Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Countdown to unconstitutional rule _ code name: Dooomsday Plan

Expand Messages
  • a_cascadian
    Countdown to unconstitutional rule _ code name: Dooomsday Plan So we now have lost our constitutional government on the 11th of January 2005 as well as of
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 12, 2005
      Countdown to unconstitutional rule _ code name: Dooomsday Plan




















      So we now have lost our constitutional government on the 11th of
      January 2005 as well as of democratic illusion on January 6th 2005.
      Below are articles the corporate media chose not to mention in favor
      of celeberty divorces. As of now of now our constitutional government
      (that silly documents that declared how our government would be
      determined) is at risk of a Coup d'Etat. A simple declaration uttered
      by the president or the head of Homeland Security that we are under
      attack or a state of emergency will set in motion the system of rule
      that the founding fathers had constructed in the United States.
      Welcome to "Doomsday". Below are articles addressing our new
      uncconstitutional system with Urls attached at the bottom. Please
      tell a friend and stranger of our new system since the corporate media
      decided not to.



      Tuesday 11th January 2005 (09h40):
      Congress passes 'doomsday' plan- ethics rule changes were diversion


      WASHINGTON - With no fanfare, the U.S. House has passed a
      controversial doomsday provision that would allow a handful of
      lawmakers to run Congress if a terrorist attack or major disaster
      killed or incapacitated large numbers of congressmen.

      "I think (the new rule) is terrible in a whole host of ways - first, I
      think it's unconstitutional,'' said Norm Ornstein, a counselor to the
      independent Continuity of Government Commission, a bipartisan panel
      created to study the issue. ``It's a very foolish thing to do, I
      believe, and the way in which it was done was more foolish.''

      But supporters say the rule provides a stopgap measure to allow the
      government to continue functioning at a time of national crisis.

      GOP House leaders pushed the provision as part of a larger rules
      package that drew attention instead for its proposed ethics changes,
      most of which were dropped.

      Usually, 218 lawmakers - a majority of the 435 members of Congress -
      are required to conduct House business, such as passing laws or
      declaring war.

      But under the new rule, a majority of living congressmen no longer
      will be needed to do business under "catastrophic circumstances.''

      Instead, a majority of the congressmen able to show up at the House
      would be enough to conduct business, conceivably a dozen lawmakers or
      less.

      The House speaker would announce the number after a report by the
      House Sergeant at Arms. Any lawmaker unable to make it to the chamber
      would effectively not be counted as a congressman.

      The circumstances include "natural disaster, attack, contagion or
      similar calamity rendering Representatives incapable of attending the
      proceedings of the House.''

      The House could be run by a small number of lawmakers for months,
      because House vacancies must be filled by special elections. Governors
      can make temporary appointments to the Senate.

      Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), one of few lawmakers active on the issue,
      argued the rule change contradicts the U.S. Constitution, which states
      that ``a majority of each (House) shall constitute a quorum to do
      business.

      "Changing what constitutes a quorum in this way would allow less than
      a dozen lawmakers to declare war on another nation,'' Baird said.

      http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2005/100105doomsdayplan.htm

      by : Boston Herald
      Tuesday 11th January 2005
      Found at http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5016

      _______


      Doomsday Provision and the Death of the U.S. Constitution

      by Kurt Nimmo
      published by Another Day in the Empire
      Doomsday Provision and the Death of the U.S. Constitution
      I wasn't fazed after I read this, nor was I surprised that I was not
      fazed, or did I get angry because—well, because it is predictable and
      wholly in keeping with the personality and character of the plutocrats
      who claim to represent us—most of them whores and shameless hucksters
      for multinational corporations and so-called "special interests," in
      other words a small number of mega-rich people—here in America:

      "With no fanfare, the U.S. House has passed a controversial doomsday
      provision that would allow a handful of lawmakers to run Congress if a
      terrorist attack or major disaster killed or incapacitated large
      numbers of congressmen," the Boston Herald reports. "The circumstances
      include `natural disaster, attack, contagion or similar calamity
      rendering Representatives incapable of attending the proceedings of
      the House' … Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), one of few lawmakers active
      on the issue, argued the rule change contradicts the U.S.
      Constitution, which states that `a majority of each (House) shall
      constitute a quorum to do business' … `Changing what constitutes a
      quorum in this way would allow less than a dozen lawmakers to declare
      war on another nation,' Baird said."

      Baird needs to get on Paxil, and right quick. Obviously, the
      Constitution is now entirely irrelevant. Most Americans don't even
      think about the Constitution on a regular basis, except maybe on the
      Fourth of July and only after it is mentioned on the soma tube.
      Moreover, the American people—essentially a mass of consumers and
      consumption requires not any exalted principles or philosophy and
      operates most effectively if consumers are irrational and
      impulsive—are incapable of appreciating or basically understanding
      constitutional government. Constitutional government, of course, is a
      set of rules designed to make sure our "elected" rulers don't abuse
      their power and obey the law. Constitutional government supposedly
      protects the rights of the individual.

      Does that sound like a description of America?

      I had to chuckle—if slightly and with an attendant degree of cynicism,
      per usual—after reading Baird's assertion that the "doomsday
      provision… would allow less than a dozen lawmakers to declare war on
      another nation."

      Get real, Brian. Bush started a war (or, rather, an invasion) all on
      his lonesome—with a small cluster of incestuous Strausscon
      intellectuals—and Congress had nothing to say about it, all they had
      to do was sign off, and if they didn't they would have been accused of
      lacking "patriotism" (i.e., having the cahones, or ruthlessness, to
      kill thousands of innocent people) and thus singled out by Bush's
      fellow travelers in Congress and earmarked for political extinction, a
      nightmare for any self-serving politician, as most of them are (those
      who are not egomaniacal, perfidious, unconscionable sociopaths—for
      instance, Paul Wellstone or Cynthia McKinney—are either purged from
      "public office" or killed). For as I have said now for thirty years,
      in general the largest, most malodorous pieces of shit rise to the top
      of the cesspool—and Congress fits the dictionary definition of a
      cesspool, a "filthy, disgusting, or morally corrupt place." It is not
      a place Madison, Hamilton, or any of those who signed and ratified the
      Constitution would likely recognize.

      Interestingly, although predictably, a Google news search of "doomsday
      plan Congress" and "doomsday provision Congress" returns but a single
      news article—the one quoted above. It is simply not a story the
      corporate media considers worthy of ink or electrons.

      As I said at the outset, I am not fazed the corporate media does not
      find this story important or even worthy of passing mention. We no
      longer have a representative government—and have not for some time—in
      this country and that "less than a dozen lawmakers" may run Congress
      after "a terrorist attack or major disaster killed or incapacitated
      large numbers of congressmen" is almost completely irrelevant
      (presumably only Democrats would fall victim to this "doomsday"
      scenario for, as I recall, only Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy received
      letters in September, 2001, containing Ames strain anthrax developed
      by the U.S. military at Fort Detrick).

      So, this is a big yawner as a story. Far more important, of course,
      are death threats made after the broadcast of Jerry Springer: The
      Opera. Since those threats were issued—possibly by Muslims—against
      corporate media executives working for the BBC, the story is far more
      important (Google returns 239 related news items) and presumed to be
      of more interest to both Americans and Brits than the fact that
      another bite-size chunk was chewed off the Constitution last week.
      Since the Constitution is a cadaverous bit of history—colorfully
      invoked during the Fourth of July—the "doomsday provision" is a
      basically a non-starter as a news story.

      Now, please, let's hear more about the phone sex between Brad Pitt and
      Angelina Jolie (Google News search returns 513 stories).


      Found at http://progressivetrail.org/articles/050110Nimmo.shtml

      ______

      Congress Passes 'Doomsday' Plan
      By Noelle Straub
      The Boston Herald

      Sunday 09 January 2005

      Washington - With no fanfare, the U.S. House has passed a
      controversial doomsday provision that would allow a handful of
      lawmakers to run Congress if a terrorist attack or major disaster
      killed or incapacitated large numbers of congressmen.

      "I think (the new rule) is terrible in a whole host of ways -
      first, I think it's unconstitutional," said Norm Ornstein, a counselor
      to the independent Continuity of Government Commission, a bipartisan
      panel created to study the issue. "It's a very foolish thing to do, I
      believe, and the way in which it was done was more foolish."

      But supporters say the rule provides a stopgap measure to allow
      the government to continue functioning at a time of national crisis.

      GOP House leaders pushed the provision as part of a larger rules
      package that drew attention instead for its proposed ethics changes,
      most of which were dropped.

      Usually, 218 lawmakers - a majority of the 435 members of Congress
      - are required to conduct House business, such as passing laws or
      declaring war.

      But under the new rule, a majority of living congressmen no longer
      will be needed to do business under "catastrophic circumstances."

      Instead, a majority of the congressmen able to show up at the
      House would be enough to conduct business, conceivably a dozen
      lawmakers or less.

      The House speaker would announce the number after a report by the
      House Sergeant at Arms. Any lawmaker unable to make it to the chamber
      would effectively not be counted as a congressman.

      The circumstances include "natural disaster, attack, contagion or
      similar calamity rendering Representatives incapable of attending the
      proceedings of the House."

      The House could be run by a small number of lawmakers for months,
      because House vacancies must be filled by special elections. Governors
      can make temporary appointments to the Senate.

      Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), one of few lawmakers active on the
      issue, argued the rule change contradicts the U.S. Constitution, which
      states that "a majority of each (House) shall constitute a quorum to
      do business.

      "Changing what constitutes a quorum in this way would allow less
      than a dozen lawmakers to declare war on another nation," Baird said.

      http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/011005E.shtml
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.