The Dismantling of the CONSTITUTION:

[Tellurian]

A must read to have a basic understanding of what is happening and why:

(go to link for beginning)


"By capitulating on this before the election, the present Democratic Party has ratified this as the mandate of the new government.

Breaking the law and then making it legal ex-post facto is precisely the kind of formal violation which establishes the will of a new mandate coming into being. There is not only no going back to the Liberal Democracy, but America now lives in a post-Federal era. There is a national shadow government, and it is not bound by the limitations of the bill of rights.

This is an invocation of the right of governments to self-preservation, an ur-right which is seen precisely at moments of constitutional change. Under normal circumstances, everyone assumes that the government will be there tomorrow and the day after. Under normal circumstances governments do not need to explain this right, nor do they need to do much in the way of justifying the national interest. When sweeping changes were made after the Civil War, it was the eternal nature of the Union to which they appealed. Likewise the abrogation of gold clauses which was justified on the exigent needs of continuing the government.

A paranoid fear of "terrorism" has now joined this elect list of overriding mandates in American history. Americans have decided, by narrow but successive majorities, ratified by members of both parties repeatedly, that the stock market crash of 2000 and the attacks of 9/11 justify a complete dismantling of their structure of rights, and the absolute and permanent change in their status.

Since the Federal government already defines "terrorism" to include domestic acts of vandalism, and the NIE which has been partially declassified declares "leftists" and "anti-globalists" to be on the list of potential terrorists, this is not about catching the perpetrators of a series of terrorist attacks - embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, 9/11, M-11 and 7/7 - but an unlimited and unchallengeable right to detain, try and punish anyone who is deemed to be "an unlawful combatant".

This is not, in short a bureaucratic red tape cutting exercise, but, in essence, and Amendment to the Constitution that reads: "All other rights are superceded by the needs of the state, under the sole discretion of the executive."

This breaks to pieces any doctrine of rights or of proportionality:


http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/sep/29/the_star_chamber

[Tellurian]

1. Sterling conferred with Bruce Ackerman

the architect of the Bush V Gore strategy that gave Bush the WH..

Ackerman is a key component to Bush's success, even today, as all the dirt
and Lies are coming forward..we may be finding the road ahead will be a
bumpy one in trying to reverse the damage done by this Federalist Government,
Shadow Government, we've unknowingly inherited..

[pnorman]

2. I just spotted the below on DU.

Bush urges partial declassification of Constitution, other documents

Washington, DC, September 28, 2006 - Stung by Democratic criticism following a New York Times leak of a government document that purportedly asserts, "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," President Bush has asked Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte to declassify key portions of several documents that had been kept for decades behind steel doors weighing several tons.

"Such assertions, taken out of context and leaked as we enter the stretch-run of a campaign, represents an obvious attempt to confuse voters," said Bush.

Within hours, Negroponte had released the partially redacted, ten-point conclusion of a document called the "Constitution."

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A Militia, being necessary to the security of the right people shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No time of peace .

Amendment IV
.
.
.

http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/

"Satire"?? Perhaps.

pnorman

[Tellurian]

3. Reading Stirling's entire post..

seems to back what you've posted. Sterling brings up critical elements in his post
that if in fact, this Shadow Government is deleting key components of Constitutional
Amendments to read otherwise, virtually stripping citizens of their Rights in perpetuity..

Whats more the new infrastructure of the "new" Constitution abrogates any crimes committed
by the Bush Administration as non existent.

We, my friend, are in deep Shit!

[Tellurian]

4. If Bruce Ackerman is the genius who put all this together..

He needs to be contacted immediately to UNDO all the work he has done.

In fact, right after the decision rendered by the SCOTUS's
conferring the presidency. I remember someone asking BA if Gore
had any chance at all beating the system. At that point Ackerman
said, YES- The window of opportunity came when Jeb Bush was about
to change the 'electorals' and replace anyone who was opposed to
casting the electoral votes to his brother. This dynamic caused a
breach during the court battle, and could have stopped the entire
process, needing to be addressed, before the SCOTUS could go forward.

[Tellurian]

9. !

:dem:

[radfringe]

5. he's done what "King George" (circa 1776) failed to do

[pnorman]

6. That gives me an idea for a somewhat similar concept.

It had to do with George Washington and that Cherry Tree. And by reports, George Washington refused to lie about it.

Now zip forward to George Bush cutting down that Tree of Liberty. And listen to him LIE!!!

pnorman

[Tellurian]

7. True Enough..

This info is as important as the upcoming elections..

[Tellurian]

8. KR..

:dem:


:kick:

[Poll_Blind]

10. The Democrats who voted for this took a gamble. If they lose...

...in their bid, there will be no way out of this. What about a filibuster? It was explained to me that the Democratic Leadership traded that off for more time on resolutions to the legislation- which all failed after Bush personally visited the Republican Senators whom the Democrats had counted on to vote with them.

  The filibuster gamble lost.

  Now the only way to turn this into a win and restore the Constitutional Right is to regain a majority and repeal this legislation. It has been explained eloquently by one, and I believe them, that all 12 Democratic Senators (maybe save one) voted for this legislation to buy insurance against Republican attacks on themselves or their colleagues come the November election. It has also been explained, by another, that this should cause us no upset- not one lick, because the legislation would have passed anyway and their "insurance votes" bought some level of defense whereas voting against the torture legislation would have "done nothing useful".

  A gambler sees only the win, not the loss. To gamble the filibuster away on more time to convince Republican senators to vote with us was, and still is, idiocy. Sheer idiocy. In fact, after the many discussion threads I have read here, I find the votes for the legislation pale in comparison to the foolish and ultimately fatal move on the part of Democratic Leadership to relinquish the right to filibuster.

Obligatory Loyalty Oath:I, Poll-Blind, having made the comments above, will still pull the lever like a Good Democrat, for Democrats in November. My criticism of people who I feel have played unthinkingly with some of our most sacred rights as an American in no-way indicates that I would consider voting for anyone else.

  They say we have a two-party system but that's not entirely true. We have two parties, one for each of the major ideologies. In that respect, each ideology only has a single party to "choose" from. I simply don't see any of the other political parties as even remotely viable or, frankly, trustworthy given my experience with them.

  With that in mind, I certainly hope their second gamble pays off. It must not fail. I do not want to think of the consequences if it does not.

PB

[Tellurian]

11. From the sources I've read..

last night..one coming from Sen. Kennedy..they were 6 votes short for a filibuster.
If the votes had been there, they would have done it.. However, there may be promises
to keep, made at the 11th hour coming from Bush.

"in their bid, there will be no way out of this. What about a filibuster? It was explained to me that the Democratic Leadership traded that off for more time on resolutions to the legislation- which all failed after Bush personally visited the Republican Senators whom the Democrats had counted on to vote with them."

Bush can be compared to the most evil faustian brethren stuck in harness doing the evil grunt work for some other entity. (I don't mean to go off on you about anything cosmic) This happening, so against the laws of humanity, so contrary to the world's suffering has reached it's pinnacle. While we have had to stand by watching patiently by until this malignancy reaching it's full potential is ripened and ready to metastasize itself into the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

I agree, the Demos took a gamble..I believe their strategy will work in the end. On passing, I don't know if the breaking of the Constitution to Federalism CAN be repealed or not..OR another remedy floated; going to the SCOTUS for relief. You're facing Scalia, (who is a true Federalist, and teacher of Federalism) and Thomas.. In the latter solution, the risk, imo...is greater (going in with 2 strikes) rather than the former.

From Newberry's narrative suggesting the remaking into Federalism occurred by the "breaking" of the covenants of the Constitution silently reformatting itself by unanimous Congressional approval to what we now recognize as Federalism.

I question the validity of this happening without notice.. when all interested parties involved were not given notice of the impending changes that would ultimately strip the Amendments from the Constitution thereby causing irreparable harm to the masses. It may be possible, seeing this is uncharted territory to still claim validity of Constitutional Rights and NOT recognize the changes made with this last vote.. I believe, such radical changes have to be open for public discussion especially to Congress before the changes are legal and can take effect.

The model used by Newberry is during the Civil War..If we use that model, the only occurrence that would leave Federalism open to a takeover would be bankrupting the country into a depression and the formation of a new government. At least, for now, this is all the information I have to compute..

Ackerman is the key...I believe his ego is supranatural. He would relish in delight spoon feeding Bush his intellect then finding a way to auspiciously change this foregone history into something of, dare I say, a legacy for himself..

It's worth a try..he is a scholar!