President Bush wants More power to the Executive

This is a discussion on President Bush wants More power to the Executive within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I was watching FOX news, yesterday as President Bush stated that Congress needs to pass new laws to to extend the powers of the Executive ...

Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: President Bush wants More power to the Executive

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,757

    Exclamation President Bush wants More power to the Executive

    I was watching FOX news, yesterday as President Bush stated that Congress needs to pass new laws to to extend the powers of the Executive in response to a mass casualty event like another major storm or even a terror attack. Sorry, but he already has them under a series of Executive Orders written by every President since JFK and under continuous authorization of an ongoing "State of Emergency" that every President since Eisenhower has extended, probably under the threat of the Cold War. These Executive Orders authorize the total suspension of the Constitution for six months without review by Congress. Authorizes FEMA to assume all governmental powers and powers to relocate populations, en masse. As well as confiscate everything from individual food supplies, to firearms to power generators purchased at Home Depot. There are some fifteen such orders all artfully strung together during the Nixon administration and expanded under the Omnibus Crime Bills of 1991 and 1994. They are all viewable in the Federal Register and they are truly frightening. President Bush wants to now ADD to this power? I don't think so. With this power, Hillary Clinton could succeed in doing what her husband always longed to do: Become American royalty and rule for life.
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Lead Moderator
    Array rstickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Laurel, MD
    Posts
    21,627
    It kind of makes you wonder if any of the people currently in political office ever read any of the founding documents explaining how our government was supposed to work.
    Rick

    EOD - Initial success or total failure

  4. #3
    JT
    JT is offline
    Distinguished Member Array JT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,425
    Quote Originally Posted by ExSoldier762
    These Executive Orders authorize the total suspension of the Constitution for six months without review by Congress.
    Do you have a source on that by any chance? I do not doubt you, I would just like to read upon it and reference it in a discussion I was having on another board.

    We were discussing the confiscation of guns in New Orleans. Somebody brought up that it might have been because Martial Law was declared. I pointed out (among other things) that Martial Law was never declared. One liberal tried to correct me with a news story that the Mayor had declared martial law. I tore this to shreds because the mayor had no authority to declare martial law. What a sad state of affairs that would be if each mayor had the authority to declare martial law in their cities.

    This led to another discussion on the basis for martial law. I pointed out that nowhere in the Constitution does it make provision for martial law. Now some will argue that it’s implied and/or partial Martial Law is allowed because the Constitution allows the suspension of habeas corpus, and for the activation of the militia in time of rebellion or invasion. I would agree that some, very limited, martial law types powers are given in these instance, but in no way should we go with the “it’s implied” theory to grant complete martial law powers. What a dangerous road that is.

    So what people need to realize is since the declaring or martial law is not authorized in the Constitution, that the declaring of Martial Law is suspending the Constitution. And the Constitution does not give anybody this authority to suspend the Constitution. So they are going above the supreme law of the land.
    Blessed be the Lord my rock who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle. Psalm 144:1

    Si vis pacem, para bellum

  5. #4
    Member Array buzzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grants Pass, OR
    Posts
    132
    I read through the Exective Orders once. I'll never do it agan. It put me off my feed for several days. You're right ,Bush doesn't need more he's already got too much at his fingertips. He must know that? Maybe he should read the Federalist Papers.

  6. #5
    Senior Member Array tanksoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,133
    I used to work with the "Military Suport to Civilian Authorities" office of the California National Guard. People think that a Martial Law declaration gives the government all sorts of power to suspend civil rights and so forth. It doesn't. It only does 2 things:

    1. It suspends Habius Corpus. In othrwords the authorities can detain someone without charges longer than usual. This is because it is assumed that in the event of a disaster or civil unrest that requires the declaration of martial law in the first place, it may be dificult to arrange court hearings and arraignments... so the authorities can hang on to BGs until things settle down enough for the court system to function again.

    2. It allows military forces to engage in law-and-order operations. They are under the same restrictions as law enforcement officers, in fact in California SOP was to assign a LEO if possible to each unit to advise them on proper procedure. It doesn't mean that they can do whatever they want, search you, search your house, break down the door, etc. In a disaster or civil unrest situation "probable cause" is a lot easier to show... ie: breaking down the door of a non-responsive house in a flooded area is pretty easy to justify; you have to make sure there's nobody inside too weak to respond, also have to check for dead bodies. It does NOT allow you to break down the door or enter a house that has responded and told you to go away. Citizens still have the right to refuse help.

    The circumstances where the government can declare a true "mandatory" evacuation and actually force people from their homes is pretty limited, even in California.
    "I am a Soldier. I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight." GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

  7. #6
    JT
    JT is offline
    Distinguished Member Array JT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,425
    That was my point. Congress is given those two powers, but they do not rise to the level of what is traditionally known as Martial Law.
    Blessed be the Lord my rock who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle. Psalm 144:1

    Si vis pacem, para bellum

  8. #7
    Assistant Administrator
    Array P95Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South West PA
    Posts
    25,482
    Legislator - ''Hey, we need a new law"

    Questioner - "But surely that is already on the statute book?"

    Legislator - "So what - you expect me to go looking?"

    If enough digging is done we'll found about every law ever even considered, somewhere. Instead the statute book gets ever more confusing and congested - not even skilled attornies can manage it all.
    I read through the Exective Orders once. I'll never do it again.
    Buzz - that is recommended reading for anyone wishing to find a way to avoid sleep! I found it disturbing.

    Don't forget too, Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged .....
    "Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted ? and you create a nation of law-breakers ? and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
    -- 'Atlas Shrugged' 1957
    Chris - P95
    NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.

    "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
    is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."


    http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Teen plans to attack President Bush?
    By MilitaryPower in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: August 8th, 2008, 04:48 PM
  2. Gun incident near President Bush's ranch
    By JonInNY in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: March 8th, 2008, 01:52 AM
  3. President Bush on Zombie attacks
    By pgrass101 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: August 14th, 2007, 11:07 AM
  4. President Bush May Send Up To 5 Marines For French Assistance
    By Bumper in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: November 13th, 2005, 10:11 PM
  5. PRESIDENT BUSH SIGNS "PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT"
    By JT in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: October 30th, 2005, 11:56 AM