I'm in the process of building a website to discuss such issues, sign petitions, and work tegether to make a difference.

I'm gathering as much information as I can now.

Cool and my appluse for attempting do actually do something about it!

But I can tell you from first hand experience, don;t even waste your time with "petitions" and the like. Those simply get overlooked the days.

The best example I could probably give..say your neighbor has a dog and it barks all the time. At first it bugs you, hearing it everyday. But after a while, you "tune it out" and after a couple of years, a friend comes over and says "man, what with the dog barking all the time"..and by then, you don't even notice it.

The time has come that the only real thing id pure 'action", by boycotts and HUGE in person demonstrations We are going to have to be the "dog" but now instead of just "barking" (paying lip service) we are going to have to "jump the fence and bite some people in the butt"!

ACTION GETS RESULTS! thats why I have been known to carry a picket sign on occassion.

But we MUST get Americans off thier butts and actually doing somehting about this.

America is in very SERIOUS stuff now and its all falling apart and even they can;t hold it together anymore. We, the American people, MUST TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK OR WE WILL LOSE IT!

Exactly, that's the message I hope to help get across.

I've taken several stands in the past, and have had laws looked at over again because of those stands. The problems with takeing stands such as that today is the Freedom Act, persay we express our opinion on the war and it be a negative one the Freedom Act labels us terrorist supporters. Such as was the case with Peace Fresno in California, we are no longer truly as free as we were and it's based on "national security".

True, they will attempt to use such terms and that thier actions are based on "National Security", when in fact, it is nothing but thier ploy to CONTROL the PEOPLE the way THEY WANT.

It's actually pretty simple when you get down to the "bottom line". Read the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. It's not complicated and the "INTENT" of those thing relevant are CLEAR!

If someone, back then, did not stand up and "question" thier government and its actions...anyone remember "taxation without representation", then we'd all would be BRITISH NOT AMERICANS!

We have both the RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITY AS AMERICANS TO AND FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! The United States government, specifically referring to the President, much of the Congress and Senate are CORRUPT and are bought and paid for by "special interest" (basically those who have all the money to buy them) and that is who controls America right now.

Imagine, Clinton and Obama has spent (just estimated by media, I have no real facts to back this one up) over $100 MILLION DOLLARS EACH on this running alone. For a 4 year position that pays $250K a year (basically ONE million dollars plus bennies). Why!!?? Because they are BOUGHT AND PAID FOR and will do as those who paid all that money for will direct them to do! It's NOT in the best interest of the AMERICAN PEOPLE AS A COUNTRY! And I am NOT picking on the Democrats, its the Republican too and ANY "CARRER POLITIAN"..period. I am NOT "democrat" nor "republican" nor "independent"..I AM AMERICAN and ONLY AMERICAN!!!

The carreer politician has learned to use critical issues, such as education, social security, etc, to keep the focus off what they are really doing and to keep the American people looking at those issues, that have NEVER been fixed (and have been clearly known to me since I was a child and I am 42 now) so that no attention is paid to all the things going on in the "background".

There may be another "revolution" coming..and it will be to take this country back to give the POWER BACK TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE where it BELONGS! But Americans MUST WAKE UP AND TAKE ACTION.

'Sumthingdifferent' & 'totage',

I may not agree with everything you propose in your posts, but as is the case for 'Madisonman', and some others, in other threads, I applaud and enthusiastically defend your HEALTHY right to dissent.

No democracy is ever possible without 'DISSENTION'!!!

Paradoxically, those whom wish to silence you, are the REAL 'freedom hating, anti-Americans'!!!

Dissention is the most fundamental cornerstone of democracy and freedom.

Monarchy and autocracy are long dead. Unfortunately, like the flat earth misconception, it takes people way too long to integrate the fundamental tenets of freedom and democracy in their reality.

what you mean the world is not flat

don't you know all those flying in space shots are staged



kinda funny how things discussed a long time ago are coming back

wonder how long before some try to run them off



be well and keep fighting the fight

This is the best example I have heard yet, in putting "those who wish to silence", in their place!

THANKS!!

"Only the dead have seen the end of war." Plato

Kat

They usually see the real truth or some form of it too late to change the damage that is done. But if more of the population voted there could be change. As it is now only about half us that are eligible to vote vote and we wonder why the government never reflects the common people. You can bet the elite in this country vote faithfully.

insert walking threw whistling innocently emoticon here

National security did not have to take that form. Baby shrub and his administration made it so. He has basically put it out there that all not with him are against him and he meant us and changed laws to make it so that the freedoms are squelched. A war president has more power than a peace time president, it is so in the laws of the land, makes a person wonder huh?

any law has to be passed by congress

technically this is no longer a free country

ad, but a war time president has certain lieniencies that are not given to a peace time president. I will have to look it up again. I used this information in a debate years ago over the mighty baby shrub. By the way I borrowed the nickname of "baby shrub" from a lady on another comment blog, she was from texas and it was her name for him. So I cannot claim it as my own but I love it Let me go see about the information on the presidential powers during war. brb

yes they do have some additional powers but if i recall correctly

they are temporary in nature and still need voted on by congress after a certain amount of time

and did war actually get declared officially

if congress does not declare war i do not think those powers are available to the prez

PRESIDENTIAL POWERS IN TIMES OF EMERGENCY:
Could Terrorism Result In A Constitutional Dictator?
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Jun. 07, 2002

At present, the President has opted to exercise only a few of his emergency powers. Under the National Emergencies Act, at this time, he is only utilizing provisions relating to the military.

Will the President choose to use additional powers? It depends on the future. Because we don't know what shape this undeclared war on terrorism will take, we can't know what powers this president - or any successor - might need to cope with the problems of terrorism.

An American President, should he need them, possesses awesome powers. Those powers potentially include what political scientists have described as the powers of a "constitutional dictatorship." No President has ever had to go that far - although they have come close.

Now, however, it is not difficult to conceive of scenarios where terrorist groups, hell-bent on our destruction and refusing to abide by any known rules of war, could employ weapons of mass destruction or bio-terrorism in a manner that could threaten our existence as a nation. What happens then?

Democracy In Crisis: Will It Transform Into Another Form of Government?

Democracy works best in times of peace, when there is debate, compromise, and deliberation in forming governing rules, regulations, and policies. When confronted with a major crisis - particularly one that is, like terrorism, of an unfamiliar nature - the nation will turn to the President for initiative and resolute leadership. If our very existence and way of life are threatened, Americans will want their President to do whatever is necessary.

The history of democratic governments, from the ancient republics of Greece and Rome to the modern states that have replaced earlier totalitarian governments, show that governing by committees, or legislative bodies, never works in times of crisis. Fortunately, our Founders were aware of this when they designed our system.

Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 70 that the essential nature of the chief executive is his "energy," which "is a leading [element] in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is no less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations, which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy."

While our constitution contains no express provision for "emergency" or "crisis" situations, such a provision is not necessary. The U.S. Supreme Court made clear in Ex Parte Milligan, following the Civil War, that "the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence." Or as one commentator has added, "self-preservation is the first law of any nation."

Past presidents - principally Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt - by exercising their powers in time of emergency, have expanded their authority as necessary to meet emergencies they faced. They have, in essence, made the law in times of crisis, not always in the manner envisioned.

Lincoln launched the Civil War unilaterally, without Congressional action, following the secession of seven Southern states. Only later did he obtain Congressional approval. His critics called him a dictator. But he got the job done that had to be done.

Wilson asked for and received near dictatorial powers from Congress when attacks by Germany against American ships and submarines plunged the nation into World War I. He had to raise and equip a large army to fight on foreign soil. To do so, he demanded and received unprecedented new power and authority.

When Franklin Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933, the world-wide Great Depression had reached its depths. The new President promised action, and during his first 100 days, Congress gave him what he needed to enable him to use federal powers to rout the Depression and rescue every sector of the economy, as well as state and local government, from economic ruin.

Later, following the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, which forced the United States into World War II, FDR's exertion of his presidential powers would far exceed anything Wilson or Lincoln had done. Through the strength of his personality, Roosevelt lead the nation from that day of "infamy" through battles in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Pacific to total victory.

While FDR continued to ask Congress for what he needed, he gave them no choice as to whether they would accede. For example, in demanding that Congress repeal provisions in the Price Control Act (prohibiting ceilings on certain food products), he told the Congress: "In the event the Congress should fail to act, and act adequately, I shall accept the responsibility, and I will act." And he reminded the Congress: "The President has the power ... to take measures necessary to avert a disaster which would interfere with winning of the war."

We've been blessed with strong presidents in times of national crisis. They were men who demonstrated a capacity for leadership, and men who acted undemocratically, but only to preserve our democracy.

We've been fortunate, for the distinction between a "constitutional dictator" and a strong president is remarkably thin, if not non-existent. As Writ columnist Michael Dorf has noted, there are few checks on our Commander in Chief.

Constitutional Dictatorships: What Happens to Democracies in Emergencies

Rossiter looked at the phenomenon of constitutional dictatorships in the aftermath of World War II, for he was concerned that "more rather than fewer periods of crisis" lay ahead. In Constitutional Dictatorship, he examines the experiences of crisis governments ranging from the ancient constitutional state of Rome to four modern states (Germany, France, Great Britain, and the United States), focusing on four major crises in the United States: the Civil War, the two World Wars, and the Great Depression.

Professor Albert Sturm, a student of Rossiter's work, has also written of constitutional dictatorships. In a 1949 essay "Emergencies and the Presidency" in the Journal of Politics, for example, Sturm found that these "temporary concentrations of power in an executive" for meeting emergencies, which have been "employed by vigorous democracies since ancient times," are necessary for "the preservation of the established system in the face of temporary crisis." Typically, such authority lasts only as long as the crisis, Sturm notes, and it is sanctioned by the "existing constitutional system."

Constitutional Dictatorship: Could It Happen Here?

Of course, the very concept of a "dictatorship" is offensive and inimical to our political thinking as citizens of a democracy. And Rossiter acknowledges that no American government has ever been a true constitutional dictatorship, as that concept is understood by students of government. Rather, he uses the term, in the American context, as "convenient hyperbole" - an exaggeration meant to underscore how many, and how extensive, have been the powers American presidents have necessarily arrogated to themselves in wartime.

Nevertheless, Rossiter, and other students of constitutional dictatorships, do not rule out the idea that one could ever exist in America. Indeed, they raised questions in the aftermath of World War II that are still relevant today as we find ourselves in an undeclared war, and the first stages of emergency government.

Recall that FDR took the nation from a "limited" national emergency on September 8, 1939, to an "unlimited" emergency by May 27, 1941, and then to total war by December 7, 1941. Anyone who does not believe the war on terrorism will escalate, as well, is in denial.

Rossiter does not address the question of whether Americans could tolerate the undemocratic ways of a constitutional dictatorship. Instead, he is interested in the question of whether we could survive the alternative. He asks, that is, if we could "afford not to resort to undemocratic methods when such methods are essential to the preservation of the state?" To raise the question suggests the answer.

Terrorism Could Indeed Result In A Constitutional Dictatorship

"Constitutional dictatorship is a dangerous thing," Rossiter advises. Such governments are the result of necessity, of the sheer imperative of survival. The greatest danger with such a form of government, and its related institutions and laws, is that they can remain after the crisis has abated.

These are not decisions that should be made by the President and Congress each time the crisis escalates; rather, we should think about them carefully in advance in order to make prudent decisions later.

One need only look at the haste and thoughtlessness with which we have adopted the potentially dangerous USA PATRIOT Act, most of which Republicans and Democrats alike had earlier rejected, to understand why legislating in the aftershock of terrorism should be avoided if possible.

Our present emergency laws and regulations are a hodgepodge, a patchwork quilt. They respond to precedents from past great crises, and that is wise, but unfortunately these precedents do not contemplate a protracted war on terrorism, or an enemy unlike any we have ever confronted.

Congress has the power to determine whether it wants the American equivalent of a constitutional dictator in the White House. The only way to be certain that we don't make that decision during a crisis, is to revise and codify our emergency laws now - before fear and anger in the aftermath of a possible attack might cause us to make bad decisions, and too easily trade liberty for security in numerous areas.

As I write this column, President Bush has announced that he will address the nation about his plans for restructuring the government for fighting the war on terrorism. None of Professor Rossiter's observations about our history is more chilling than his finding that each national crisis has left the nation a little less democratic than before. With the President's announcement, it is not too soon to consider whether, in fighting terrorism, we really want a constitutional dictator to lead us. I certainly don't, nor do I know anyone who does, but if a future attack comes, and is devastating, the pressure to resort to constitutional dictatorship may be irresistible.

I know this is long. It came from FINDLAW. But it demonstrates the dictorial right of the pres under war times and the "laws" he puts in order may not be passed or approved through congress and he can still make them happen.

Baby shrub has shown this to be true.

I am of the view that there is NO GOVERNMENT that is going to make us HAPPY... We will always be complaining now matter who is in control.

As for the world we live in... we are all perfectly safe-there are no enemies out there that want to harm us-it is all in our imagination. WAKE UP!!!