[Control Group]

So, in doing some research to get my facts straight before I responded to another thread, I ran across some interesting claims regarding the US government. Of course, the places I got them seemed...suspect...in terms of having a very specific agenda, and I couldn't tell if this was legit or not.

Has the US, in fact, been in a state of emergency since 1933? Has this granted extraordinary powers to the President and the Congress, under which "hundreds" of otherwise-illegal laws/acts/orders have been promulgated?

More pertinently, did the SCOTUS decision in Erie v. Tompkins effectively negate the use of judicial precedent from cases prior to 1938, replacing it with some sort of codified "common law?" And if so, were the NFA and lower court decisions regarding it not being a police powers act part of that common law? Ultimately, does this make the NFA unassailable?

[Joejojoba111]

Yea there's an executive order which has to be renewed every few years, and every president has renewed it without exception. Kind of messed up, but what ya gonna do, only suckers have faith in the system any more.

[Justin]

references?

[Vernal45]

Yea there's an executive order which has to be renewed every few years, and every president has renewed it without exception.


Refereces???? Documentation? Where do you get this? Where can it be confirmed?

[2nd Amendment]

http://www.millennium-ark.net/News_Files/Exec.Orders/Bonfire.Constitution.Pt1.html

Regardless of whether you believe any other conclusions on that page Senate Report 93-549 isn't in question...

[Joejojoba111]

Yup that's the stuff. The problem is that most internet sites you would find that info on would sound outraged and their tone causes a little face-value credibility loss. They have to just suck it up and realize we've been pooched for a long time now, might as well just accept it, because I figure it's better everyone understand the current situation and accept it rather than live in ignorance. Of course it would be ideal to change the situation, but that's pipe dreaming.

[Vernal45]

2nd Amendment, thanks for the link. I read, and re read it. All I can say is "WOW". Seems most of the Democtatic Presidents added radical ideas into the EO's, and Republicans just signed off on it, accessory after the fact style.

IS there another resource to confirm this? This is really an jolt in the A$$. I know the anti's, and some parts of the gov did not want us to have guns, now I know more on the WHY.

[Alex45ACP]

So many people are just starting to realize stuff like this, yet they keep doing the same things, voting for the same people, etc. It's amusing and sad at the same time :(

[ravinraven]

"Seems most of the Democtatic Presidents added radical ideas into the EO's, and Republicans just signed off on it, accessory after the fact style."

I've heard it said that when your choice for president is "the lesser of two evils," the Republican is always the best choice, but every time around the cycle, the Republican gets worse. Thie quote above seems to verify that. Of course, the Dems are ahead of the Reps in the race down the slippery slope to the swamp. But not very far ahead.

rr

[strambo]

If true as presented in that link...well that sucks! :fire: Thankfully, it really doesn't matter right now...without widespread gun control the President/Congress can't do anything the people aren't willing to accept (unfortunately, most people accept too much.) Since this "State of Emergency/EO" crap is largely unknown by the general population, the Govt. has to play along with the Constitution.

Once those pesky guns are out of the way...well, all bets are off. Scary stuff. :uhoh:

[Control Group]

That's the problem I had - I found it on several sites, but they were all of the foaming-at-the-mouth extremist variety, which made me question their veracity (the internet being what it is). But it looks like I was right in figuring if anyone would know, it would be someone on THR.

Thanks for the info!

[WT]

Heck, I want to see the tie in of the railroad steam locomotive running down a trespasser in the referenced Erie R.R. v. Tompkins.

[2nd Amendment]

I had to scratch for that site since, as you guys noted, most sites that have info on it are royally PO'ed about it and trump the simple presentation of data with a whole lot of hyperbole that hurts the case.

The truth is, though, that it is useless information. Yeah, it's true, just like fringe on a flag or land patents or several states of "Citizenship" or whatever. Is it "fact"? Yeah...but what do you do with it? The courts don't care, the law doesn't care, the government certainly doesn't care and thus you can't use it for anything because the result is you get steamrolled as one of those right wing extremist nutjobs.

But I suppose it's useful in stirring up the masses...maybe.

[corncob]

Kind of messed up, but what ya gonna do, only suckers have faith in the system any more.

Truer words were never spoken.

Is it "fact"? Yeah...but what do you do with it? The courts don't care, the law doesn't care, the government certainly doesn't care and thus you can't use it for anything because the result is you get steamrolled as one of those right wing extremist nutjobs.

In the same vein:

http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/knapp/knapp2.html

[itgoesboom]

Wow. Just wow.

I had heard of this, but never saw any credible evidence, and I thought it was a bunch of tin-foil-hat conspiracy theory.

I talked to my wife about this.

Her take was "so what"? They are still following the Constitution (somewhat) and so it doesn't matter.

I had to point out that it doesn't matter what they are doing, it's that they have thought ahead to have a way to take the reigns. The fact that they haven't abused it yet doesn't matter - its the fact that they have given themselves the option to bypass the Constitution that is the worrisome aspect. That in itself is crossing the line.

I.G.B.

[mike1966ga]

you put a frog in boiling water and he jumps out, put same frog in a pot of cold water and then slowly turn the heat up you get frog soup,
looks to me like you found where they turned the heat up a little :neener:

[Fred Fuller]

Not just _A_ state of emergency, NUMEROUS states of emergency, on various issues, through various administrations:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010914-4.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030121-9.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20020801-7.html

http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/105hdocs.html (several titles in the list, links don't work tho)

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_documents&docid=f:hd007.108

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_documents&docid=f:hd005.108

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_documents&docid=f:hd027.108

AND SO ON, almost ad infinitum. Go look for yourself with a search engine near you.

Beginning to notice a pattern here maybe, through different administrations over the years? EVERYTHING is a national emergency?

But oh no, only tinfoil hat wearers believe anything like that, we don' need no steenkin national emergency to run this country...

lpl/nc