Thread: Important For United States Citizens

Originally Posted by metcalfracing

Even if a president becomes ambitious in power lust, the senate would never allow such a bill to pass. This is why we have checks and balances.[/b]

Please tell me you're not that damn stupid? Do you even know what an (EO)Executive Order is? You probably never even heard of it huh? Because if you had then that statement you made wouldn't have even been thought of. Let me educate you on why the Senate doesn't matter if a president deciedes to push a bill through. Read carefully because you're in school right now.

Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. However, in many instances they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent.

You see where I'm going here? Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "Executive Power." Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders. In short a president executive order "OVERRULE" any Senate in office. Get it? Got it? Good. Read something every now and then, you will be amazed on what you can learn.

Originally Posted by metcalfracing

This can not be more true. The vacuum has come to suck our rites away, like as to clean up a dirty mess.

I think they want to finely get rid of the libertarian party.

GIVE Me AN AK47 GOD DAMN IT! And I don't mean for a revolution! I mean point one at me so I can take it and have a fair chance!
[/b]

Yeah I agree I'm with ya all the way because with Big Brother Monitoring us with their RFID Chips 24/7 no one is getting a fair chance and with passports getting their first crack at them is pretty unfortunate, RFID chips can be read by any reader, not just the ones at passport control. The upshot of this is that travelers carrying around RFID passports are broadcasting their identity.
Think about what that means for a minute. It means that passport holders are continuously broadcasting their name, nationality, age, address and whatever else is on the RFID chip. It means that anyone with a reader can learn that information, without the passport holder's knowledge or consent. It means that pickpockets, kidnappers and terrorists can easily and surreptitiously pick Americans or nationals of other participating countries out of a crowd.
It is a clear threat to both privacy and personal safety, and quite simply, that is why it is bad idea. Proponents of the system claim that the chips can be read only from within a distance of a few centimeters, so there is no potential for abuse. This is a spectacularly naive claim. All wireless protocols can work at much longer ranges than specified. In tests, RFID chips have been read by receivers 20 meters away. And even with maximum range transmitted by more advance devices up to at least 15 feet. No invasion of personal berrings. But an invasion of your person without the physical. Of of course improvements in technology are inevitable making it that much more unsecure. In short Big Brother is just keeping everyone on a long leash to monitor everyone at any given moment. It's not about terriost because they've been doing this before 9/11 Trying to get Chips implanted under peoples skin. Big Brother also wants to put the Chips in all passports world wide. Like I said New World Order is underway.

Slightly condescending, but some interesting stuff in there, Ne-yo

Are Sagea and Metcalfracing on my side in a political argument? You mean that that actually happens here? There was that one guy Hominus. Other than that, I have been a one member debate team in this forum. I love arguing with large numbers by myself, but it's cool to have some support sometimes.

Originally Posted by Alric

That is scary, that is truely scary. I am not sure if you meant to say that or it was just subconscious but you just admited they are taking away freedoms and your ok with it since they will be reinstated later. Its never ok to take away freedoms. I don't care how bad things are, and I don't care if you claim they will be reinstated later. Losing our freedoms is totally unaccetable.
[/b]

There should definitely be a limit to it, but some sacrifices will have to be made for a while. We are up against a truly existing threat of suicide nuclear bomber terrorism, other forms of WMD terrorism, and other forms of terrorism. It is the biggest deal we have ever known. It is not some dark fantasy. It is a horrifically true threat. Suicide bombers can't have WMD's, and suicide bombers can't be allowed to go through with any of their other plans. I don't just mean it's not good or it would be kind of a problem. It is the most out of the question threat the world has ever known. It is 100% out of the question, and we are dealing with the threat of it. Do suicide bombers exist? Absolutely. Do they want to make Americans and Israelis extinct? Yes, and they are quick to say it. Are Europe, Canada, and Australia next on their list? Yes! Remember London and Madrid? Are there suicide bomber supporting governments in the world? Yes. Put those facts together and think about what we are dealing with. Think about it. Seriously, think about it. I mean, REALLY think about it. This is not some silly VH1 fashion contest. It is awful, horrible, cold, bitter reality, and ignoring it will only make our worst nightmares come true. This is something that has to be faced and annihilated. The future of civilization is depending on it. That is unfortunately an absolute fact.

Some people may die but when freedom is taken away everyone suffers.

Originally Posted by Alric

Some people may die but when freedom is taken away everyone suffers.
[/b]

I am talking about hundreds of thousands and even millions dying in a single attack. I really wish I wasn't.

Originally Posted by Universal

Are Sagea and Metcalfracing on my side in a political argument? You mean that that actually happens here? There was that one guy Hominus. Other than that, I have been a one member debate team in this forum. I love arguing with large numbers by myself, but it's cool to have some support sometimes.
There should definitely be a limit to it, but some sacrifices will have to be made for a while. We are up against a truly existing threat of suicide nuclear bomber terrorism, other forms of WMD terrorism, and other forms of terrorism. It is the biggest deal we have ever known. It is not some dark fantasy. It is a horrifically true threat. Suicide bombers can't have WMD's, and suicide bombers can't be allowed to go through with any of their other plans. I don't just mean it's not good or it would be kind of a problem. It is the most out of the question threat the world has ever known. It is 100% out of the question, and we are dealing with the threat of it. Do suicide bombers exist? Absolutely. Do they want to make Americans and Israelis extinct? Yes, and they are quick to say it. Are Europe, Canada, and Australia next on their list? Yes! Remember London and Madrid? Are there suicide bomber supporting governments in the world? Yes. Put those facts together and think about what we are dealing with. Think about it. Seriously, think about it. I mean, REALLY think about it. This is not some silly VH1 fashion contest. It is awful, horrible, cold, bitter reality, and ignoring it will only make our worst nightmares come true. This is something that has to be faced and annihilated. The future of civilization is depending on it. That is unfortunately an absolute fact.
[/b]

Thank you very much. Seems people around here are full of semantics, which don't matter when you are about to be killed by someone who hates the very essence of what you are.

Seriously, even if the government wanted to restrict the freedoms of the country after the war, people would riot in such huge numbers a would be amazed if I weren't in there myself.

And when I said "why should we just accept what the government says" I was saying do ou really think people in the military would die for something they know is not right?

Also, terrorists don't just want to instill terror in people. They want to overthrow our governments. You really think, since you are safe in your home, that they cannot get to you?

... I'd just like to point out that I've read both of the articles Ne-yo said. He is only taking words that fit with what he's saying. He isn't really mentioning what the article says. Now tell me were in this it says that the president can make decisions without the senate. plz I am curious.

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." [/b]

BTW, executive power means that he's the top of the Executive branch. Thus, why we have a division of powers in this country.

The problem with getting our freedoms back "after the war" is that the war will never end. There will always be criminals and you can always label criminals as terrorist and you can keep this going forever. Over the past 100 years of US history, we have been in a near constant cycle of wars. Believe me, once you give up your freedoms, your not getting them back.

You honestly think people will riot? The same people who willing accept that their freedoms are being taken away? You think they will riot? Seriously, a person who allows their freedoms to be taken away obviously doesn't care enough about them to do what is needed to get them back.

Besides I would much rather keep my freedoms than fight a bloody revolution, which is what it will take to get them back.

Originally Posted by Universal

I am talking about hundreds of thousands and even millions dying in a single attack. I really wish I wasn't.
[/b]

Can I point out again that suitcase bombs are a thing of science-fiction again?

Originally Posted by metcalfracing

... I'd just like to point out that I've read both of the articles Ne-yo said. He is only taking words that fit with what he's saying. He isn't really mentioning what the article says. Now tell me were in this it says that the president can make decisions without the senate. plz I am curious.[/b]

Oh I'm not mentioning what the article really says huh? Well you're not reading what the article really says. You show me where I'm wrong? I'll do one better for you I'll show you where the the President can make decisions without the Senate in the Constitution and I'll also point out where this has been practice.

CONSTITUION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session. [/b]

Now keep in mind that Presidents have sometimes used recess appointments to fill vacancies with individuals who might prove difficult to confirm, or who face staunch opposition within the Senate [see Filibuster] The recess appointment may be made in hopes that, by the next session, opposition will have diminished. In recent years, however, a recess appointment has tended to harden the attitude of the opposition party, and confirmation then becomes all the more difficult.

Sidestepping Senate, Bush sends Bolton to U.N.</span>

<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE</div><div class=\'quotemain\'>
Taken from CNN.com:
"Bush said "the job at the United Nations was "too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war and a vital debate about U.N. reform."

Now keep in mind that, the president&#39;s move comes nearly five months after he tapped Bolton to serve as the head of the U.S. mission to the United Nations, and six weeks after a second attempt to move his nomination through the Senate failed. Now Senate Democrats -- joined by a prominent Republican, Ohio Sen. George Voinovich -- blocked a final vote on Bolton amid concerns about his record, demands for the White House to release certain documents and questions about whether he had the temperament to serve in a critical job. So now the recess appointment puts Bolton in the job until a new Congress takes office in January 2007.

Senate GOP leaders twice failed to muster the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster and move Bolton&#39;s nomination to a floor vote.

[--The White House, citing Executive Privilege, also refused Senate Democrats&#39; calls for records of communications intercepts Bolton sought from the National Security Agency in his capacity at the State Department.--]

Under the Constitution, A president has the power to make appointments without Senate confirmation when Congress goes into recess. Lawmakers began their annual August sabbatical on Friday. But Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, called Bolton&#39;s recess appointment an [b"abuse of power."[/b]

"It&#39;s bad enough that the administration stonewalled the Senate by refusing to disclose documents highly relevant to the Bolton nomination," he said. "It&#39;s even worse for the administration to abuse the recess appointment power by making the appointment while Congress is in this five-week recess."[/b][/quote]

And if you really want to get into the meat of it we can talk about how "Presidential Powers" contradicts the will of Congress when it passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Which leads to illegal Wire-tapping among the American People today.

<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE(metcalfracing &#064; Jan 25 2007, 10&#58;21 AM) [snapback]404277[/snapback]</div><div class=\'quotemain\'>
BTW, executive power means that he&#39;s the top of the Executive branch. Thus, why we have a division of powers in this country.[/b][/quote]

I know what Executive Power means YOU just found out about it so I don&#39;t need for you to dictate a definition of it. What I&#39;m trying to show you here is how These so called Executive Orders are abused and do not comply with the Constitution.

Presidents of the United States have issued executive orders since 1789. There is no United States Constitution provision or statute that explicitly permits this, aside from the vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and the statement "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in Article II, Section 3.

Most executive orders are orders issued by the President to United States executive officers to help direct their operation, the result of failing to comply being removal from office. Some orders do have the force of law when made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress due to those acts giving the President "Discretionary power."

These are other types of executive orders, Each persident has changed the name during his administration.

• National Security Directives,
  
• Homeland Security Presidential Directives, and
  <span style="color:#3333FF">
• Presidential Decision Directives, both of which deal with National Security and Defense matters.

Originally Posted by Wolffe

Can I point out again that suitcase bombs are a thing of science-fiction again?
[/b]

Thats why I said its all about emotions and fear. Its an irrational fear that everyone is going to die around you if you don&#39;t give up your freedom, so the government can protect you. None of the arguements are based on logic. More people die in car crashes in a year than died during 9/11 but because it was broadcasted some people fear for their life.

Its the total overblown, irrational fear, that is driving people down the wrong path. When we dropped a nuke on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we killed just over 200,000 people. Thats two full sized bombs. Some little nuke you smuggle in isn&#39;t going to do nearly that much damage. Besides dropping a full sized nuke on new york, your going to be hard pressed to get any where even remotely close to a million people dying in a single attack.

In other words "hundreds of thousands and even millions dying in a single attack" is total bull.

Actually, there are many ways you can increase the yield of the bomb. One of them is to harden the casing, so that it holds the force in for a split second and increases the yield. So it&#39;s not science fiction. It&#39;s physics and chemistry. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were many years ago. Don&#39;t you think there&#39;s been advancements?

So let me get this straight, the President can fill vacancies in the Senate and you think that&#39;s controlling and unconstitutional? I&#39;m not really sure I understand that...

And yes, this war will never end, as long as there are people willing to die for something their&#39; cowardly leaders are not willing to die for. But it can slow down enough to where we are much safer.

Yes, people will riot. People like everyone who really cares about this country. And other people who care nothing but to advance they&#39;re political status.

The problem is that everyone wants a quick solution, no more suffering, etc. But months or years down the line, that&#39;s gonna come and bite us in the ass - and it&#39;ll take a big bite. All because we did not crack down on the terrorists.

And is a national ID really restricting our freedoms? All military already wear an ID. It could not only help tracking terrorists, it could help find evidence against the average criminal.

There is really no point in tracking U.S. citizens. Do you listen to System of a Down, perhaps?

Car crashes are unavoidable, sometimes. The 9/11 attacks were committed by a group of murderous religious extremists who don&#39;t give a shit about our ways except if they manage to destroy them.

My dad has faced the terrorists, fought them, and he actually knows what they are. Have you ever fought someone who has an irrational hatred for your very being? For what you represent, the freedoms of the free world? Who will stop at nothing to kill as many of us as possible?
I don&#39;t think so.

Originally Posted by Alric

Thats why I said its all about emotions and fear. Its an irrational fear that everyone is going to die around you if you don&#39;t give up your freedom, so the government can protect you. None of the arguements are based on logic.[/b]

I don&#39;t know how many times this has to be said. Apparently, very, very many times. It&#39;s funny, though, it never gets less true.

As a side note, even if there WERE and attack, I don&#39;t care how many people die. If I were one of those, so be it. I&#39;m prepared to die; at least I will die freely. If my family was part of that, so be it. I&#39;m a human, not an animal. I will not be domesticated. I truly know the meaning of the phrase "give me liberty or give me death." The rights we are talking about are basic, universal rights, and if they were taken away, I simply would not care about living my life. You know those monks who set themselves on fire in protest? Yeah, if it gets right down to it, that&#39;s how I feel.

I&#39;m not afraid of people dying; I&#39;m afraid of people not living.

I consider anyone who supports the way the constitution is being shredded, executive powers being expanded, and the direction our country is taking to be an insult to liberty and, therefore, humanity.

Originally Posted by Sagea

So let me get this straight, the President can fill vacancies in the Senate and you think that&#39;s controlling and unconstitutional? I&#39;m not really sure I understand that...[/b]

Yes I do think it&#39;s controlling and unconstitutional and you should as well. What is the purpose of the constitution if the President is not at will to abide by it&#39;s rules. There is a purpose and a specific reason why the framework and the clauses are implemented the way that they are. It Governs the people and inturn itself. For the President at will to undermine the Senate and exercise absolute full extensive power then this, of course, runs against the general logic of the Constitution that no "ONE" should have sole power to act unilaterally. Otherwise this would be a dictatorship.

Originally Posted by Ne

Yes I do think it&#39;s controlling and unconstitutional and you should as well. What is the purpose of the constitution if the President is not at will to abide by it&#39;s rules. There is a purpose and a specific reason why the framework and the clauses are implemented the way that they are. It Governs the people and inturn itself. For the President at will to undermine the Senate and exercise absolute full extensive power then this, of course, runs against the general logic of the Constitution that no "ONE" should have sole power to act unilaterally. Otherwise this would be a dictatorship.
[/b]

Very Well said

I&#39;d like to see anybody logically rebutt this point.

Imran

Originally Posted by Ne

Yes I do think it&#39;s controlling and unconstitutional and you should as well. What is the purpose of the constitution if the President is not at will to abide by it&#39;s rules.[/b]

Well... technically, if the constitution says he can... he is abiding by the rules. Just wanted to point that out.
Plus, he can in no way exercise full control. Its very ignorant to think that he can. That clause only gives him the power to appoint senators that have become unable to fulfill their duties as such. ( By death or extreme ailment.) Not only that, but he only has this power while the senate is out. (which is 1-2 days a year.)

Well, I guess that if he bumps off a couple of congress men while their not in session he could possibly fill them with whoever he want, but until the congress men start dropping off like flies it&#39;s safe to say there isn&#39;t much to worry about.

Originally Posted by Sagea

And is a national ID really restricting our freedoms? All military already wear an ID. It could not only help tracking terrorists, it could help find evidence against the average criminal.

There is really no point in tracking U.S. citizens. Do you listen to System of a Down, perhaps?

Car crashes are unavoidable, sometimes. The 9/11 attacks were committed by a group of murderous religious extremists who don&#39;t give a shit about our ways except if they manage to destroy them.

My dad has faced the terrorists, fought them, and he actually knows what they are. Have you ever fought someone who has an irrational hatred for your very being? For what you represent, the freedoms of the free world? Who will stop at nothing to kill as many of us as possible?
I don&#39;t think so.
[/b]

They had as much reasoning behind their attacks as the nuclear bombs in Japan. I think neither are good, but one man&#39;s terrorist is another man&#39;s freedom fighter, as they say.

Sure, the IDs might be purely for greater protection against criminals etc. but do you want to risk that? If I may use an analogy, would you want to be chickens in a factory, giving up your freedom for safety from foxes/jackals/coyotes? You may be safe, but all you are guaranteed after that is a life serving the factory, til the bitter end.

Originally Posted by Sagea

Well... technically, if the constitution says he can... he is abiding by the rules. Just wanted to point that out.
Plus, he can in no way exercise full control. Its very ignorant to think that he can. That clause only gives him the power to appoint senators that have become unable to fulfill their duties as such. ( By death or extreme ailment.) Not only that, but he only has this power while the senate is out. (which is 1-2 days a year.)

Well, I guess that if he bumps off a couple of congress men while their not in session he could possibly fill them with whoever he want, but until the congress men start dropping off like flies it&#39;s safe to say there isn&#39;t much to worry about.
[/b]

He can do a lot, and has been proving who &#39;rules the roost&#39; at this very moment. There was a lot of disapproval about sending those extra troops into Bahgdad, but since it was his decision, they&#39;re going in anyway.

Seriously, can anyone read? He&#39;s the head of the military. He can do whatever it takes to win the war. Here&#39;s an idea, don&#39;t elect Bush if you don&#39;t want Bush to make decisions&#33; Thats like asking Carrot top to go on stage and not make an idiot of himself. It just isn&#39;t going to happen.

Originally Posted by metcalfracing

Seriously, can anyone read? He&#39;s the head of the military. He can do whatever it takes to win the war. Here&#39;s an idea, don&#39;t elect Bush if you don&#39;t want Bush to make decisions&#33; Thats like asking Carrot top to go on stage and not make an idiot of himself. It just isn&#39;t going to happen.
[/b]

There is no war&#33; It ended a long time ago.

I&#39;m sorry "War on Terror". That better? Your still missing the point, the constitution makes it his military while in office.

Originally Posted by metcalfracing

I&#39;m sorry "War on Terror". That better? Your still missing the point, the constitution makes it his military while in office.[/b]

You know what? I don&#39;t know if you&#39;re playing or serious

Originally Posted by metcalfracing

Seriously, can anyone read? He&#39;s the head of the military. He can do whatever it takes to win the war. Here&#39;s an idea, don&#39;t elect Bush if you don&#39;t want Bush to make decisions&#33; Thats like asking Carrot top to go on stage and not make an idiot of himself. It just isn&#39;t going to happen.
[/b]

No the question is can you read? We are not talking about just Bush I put him out there as an example just like I can show plenty how many other presidents exercised this so called "executive orders" And let&#39;s get something straight I didn&#39;t vote for Bush.

Originally Posted by metcalfracing

Well... technically, if the constitution says he can... he is abiding by the rules. Just wanted to point that out.[/b]

Good, because earlier you were saying this:

Originally Posted by metcalfracing

... I&#39;d just like to point out that I&#39;ve read both of the articles Ne-yo said. He is only taking words that fit with what he&#39;s saying. He isn&#39;t really mentioning what the article says.[/b]

And now you&#39;re saying: "Well…technically, if the constitution says he can…"

Originally Posted by metcalfracing

Plus, he can in no way exercise full control. Its very ignorant to think that he can.[/b]

No it&#39;s very ignorant to think that he can&#39;t and what&#39;s even more frightening is that it&#39;s people like you in this country who is just going with the flow and not researching for yourself. He has been given full control on several instances. So you think the President cannot exercise full control? I bet you didn&#39;t even know that the President has the right to declare "Martial Law" either huh?

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 (President) 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 Commisions 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."

Originally Posted by metcalfracing

That clause only gives him the power to appoint senators that have become unable to fulfill their duties as such. ( By death or extreme ailment.) Not only that, but he only has this power while the senate is out. (which is 1-2 days a year.)[/b]

And once again you&#39;re showing how naive you are, let me ask you something? Are you even reading "anything" I&#39;m posting? I just pointed out where this 1-2 days is extremely irrelevant. The administration abused the recess appointment power by making the appointment while Congress was in a "FIVE-WEEK RECESS."

Originally Posted by metcalfracing

Well, I guess that if he bumps off a couple of congress men while their not in session he could possibly fill them with whoever he want, but until the congress men start dropping off like flies it&#39;s safe to say there isn&#39;t much to worry about.[/b]

Did you see anywhere in my post where I said he was bumping off congressmen? I&#39;m talking about the appointment of a "U.N. AMBASSODOR"

Originally Posted by metcalfracing

I&#39;m sorry "War on Terror". That better? Your still missing the point, the constitution makes it his military while in office.
[/b]

Yes, but he&#39;s making a big thing about &#39;Everyone disagrees, but what I say goes, and I choose to ignore everyone else&#39;

While that is true, to an extent. You need to realize that there are three reasons behind this.
1. He has to make the war in Iraq come to a pleasant end if Republicans want election next year.
2. He has a panel of military experts telling him what he should do...
3. He is a puppet of the Republican party, he does what they want... enough said.

Yeah I agree I&#39;m with ya all the way because with Big Brother Monitoring us with their RFID Chips 24/7 no one is getting a fair chance and with passports getting their first crack at them is pretty unfortunate, RFID chips can be read by any reader, not just the ones at passport control. The upshot of this is that travelers carrying around RFID passports are broadcasting their identity.
Think about what that means for a minute. It means that passport holders are continuously broadcasting their name, nationality, age, address and whatever else is on the RFID chip. It means that anyone with a reader can learn that information, without the passport holder&#39;s knowledge or consent. It means that pickpockets, kidnappers and terrorists can easily and surreptitiously pick Americans or nationals of other participating countries out of a crowd.
It is a clear threat to both privacy and personal safety, and quite simply, that is why it is bad idea. Proponents of the system claim that the chips can be read only from within a distance of a few centimeters, so there is no potential for abuse. This is a spectacularly naive claim. All wireless protocols can work at much longer ranges than specified. In tests, RFID chips have been read by receivers 20 meters away. And even with maximum range transmitted by more advance devices up to at least 15 feet. No invasion of personal berrings. But an invasion of your person without the physical. Of of course improvements in technology are inevitable making it that much more unsecure. In short Big Brother is just keeping everyone on a long leash to monitor everyone at any given moment. It&#39;s not about terriost because they&#39;ve been doing this before 9/11 Trying to get Chips implanted under peoples skin. Big Brother also wants to put the Chips in all passports world wide. Like I said New World Order is underway.
[/b]

Absolutely&#33; It&#39;s taking away our 4th and 5th amendment rites. That decreases our chances toward the pursuit of liberty and happiness. UnAmerican indeed.