" seems to imply that, should there be a disaster, whoever is the president at the time will have the power to maintain the government as designated by the Constitution.
Originally posted by FeceMan
However, the sentence "the President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government" seems to imply that, should there be a disaster, whoever is the president at the time will have the power to maintain the government as designated by the Constitution.
thats one way to look at it. or it could just mean that a catastrophy turns the executive branch into a dictatorship. which, temporary or otherwise, and barring the stigma attatched to the word, it actually would be. why is this needed? how does it benefit us?
Originally posted by Schecter
thats one way to look at it. or it could just mean that a catastrophy turns the executive branch into a dictatorship. which, temporary or otherwise, and barring the stigma attatched to the word, it actually would be. why is this needed? how does it benefit us?
lol, government being about the benefit to the people?
surely you jest 😛
Originally posted by Schecter
thats one way to look at it. or it could just mean that a catastrophy turns the executive branch into a dictatorship. which, temporary or otherwise, and barring the stigma attatched to the word, it actually would be. why is this needed? how does it benefit us?
in what way is it different from the ability of a local governing body to declare martial law in an emergency except on a nationwide level?
or is it that you are more concerned with an elected officials denial to see the plans rather than what the plans are about and the implementation of of a "dictatorial" government during an emergency?
i am operating from complete ignorance of the methodology of congress here but i know that in the UK...not every elected mp is allowed access to any classified document...is this perhaps the same in the US?
Originally posted by jaden101
in what way is it different from the ability of a local governing body to declare martial law in an emergency except on a nationwide level?
localised martial law is irrelevant. it doesnt and hasnt change nor affected the power structure of government from 3 equal branches to one brance. it simply suspends the local government while federal remains in tact. therefore the power does not go unchecked. the highest ranking officers still have the same constitutional body of government to answer to.
Originally posted by jaden101
or is it that you are more concerned with an elected officials denial to see the plans rather than what the plans are about and the implementation of of a "dictatorial" government during an emergency?
well yes, of course this secrecy concerns me. also keep in mind that he is a member of the house homeland security committee. what is there to hide?
this isnt the location of a secret prison camp. it isnt the attack plans of our secret 4th branch shadow government (dick cheney). this concerns our system of governing in the event of a catastrophy. for what possible reason would secrets of this nature need to be kept from our government?
Originally posted by jaden101
i am operating from complete ignorance of the methodology of congress here but i know that in the UK...not every elected mp is allowed access to any classified document...is this perhaps the same in the US?
As a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, DeFazio, D-Ore., is permitted to enter a secure “bubbleroom” in the Capitol and examine classified material. So he asked the White House to see the secret documents.
Originally posted by Schecter
localised martial law is irrelevant. it doesnt and hasnt change nor affected the power structure of government from 3 equal branches to one brance. it simply suspends the local government while federal remains in tact. therefore the power does not go unchecked. the highest ranking officers still have the same constitutional body of government to answer to.well yes, of course this secrecy concerns me. also keep in mind that he is a member of the house homeland security committee. what is there to hide?
this isnt the location of a secret prison camp. it isnt the attack plans of our secret 4th branch shadow government (dick cheney). this concerns our system of governing in the event of a catastrophy. for what possible reason would secrets of this nature need to be kept from our government?
Dude, I just have to say this...
You act like a frickin douche most of the time but you are actually educated and have legit and intelligent posts when you try. I am not saying to change the way you post...this is more or less a compliment.
localised martial law is irrelevant. it doesnt and hasnt change nor affected the power structure of government from 3 equal branches to one brance. it simply suspends the local government while federal remains in tact. therefore the power does not go unchecked. the highest ranking officers still have the same constitutional body of government to answer to.
the purpose is essentially the same though...to impose a system of government on a people for a limited period of time
constitutionally it differs but any fear of it going unchecked would rely on a compliant military. which has been increasingly critical of government over the last few years....so i think a permanent dictatorship is something that is not really on the horizon
Dude, I just have to say this...You act like a frickin douche most of the time but you are actually educated and have legit and intelligent posts when you try. I am not saying to change the way you post...this is more or less a compliment.
you just have to discuss things properly...i can see his point when he starts posts about the inevitable influx of idiots cause the board is swarming with them
me and schecter have had some previous...shall we say...lively debates...they're always fun
Originally posted by Schecter
localised martial law is irrelevant. it doesnt and hasnt change nor affected the power structure of government from 3 equal branches to one brance. it simply suspends the local government while federal remains in tact. therefore the power does not go unchecked. the highest ranking officers still have the same constitutional body of government to answer to.well yes, of course this secrecy concerns me. also keep in mind that he is a member of the house homeland security committee. what is there to hide?
this isnt the location of a secret prison camp. it isnt the attack plans of our secret 4th branch shadow government (dick cheney). this concerns our system of governing in the event of a catastrophy. for what possible reason would secrets of this nature need to be kept from our government?
There is no real legit reason to hide anything from homeland security as it's their job to make sure things remain safe. However I can imagine details of the plan to be above their clearance. Still they should be able to see some parts of the report.
As to the President being able to effectively take control of everything after a terrorist attack, something like that is not that strange. There could be cases where the country is to badly damaged to work through regularly channels, a nuclear strike on the capitol for instance would surely cripple the country. Going through the proper channels after that happened with the decisions that need to be made is as good as impossible. So the President taking complete control is a good thing.
Originally posted by jaden101
the purpose is essentially the same though...to impose a system of government on a people for a limited period of timeconstitutionally it differs but any fear of it going unchecked would rely on a compliant military. which has been increasingly critical of government over the last few years....so i think a permanent dictatorship is something that is not really on the horizon
dont forget that the president commands the military and has removed generals for doing just that: disagreeing and pointing out impending failure. in fact all a general can do is disagree and if ignored: resign.
here is how bush handles his generals:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/07/16/BL2007071600891_pf.html
the exectutive branch, while answering to the house and senate, has direct control over the military to the point of directly ordering an attack, with the president essentially being the highest ranking military official. bush can say "drop bombs on tehran" and within minutes bombers will scramble.
because of this, imho your assessment of the lack of potential for a coup of sorts is completely false. in fact, given grave enough circumstances and the general state of sloth and easily provoked fear/irrationality and complete stupidity of at least 41% in the u.s., i'd say it would be pretty damn easy.
Originally posted by Schecter
dont forget that the president commands the military and has removed generals for doing just that: disagreeing and pointing out impending failure. in fact all a general can do is disagree and if ignored: resign.here is how bush handles his generals:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/07/16/BL2007071600891_pf.htmlthe exectutive branch, while answering to the house and senate, has direct control over the military to the point of directly ordering an attack, with the president essentially being the highest ranking military official. bush can say "drop bombs on tehran" and within minutes bombers will scramble.
because of this, imho your assessment of the lack of potential for a coup of sorts is completely false. in fact, given grave enough circumstances and the general state of sloth and easily provoked fear/irrationality and complete stupidity of at least 41% in the u.s., i'd say it would be pretty damn easy.
What you are suggesting would require for Bush to do more then just run the military it would require him to either make them stage a terrorist attack, which I seriously doubt any general would do and/or use the military to take command of the United States. I have no doubt that the joined chiefs support the president, but there are rules and check points instated. The president can be removed from office and he probably would be if he would do things like that, which also go against your constitution doesn't it?
Now unless you are suggesting that any president would carry out a terror attack of huge proportions on their own country to take over control of that country for an indefinite period of time I really don't see how this endangers the US.
Originally posted by Fishy
What you are suggesting would require for Bush to do more then just run the military it would require him to either make them stage a terrorist attack, which I seriously doubt any general would do and/or use the military to take command of the United States.
he could also simply remain ignorant of an impending attack.
"osama bin laden determined to attack inside united states."