Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: gunsmith on March 20, 2012, 12:28:22 AM
-
Been hearing chatter on this.
Tonight a guy I was listening too said he has a copy and it includes stuff like the ability to conficate farms and farm equipment.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/19/obama-signs-executive-order-revising-authority-to-nationalize-resources-for/
-
NDRP. Signed on Friday.
Welcome to ameriKa...
LOL...
I can haz Property Rights?
-
The existing law the the EO details is 62 years old.
While I detest the Obama at least as much as anyone else and I always try to read a law with the worst possible interpretation I don't see anything in this to bring on fits of apoplexy, yet.
-
"I am not an alarmist, but the idea of the Obama regime having total control over anything is disturbing. No, it isn't disturbing, it is totally, freaking scary," wrote Judson Phillips, founder of the Tea Party Nation and a former assistant district attorney in Shelby County, Tenn.
That's why you don't even allow presidents you *like* to have such powers. Eventually, they'll leave office and you'll get someone you don't like. They'll take office with all those nifty tools in the shed.
Chris
-
People don't fret because they see it as only applying to "emergency" situations, i.e. some distant and unlikely event, only to last a few weeks or months. But what most people forget, is that history shows that most dictatorships have been built on emergency laws kept permanent. Lifting of decades old "Emergency Laws" is one of the key demands protestors have in many ME countries... just saying.
Oh, and don't think for a moment that "resources" doesn't mean human bodies too. Anyone up for plowing a field by hand??
-
That's why you don't even allow presidents you *like* to have such powers. Eventually, they'll leave office and you'll get someone you don't like. They'll take office with all those nifty tools in the shed.
Chris
This.
-
This.
That, plus eleventy one
-
That's why you don't even allow presidents you *like* to have such powers. Eventually, they'll leave office and you'll get someone you don't like. They'll take office with all those nifty tools in the shed.
The GOP didn't think that one through with the PATRIOT Act and other "antiterrorism" laws. At the time, the GOP brass painted any objections to such laws as being anti-American. Standard "We would NEVER do such a thing", in other words knowingly lying through their teeth.
Patriot Act, et al was never meant to combat terrorism. It was meant to expand power, or legitimize existing infringements. Most antiterrorism laws are primarily used in drug cases, statistically. While the Patriot Act got the headlines, little known laws such as the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 have actually been the most infringing (in my opinion). The Amendments Act of 2008 granted full immunity to telecoms for illegal wiretapping. Title I, Section 101, paragraph (h), line 3. "Release from liability.--No cause of action shall lie in any court against any electronic communication service provider for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive issued pursuant to paragraph (1)".
Amazing how ominous one line can be. The state already claims sovereign immunity against all lawsuits except that which it has specifically allowed (primarily under Federal Tort Claims Act) or the US govt has consented to being sued. So, unless the USG has specifically allowed itself to be sued for something specified, you can't effectively petition the government for a redress of grievances. If the law extents immunity for illegal wiretapping, you can't sue a telecom for implementing said illegal wiretap.
Try to explain the legal aspects, and folks will look at you like you're crazy. Explaining that they have no basis under the Constitution and were essentially made up makes them look at you even funnier. It's like trying to explain legal concept of state secrets privilege was made up in 1953 by SCOTUS because essentially the USG didn't want to give an accident report to the widows of a crashed B-29. The USG fraudulently claimed they could not provide this information due to "secrets". No, I'm not kidding. United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953). The USAF recognized that their own reports mentioned damaging information on the aircraft readiness, and lied that there was some secret mission involved rather than having angry widows asking tough questions.
Short version, there are numerous horrifically bad laws on the books. The age of the law or invented legal precedent are not a valid defense of it still being a horrifically bad idea.
-
People don't fret because they see it as only applying to "emergency" situations, i.e. some distant and unlikely event, only to last a few weeks or months. But what most people forget, is that history shows that most dictatorships have been built on emergency laws kept permanent. Lifting of decades old "Emergency Laws" is one of the key demands protestors have in many ME countries... just saying.
Oh, and don't think for a moment that "resources" doesn't mean human bodies too. Anyone up for plowing a field by hand??
And this.
There is no reason to grant any regime this kind of plenary power, "emergency" or no emergency. Any bets on how long it takes for it to be implemented should, God forbid, there's an Obama II?
-
All the EO does is organize the departments to implement a law that has been in existence since 1950.
Obama has enough flaws and faults that we need to focus on them rather than this tinfoil stuff.
Could Obama maybe abuse the law? sure but so could have every president since 1950.
Is he likely to? probably not but while it bears watching it doesn't deserve hysterics.
-
It was wrong and dangerous in 1950. It remains so.
We should not ignore how we got here.
-
That's why you don't even allow presidents you *like* to have such powers. Eventually, they'll leave office and you'll get someone you don't like. They'll take office with all those nifty tools in the shed.
Chris
Ayup. I posted on THR a lot during the debate of the Patriot Act. When I asked if folks wanted President Hillary to have those powers I was shouted down... =|
-
Ayup. I posted on THR a lot during the debate of the Patriot Act. When I asked if folks wanted President Hillary to have those powers I was shouted down... =|
Same here. Lotta conservatives called me everything from anti-American to a terrorist supporter. Now they have no memory of such things, and they ALWAYS were against such laws. Now that there is a Democrat president. Don't worry, they'll forget when a Republican gets elected.
Pretty much how much of the anti-war or anti-torture crowds dried up when Obama got elected and kept doing the same stuff.
-
Same here. Lotta conservatives called me everything from anti-American to a terrorist supporter. Now they have no memory of such things, and they ALWAYS were against such laws. Now that there is a Democrat president. Don't worry, they'll forget when a Republican gets elected.
Pretty much how much of the anti-war or anti-torture crowds dried up when Obama got elected and kept doing the same stuff.
Remember when the Left wanted Gitmo shut down? Remember when indefinite detention was a bad thing? Can you imagine what would happen if Bush had drone'd American citizens, or sold machine guns to Mexican drug lords? Hypocrisy is rampant on both sides of the aisle...
-
Hypocrisy is rampant on both sides of the aisle...
That's why you need to get up, walk down the aisle and exit the building all together. The faux left-right, conservative-liberal, red-blue paradigm is no place for honest people anymore.
-
Ayup. I posted on THR a lot during the debate of the Patriot Act. When I asked if folks wanted President Hillary to have those powers I was shouted down... =|
Yup, I at first supported patriot act-I've learned my lesson. ( I hope )
At least now when I argue with radlibs I can point out that under Bush they hated it but now they ignore it.