Bush the Dictator

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

President Bush signed new presidential directive, on May 9th, that could give him power to overrule congress and the judicial branch of the government in the event of a "catastrophic event".

Should the president have the ability to become a dictator in the event of a "national emergency", when the constitution works so hard to create a balance of power in the government?
Read more here:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...articleId=5720

I do not have to read to know that that is not a good idea.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

He's the worst president in American history, and I voted for him twice!

Ditto!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

President Bush signed new presidential directive, on May 9th, that could give him power to overrule congress and the judicial branch of the government in the event of a "catastrophic event".

Should the president have the ability to become a dictator in the event of a "national emergency", when the constitution works so hard to create a balance of power in the government?

Read more here:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...articleId=5720

Nobody seems to want to listen to stuff like this. It just gets buried or ignored. But Bush has implemented or signed a number of things into law recently without any congressional oversight or vote.

Does anyone know we are in the process now of forming a North American Union like the EU?

Immigration plays into all this. It seems almost as if someone declared Marshall law and forgot to tell the rest of us

[bishopnl]

1) Don't care about the government passing a gay marriage amendment. I'd rather they keep out of our lives as much as possible. Do you really want our government defining what they believe marriage to be? Do you really want the government that involved in personal lives? I don't. The founders didn't intend for it. It would open a pandora's box of trouble.

Ditto. And seriously, can supporters of such an amendment blame Bush if it doesn't get passed? Do they even know how hard it is for a constitutional amendment to get passed? The President has zero power to institute a constitutional amendment.

I also don't think Bush is "the worst president ever." Seriously...I don't think much of the job Bush has done, but "worst ever?" Nah.

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

President Bush signed new presidential directive, on May 9th, that could give him power to overrule congress and the judicial branch of the government in the event of a "catastrophic event".

Should the president have the ability to become a dictator in the event of a "national emergency", when the constitution works so hard to create a balance of power in the government?

Read more here:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...articleId=5720

When Lincoln declared martial law, the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional. For more about the topic: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_mlaw.html

As it stands, the Constitution does not give any branch of the federal goverment the authority to declare martial law.

Originally Posted by Rico

Any sitting President would have to have backing by the military to pull something like becoming a dictator off in this country. If (and that is a huge if) someone did pull it off I would venture to guess he'd end up getting himself assasinated.

Like Abraham Lincoln did?

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Nobody seems to want to listen to stuff like this. It just gets buried or ignored. But Bush has implemented or signed a number of things into law recently without any congressional oversight or vote.

Does anyone know we are in the process now of forming a North American Union like the EU?

Immigration plays into all this. It seems almost as if someone declared Marshall law and forgot to tell the rest of us

CC1 always loved when I used to say Bush was a horrible President on NFCF!

Originally Posted by chaotic_resolve

Doesn't the President already have some power when it comes to declaring Martial Law?

No.

I must say, I'm sad I voted for Bush the last time. I'm glad I voted for him the first time, but it seems this term has made him more power hungry than any other President I've known in my lifetime.

Everything is falling into place, slowly leading the American people down the path toward one world government and total government control over our lives.

I've lived through Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. I'd rather have Clinton back in office right now than Bush 2.

I was less than a month old when JFK was assasinated and I'm too young to remember anything about Lyndon Johnson. I'm barely old enough to remember anything about Richard Nixon or Gerald Ford. Carter was a nice guy but clearly not suited for the presidency. I liked Reagan. All of the presidents since then have been disappointing to say the least.

Be glad when Jan, 2009 finally rolls in and a new President takes office. Of course by then who knows what could happen . . .

Be careful what you wish for.

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Where's our gay marriage ammendment?
Where is our Iraq victory?
Where is his commpasionate conservatism?
Where are our secure borders?

Where's the promise not to engage in nation-building?

The man has sold us down the river. He's about to give amnesty to all of these illegal immigrants. They ought to deport their butts back to central America so that they can march in the streets there instead of Chicago.

Agreed.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Chan

When Lincoln declared martial law, the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional. For more about the topic: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_mlaw.html

As it stands, the Constitution does not give any branch of the federal goverment the authority to declare martial law.

Also.... as it stands the Constitution doesn't have much to say about what politicians do or what judges rule these days.

What either do has no bearing on whether it is Constitutional or not.