Government By Coup d'Etat and Intimidation

[Tech_Esq]

We know that the beginning stages of a police state exist in the United States when:
a leader is brought into power through illegal means

a national catastrophe is used as the pretext to begin a war and institute extraordinary restrictions on constitutional liberties

citizen dissent is held to be treasonous

the constitutional separation of powers is abrogated by a power-mad executive branch which controls or intimidates the other two branches of government

The US Patriot Act was enacted by a Congress that had not actually read it. The only thing representatives and senators got was a two or three page compendium from the White House press office. Nobody was actually given the time to read the provisions of the act. The White House intimidated members of Congress into passing the bill by telling them that if they refused to sign it, they'd be labeled as "unpatriotic"--something almost all members of Congress were frightened of at the time.

Lieberman, Daschle and Gephardt later wrote a memorandum stating that Congress had effectively given the Bush Administration "near dictatorial powers."

Let the sheeple awake from their daze!

Editorial Digest
Keeping you informed!

You have described the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Are you willing to stand by your argument now? Or only when you suppose you are talking about Bush?

 

[Tech_Esq]

can i see a source that says congress never read the patriot act? that would be quite disturbing

not surprising. Have you seen most of these bills? Thousands of pages and they are given hours or less to vote on them.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Back to the main point of the thread.

The allegation that in the formation of a police state the leader comes to power thru illegal means is certainly not true in all or maybe even most cases.

Hitler, for instance, was made Chancellor of Germany through perfectly legal means. Although the Nazis did not win a majority of the votes, they were the largest plurality and Hitler as the leader of the largest vote getting party was made Chancellor with the vice-Chancellor being Papen, the leader of the Nationalist Party. In fact, most of the first year of Hilter's grasping for power was legal until he illegally took control of the office of the president after the death of Hindenburg.

So many dictators come to power as the aftermath of a revolution, that it depends how you view revolution whether you believe their rise to power legitimate or illegitimate. I think if we follow the thinking outlined in the Declaration of Independence, the people maintain the right to revolution innate within the collective body of the governed. (Consent of the governed and withdrawal of that consent). So, I would have to say that rise to power through revolution is legitimate even when it does not result in a government I like.

Distinguish that from actual operation of a government, the police state, may be a criminal government and thus the consent of the governed should be withdrawn. However in most cases in a police state the means to effectuate a withdrawal of consent (arms) has been taken from the people. They are therefore cowed and made a prisoner to the governmental system.

Probably the most often occurring illegitimate seizure of dictatorial power comes from the Coup d'Etat, militarily forcibly wresting control of the government from the previous legitimate government. This may or may not result in a police state or a dictatorship.

 

[AllieBaba]

Many members of Congress admit that they don't read every act that they sign. They get briefed. We shouldn't have to prove that to you.

Say, what is Ron Paul talking about here? HR1965:

The House has just **quietly --without the knowledge of American people ** passed the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007". This is by far the largest attack on our civil liberties since the likes of the Patriot Act, , though this one is actually more dangerous. It's language is even vague enough that the actions/emails/conversations of Ron Paul supporters prone to patriotic dissent could be seen as homegrown terrorism threats.

H.R. 1955 -- Our freedom stolen | Ron Paul - The Daily Paul's Campaign for Liberty

THat in no way supports your claim that Congress signed it into existence without reading it.

Just mindless, ignorant rhetoric that you're trying to pass off as fact. In other words, you told a lie.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Back to the main point of the thread.

The allegation that in the formation of a police state the leader comes to power thru illegal means is certainly not true in all or maybe even most cases.

Hitler, for instance, was made Chancellor of Germany through perfectly legal means. Although the Nazis did not win a majority of the votes, they were the largest plurality and Hitler as the leader of the largest vote getting party was made Chancellor with the vice-Chancellor being Papen, the leader of the Nationalist Party. In fact, most of the first year of Hilter's grasping for power was legal until he illegally took control of the office of the president after the death of Hindenburg.

So many dictators come to power as the aftermath of a revolution, that it depends how you view revolution whether you believe their rise to power legitimate or illegitimate. I think if we follow the thinking outlined in the Declaration of Independence, the people maintain the right to revolution innate within the collective body of the governed. (Consent of the governed and withdrawal of that consent). So, I would have to say that rise to power through revolution is legitimate even when it does not result in a government I like.

Distinguish that from actual operation of a government, the police state, may be a criminal government and thus the consent of the governed should be withdrawn. However in most cases in a police state the means to effectuate a withdrawal of consent (arms) has been taken from the people. They are therefore cowed and made a prisoner to the governmental system.

Probably the most often occurring illegitimate seizure of dictatorial power comes from the Coup d'Etat, militarily forcibly wresting control of the government from the previous legitimate government. This may or may not result in a police state or a dictatorship.

Which has nothing to do with the election of 2000 at all. In fact the party in that election that tried to subvert the will of the people was Gore and the Democrats. He tried to thwart the laws of Florida and when that failed he tried to disenfranchise the entire State in the Electoral College. Aided and abetted by 4 Democrats on the Florida Supreme Court.

I love how the 5 to 4 decision of the US Supreme Court is touted as divisive by the left but the 4 to 3 decision by the Florida Supreme Court is never mentioned. Add in the fact the US Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 on the actual merits of the case. Last I checked there have not been 7 Republicans or Conservatives on the Supreme Court in my life time.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Which has nothing to do with the election of 2000 at all. In fact the party in that election that tried to subvert the will of the people was Gore and the Democrats. He tried to thwart the laws of Florida and when that failed he tried to disenfranchise the entire State in the Electoral College. Aided and abetted by 4 Democrats on the Florida Supreme Court.

I love how the 5 to 4 decision of the US Supreme Court is touted as divisive by the left but the 4 to 3 decision by the Florida Supreme Court is never mentioned. Add in the fact the US Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 on the actual merits of the case. Last I checked there have not been 7 Republicans or Conservatives on the Supreme Court in my life time.

Absolutely true statements. The only thing I would add is that on the 7 to 2 vote only 2 justices were appointed by Democrats. (Breyer and Ginsburg). I don't think anyone could argue that JP Stevens is a conservative though (appointed by Ford). Stevens believes he is playing a role on the court though. I think he believes that when Brennan left the court it was his job to pick up where Brennan left off. Stevens has moved far left of where he was when Marshall and Brennan were still on the court. Souter has also moved left as has Kennedy. There is a peculiar school of thought on the court about the need for political balance. If it isn't there, the justices seem to manufacture it. This makes Kennedy the most powerful on the court a role he has taken from O'Connor, because he is usually the in the middle and the swing vote on 5-4s. All-in-all, the Supreme Court is an odd little institution that probably needs its wings clipped a little bit.

 

[sealybobo]

Absolutely true statements. The only thing I would add is that on the 7 to 2 vote only 2 justices were appointed by Democrats. (Breyer and Ginsburg). I don't think anyone could argue that JP Stevens is a conservative though (appointed by Ford). Stevens believes he is playing a role on the court though. I think he believes that when Brennan left the court it was his job to pick up where Brennan left off. Stevens has moved far left of where he was when Marshall and Brennan were still on the court. Souter has also moved left as has Kennedy. There is a peculiar school of thought on the court about the need for political balance. If it isn't there, the justices seem to manufacture it. This makes Kennedy the most powerful on the court a role he has taken from O'Connor, because he is usually the in the middle and the swing vote on 5-4s. All-in-all, the Supreme Court is an odd little institution that probably needs its wings clipped a little bit.

Sandra Day O'Conner went public to ask the two new justices to please follow Stare decisis — "to stand by things decided"— a Latin legal term, used in common law systems expressing the notion that, according to case law, prior court decisions must be recognized as precedent. The full legal term is "stare decisis et quieta non movere" meaning "stand by decisions and do not move that which is still".

FOXNews.com - Transcript: Former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on 'FNS' - FOX News Sunday | Chris Wallace

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sandra Day O'Conner went public to ask the two new justices to please follow Stare decisis — "to stand by things decided"— a Latin legal term, used in common law systems expressing the notion that, according to case law, prior court decisions must be recognized as precedent. The full legal term is "stare decisis et quieta non movere" meaning "stand by decisions and do not move that which is still".

FOXNews.com - Transcript: Former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on 'FNS' - FOX News Sunday | Chris Wallace

Ohh ok, so once Dred Scott was decided the Court should have stood by the decision forever, got ya.

 

[Chris]

Which has nothing to do with the election of 2000 at all. In fact the party in that election that tried to subvert the will of the people was Gore and the Democrats. He tried to thwart the laws of Florida and when that failed he tried to disenfranchise the entire State in the Electoral College. Aided and abetted by 4 Democrats on the Florida Supreme Court.

I love how the 5 to 4 decision of the US Supreme Court is touted as divisive by the left but the 4 to 3 decision by the Florida Supreme Court is never mentioned. Add in the fact the US Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 on the actual merits of the case. Last I checked there have not been 7 Republicans or Conservatives on the Supreme Court in my life time.

Gore got more votes than Bush, so I guess the will of the people was thwarted by the electorial college.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Sandra Day O'Conner went public to ask the two new justices to please follow Stare decisis — "to stand by things decided"— a Latin legal term, used in common law systems expressing the notion that, according to case law, prior court decisions must be recognized as precedent. The full legal term is "stare decisis et quieta non movere" meaning "stand by decisions and do not move that which is still".

FOXNews.com - Transcript: Former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on 'FNS' - FOX News Sunday | Chris Wallace

I can't respond with without jacking the thread. She could address that to whole court

 

[Tech_Esq]

Gore got more votes than Bush, so I guess the will of the people was thwarted by the electorial college.

The electoral college is THE method of electing a president in this country and always has been. There was no thwarting. It worked the way it has always worked. Federalism actually means something, it isn't just some crap to learn about in high school government class.

 

[editec]

The electoral college is THE method of electing a president in this country and always has been. There was no thwarting. It worked the way it has always worked. Federalism actually means something, it isn't just some crap to learn about in high school government class.

The way that "electors" are chosen has changed somewhat.

At one time it was decided by the State Legislatures.

Now they are chosen by the Parties.

The exact mechanics are beyond my ability to describe (or understand frankly since it is different in different states) so here's link to Wiki's explanation of the college, and the changes that have been made to it over the years.

 

[jillian]

We know that the beginning stages of a police state exist in the United States when:
a leader is brought into power through illegal means

a national catastrophe is used as the pretext to begin a war and institute extraordinary restrictions on constitutional liberties

citizen dissent is held to be treasonous

the constitutional separation of powers is abrogated by a power-mad executive branch which controls or intimidates the other two branches of government

The US Patriot Act was enacted by a Congress that had not actually read it. The only thing representatives and senators got was a two or three page compendium from the White House press office. Nobody was actually given the time to read the provisions of the act. The White House intimidated members of Congress into passing the bill by telling them that if they refused to sign it, they'd be labeled as "unpatriotic"--something almost all members of Congress were frightened of at the time.

Lieberman, Daschle and Gephardt later wrote a memorandum stating that Congress had effectively given the Bush Administration "near dictatorial powers."

Let the sheeple awake from their daze!

Editorial Digest
Keeping you informed!

Please post only part of the quoted material and POST YOUR LINKS.

Thanks.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The way that "electors" are chosen has changed somewhat.

At one time it was decided by the State Legislatures.

Now they are chosen by the Parties.

The exact mechanics are beyond my ability to describe (or understand frankly since it is different in different states) so here's link to Wiki's explanation of the college, and the changes that have been made to it over the years.

Gore attempted to prevent the seating of the Florida Electors by getting the Florida Supreme Court to demand a new recount that would have kept the electors from being seated by the deadline ESTABLISHED by Federal law.

By Florida law he had already HAD his recount and the time limit for more HAD PASSED. He had no compelling reason for a further recount and the lower court understood that EVERY time he brought it before the court. 4 Liberal Democrats on the Florida Supreme Court conspired to thwart the law as written ( not with in the power or scope of said Court) and to aid and abet the candidate Gore in his effort to cheat the elction process of both Florida and the US as a whole.

The failure to seat Florida Electors would have left Gore with the majority of electors in the truncated College and if the decision was made that the college could not vote because of it would have thrown the election out completely allowing the House and Senate to select our President and Vice President.

Gore thought that the truncated college WOULD vote and he would win.