Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by ATCclears, Mar 18, 2012.
Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness | The White House
Preparation for Marshal Law. Now we're just waiting for something to set this order in motion.
Commentary here, but we'll see where it goes.
“National Defense Resources Preparedness” executive order: Power grab or mere update? « Hot Air
Now the donors get the big bucks. Solyndra was 500 Mil, now his boys can spend that much before martini break.
BUT WE ALL KNOW THAT THE AUTHOR IN THE WHITE HOUSE IS DEVIOUS.
I'm not particularly suprised. Volitility of the world is increasing, economic instability, scant resources, saber rattling. Hardly makes one optomistic about the future. I wonder if this is how the world felt in the late 1930's on the eve of WW2?
Sounds like the government has come to the realization that the world economy is coming to it's inevitable collapse, and is preparing by filling out the proper forms and documents.
Parallax is right.
Here's another decent breakdown: Activist Post: New Obama Executive Order Seizes U.S. Infrastructure and Citizens for Military Preparedness
The major distinction seems to be that while war time or related circumstances already have seizure laws (paper with scribbles and fancy stamps) this one covers peacetime.
It's been in place since 1951, they just keep updating it every presidency.
But that's Obama! He must be doing something with that one to get our guns!
How about this part :
Presidential Executive Orders have long been used illegally by Presidents of every political shade and have often been used destroy the rights of American citizens. Although history has often come to judge these orders as both immoral and unconstitutional, the fact is that the victims of the orders suffered no less because of the retroactive judgment of their progeny. It is for this reason that we must immediately condemn and resist such obvious usurpation as is currently being attempted by the U.S. government.
So if they're "unconstitutional" and stuff, has anybody ever challenged them ?
Okay, found the answer to this question :
To date, U.S. courts have overturned only two executive orders: the aforementioned Truman order, and a 1995 order issued by President Clinton that attempted to prevent the federal government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll. Congress was able to overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it during the period of 1939 to 1983 until the Supreme Court ruled in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha that the "legislative veto" represented "the exercise of legislative power" without "bicameral passage followed by presentment to the President."  The loss of the legislative veto has caused Congress to look for alternative measures to override executive orders such as refusing to approve funding necessary to carry out certain policy measures contained with the order or to legitimize policy mechanisms. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the supermajority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism.
Basically in a broad sense Executive Orders are not unconstitutional. And if they're not unconstitutional, how can they be illegal ?
I doubt it. I have spoken to quite a few people who are in the age category to remember those times (including my parents) and my conclusion is they were more reactive to the issues at the time as opposed to thinking about what could or might happen. There is no denying the instant, worldwide communication we have now is partly responsible for the way we now think due to our ability to instantly share ideas, thoughts and beliefs, and that includes perpetuating fear mongering which has ultimately led many to the New Style of thinking of 'when it happens' as opposed to reacting to what does happen.
What else is new, the federal hegemony has laid claim to the entire country's economic resources since the crippled fascist usurped the nation.
They don't just want your guns, they want you dead if you love the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and if you are the Posterity of the founders
Google the Ukranian Holomdor..(genocide of white Christian Russians by the communists, under the control of the commissars 90% of whom were jewish and hated christrians) food and fuel will also be a weapon for your genocide
I think it goes even deeper back to The Declaration of Independence. Starting with its first words & lasting only up until the second sentence; it was not all written in the same day & you can feel the passion in the writer from the start & how it changes to reason's in why we should limit such absolute freedom later within it's context. But it started with absolute freedom (absolute freedom enables you the freedom, to limit as much as to grant such as it is, to another)
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Indeed..the same people (banksters) were behind King George.. they were who we were really fighting and they had him by the short hairs via the same usury money system we have in the USA now, called the federal reserve system (bankster scam) Watch these two videos
The Money Masters - Part 1 of 2
The Money Masters - Part 2 of 2
This is a non issue... Obama does enough to not like without making stuff up to stir the pot more.
Separate names with a comma.