[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse', '
')There is a big difference between WWII, the Civil War, and now. First, in both previous cases Congress passed declarations of war, unlike here.

[Cloud9]

Courts don't "pass" laws.

Brown v. Board of Education. Just one example of judge made law.

[Plantagenet]

Happy Holidays to everyone!

God bless!
Gods bless!
Goddess blesses!
Allah blesses!
Moses Blesses!
Krishna Blesses!
The Humanist Association blesses!

[seahorse2]

Plantagenet,

The Iraq Resolution wherein Congress authorized the President to use military force on Iraq now stands as People's "Exhibit 1" in their case that the Congress and the Executive are guilty of committing treason against the American people.

At the time Congress authorized force against Iraq in 2002, Congress believed that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program that was a threat to the United States. Congress also believed that Iraq harbored Al Quaida, which was responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Now, forget all the t.v. testimony from Rice telling us not to wait for proof of a mushroom cloud or Powell testifying to the Iraqi WMD program in front of the UN, the proof of this belief is contained in the Resolution itself.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse2', '
')Suffice it to say, Congress has abrogated its Constitutional duties

[Ayoob]

What's the solution?

[seahorse]

Ayoob,

My first solution is that people quit contributing to either political party. First, bc as a people we have to break from this mental trap that these parties actually do anything for us, that somehow our participation has meaning anymore. They don't. The quicker we break from this idealistic prism and begin seeing reality for what it is, the better. Further, contributing to these parties in any way only funds these criminals and keeps allows this to continue. Second, if one feels they must vote in Federal elections (I'm still all for participation in your local cities, states and counties), then never vote for an incumbant, no matter how good you think they are, bc length of time in office leads to corruption.

We may not have to do anything. I think the wheels will eventually fall off the system anyway and the Fed govt' will go broke (i.e. Comptroller General David Walker says so), so, maybe we can avoid chaos in the streets. Others also see the US eventually breaking apart and the rise of city states to replace a federal government.

Blog

Not so long ago, there was an article about a California professor that opined America would lose its federal system of gov't and "devolve" into city states. I can't find the link right now.

However, if push comes to shove, remember your computer first, your rifle second. And always remember the real enemy are the corporations that have bought out gov't, starting with the military industrial companies I linked to earlier. They are the enemy that must be focused on.

Also, if we've learned anything from Duncan's Gorge theory, its the importance of electricity. Many people don't realize that squirrels are the cause of a lot of power outages in the U.S. How much more power does a little squirrel have that any of us don't have? A fallen tree branch is credited with causing the largest NE blackout ever. How much more power does a tree branch have than any of us? To borrow a phrase from our own US Army, "we are an army of one."

[Plantagenet]

I'm not so pessimistic. The US has ALWAYS had scoundrels in government, crooks in Congress, and insurmountable problems to be dealt with. And yet somehow the government and the congress and the country find a way to do what needs to be done.

Our glorious republic has lasted over 200 years, and I don't think its about to go down now. The US was established as a country that would take its guidance from a written constitution rather then the whim of a king. The same US constitution that formed the foundation of our government in 1789 is still extant and still brilliant and still the foundation of the government.

[seahorse]

I started this thread arguing the US Constitution is dead. In my opinion, the evidence continues to mount, but the people don't care. Just this month, the US signed an agreement which would allow Canadian troops to be allowed on US soil to assist civil authorities in time of emergency (I thought that was what the US National Guard was for, but they are all in Iraq). I don't see how this can possibly be Constitutional, but then again, the belief that the Constitution protects us from anything is just a belief in a false god. Paper cannot stop a Canadian bullet, only people can.

Here's my previous post on this issue and the article:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse', 'I')f the US hadn't admitted this, I would think its some tin foil stuff, but it was released by the US Northern Command. This is the Feb 14 news release:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U').S. Northern Command, Canada Command establish new bilateral Civil Assistance Plan


Photo by U.S. Army North Public Affairs Office

U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, left, commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, and Canadian Air Force Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command, signed a Civil Assistance Plan that allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency. The signing took place at U.S. Army North headquarters, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, Feb. 14, 2008.

February 14, 2008

SAN ANTONIO, Texas — U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, and Canadian Air Force Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command, have signed a Civil Assistance Plan that allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.

“This document is a unique, bilateral military plan to align our respective national military plans to respond quickly to the other nation's requests for military support of civil authorities,” Renuart said. “Unity of effort during bilateral support for civil support operations such as floods, forest fires, hurricanes, earthquakes and effects of a terrorist attack, in order to save lives, prevent human suffering and mitigate damage to property, is of the highest importance, and we need to be able to have forces that are flexible and adaptive to support rapid decision-making in a collaborative environment.”

“The signing of this plan is an important symbol of the already strong working relationship between Canada Command and U.S. Northern Command,” Dumais said. “Our commands were created by our respective governments to respond to the defense and security challenges of the twenty-first century, and we both realize that these and other challenges are best met through cooperation between friends.”

The plan recognizes the role of each nation's lead federal agency for emergency preparedness, which in the United States is the Department of Homeland Security and in Canada is Public Safety Canada. The plan facilitates the military-to-military support of civil authorities once government authorities have agreed on an appropriate response.

U.S. Northern Command was established on Oct. 1, 2002, to anticipate and conduct homeland defense and civil support operations within the assigned area of responsibility to defend, protect, and secure the United States and its interests.

Similarly, Canada Command was established on Feb. 1, 2006, to focus on domestic operations and to offer a single point of contact for all domestic and continental defense and security partners.

The two domestic commands established strong bilateral ties well before the signing of the Civil Assistance Plan. The two commanders and their staffs meet regularly, collaborate on contingency planning and participate in related annual exercises.

[jato]

Does this mean Canadian troops have to take an oath to defend the United States Constitution before they can deploy onto United States soil?

[/stupid question]

[Ferretlover]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jato', 'D')oes this mean Canadian troops have to take an oath to defend the United States Constitution before they can deploy onto United States soil?

[/stupid question]

[Cloud9]

The Constitution is not dead. The great debate between those who fear the people and those who fear the state continues to rage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... _v._Heller

[seahorse]

Debate rages! That will get us places. When foriegn troops are allowed to come in, see if you can debate them back across the border. This is really a bad precedent.

[Kingcoal]

The constitution is not dead. The American people are brain dead, however.

When our founding fathers created the US federal government, they knew that this body could become tyrannical. That's why the Constitution was created. It was to be used as a guide for the courts to decide jurisdiction. Most Supreme Court cases involving Constitutional rights are where the court decides whether law enforcement has the authority to do whatever they are doing in the case brought before them. The Court does not decide what law is and what isn't, they decide on a case by case basis whether or not the law enforcement exceeded their authority.

Both Congress and the Executive branch generally hate the Supreme Court and believe it has too much power. After all, any law can be rendered unenforceable by the Court. When the Court rules that the government exceeds their authority, they are not ordering Congress to take the law off the books, they don't have that power. Congress can write whatever they want into law, including the Patriot Act. However, if they can't enforce these laws under the circumstances they want too, they are worthless.

The American People's general understanding of jurisdiction is practically nonexistent. That's the problem. Most Americans think that once something becomes law, that's it; there is nothing they can do but lobby Congress to change the law. What people don't understand is jurisdiction; where it applies and where it doesn't. It is to the Executive branch's advantage to make people think that all statutes apply wherever they want them too, but that simply isn't the case. When you read these statutes, you have to read between the lines, because the jurisdictional boundaries are often only vaguely eluded too.

Some recent cases are interesting, such as the firearms ban in DC. This is a very pivotal case because the Constitution does say that Congress has exclusive legislative power in this territory. That has generally been interpreted to mean that the individual rights outlined in the Constitution don't apply there. However, in this case, it is not Congress that passed the law, it is a local law. I believe that the Court will rule in favor of the ban, which will be heralded as a great victory for gun control advocates, but it isn't because it only applies to federal territories. The States are not federal territories.

What strikes me these days is that it seems as though a lot of local and state lawmakers and lawyers don't understand the Constitution. Like a said, you can pass any law you like, but that doesn't automatically mean it's enforceable.

[seahorse]

Yea, like taking people's guns from them in New Orleans?

Gun Confiscation in New Orleans

How's that for your inalienable 2nd Amendment Right. You guys have a lot of wishful thinking. Those paper words won't protect you. Going to court after the fact is not protection.

[Ferretlover]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse', 'Y')ea, like taking people's guns from them in New Orleans?
Gun Confiscation in New Orleans
How's that for your inalienable 2nd Amendment Right. You guys have a lot of wishful thinking. Those paper words won't protect you. Going to court after the fact is not protection.

[Cloud9]

Given a choice between litigation and lead, I would choose litigation most every time.

http://patrioticstand.proboards23.com/i ... 1143152148

The New Orleans gun grab did not go unnoticed.

The legal arguments supporting an individual right have begun to gain ground in the last couple of decades beginning with Professor Levinson’s powerful essay.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html


I think it is encouraging that the majority of congress has signed on to a amicus curiae brief supporting an individual right interpretation.

The Court can render a very narrow decision addressing the District of Columbia exclusively or it can render a general decision affecting all Americans.

As far as shooting up foreign troops are concerned, it depends on why they are here. If it is a medical unit serving to contain a pandemic or a chopper unit snatching people off the roofs of a drowned city, I would give them a beer. If they are here to invade, I would give them a bullet.

[seahorse]

Yes Cloud9, you're thinking is way up on Cloud9, but, practically, the 2nd Amendment is still only a piece of paper. Unless you are willing to use that gun in your hand, that paper will not protect you. Thomas Jefferson had a good quote about that, which, I don't have time to find right now.

Its good that our founding fathers didn't wait for the courts to protect them. Believe me, I'm in the courts a lot, you won't find what you're looking for there.

[seahorse]

Here's an interesting article that analysis this current US situation and asks, using sociological reserch on revolutions, if the US isn't primed for a revolution.

Is US on verge of revolution?

[Cloud9]

Seahorse, I sense your cynicism. I suspect the Supreme Court has an interest in expanding its power. The argument that civil liberties are suspended the moment a citizen walks into the District of Columbia is not going to fly. The court is not going to abide by the idea that their power is checked at the Virginia and Maryland state lines. My guess is that the court is going to wrap itself up in the flag of civil liberties and spank the city for asserting that the Bill of Rights has no play in the District of Columbia.

The larger question revolves around whether or not the Court wants to provoke a civil war. An assertion of no individual right by the Court would empower the gun abolitionists. Their rabid fear of the average citizen will drive them to push for total confiscation. They know that the only way the gun ban in D.C. or any other place is ever going to work is if the Federal Government systematically searches every inch of the country and confiscates all firearms in civilian hands. Such an effort would shove hundreds of thousands of normally law abiding Americans into the arms of radicals. Home grown terrorism would masticize.

To date, if you calculate the total body count and the total property loss, it is difficult for the Federal government to claim victory in their gun confiscation efforts.