TERRORISM: House Passes Emergency Election Bill

In a story that smells slightly like the NWO, the House of Representatives has recently passed a bill that sets up the provisions for emergency appointments in the aftermath of a major terror attack. The provisions of the bill allow for vacancies to be filled 45 days after an attack.

FoxNews Article

Advocates say it is a valid concern for America, and have also advocated an Amendment to the Constitution that would allow for better emergency management in the wake of terror attacks. Critics claim that the period of time is too short to set up proper elections and to long to keep Congress in chaos. Say what you will about FEMA and RX-84 conspiracies, but this could legitamize these arguments.

"Fearing that terrorists might target Congress, the House on Thursday approved a bill to set up speedy special elections if 100 or more of its members are killed.

The House, in a 306-97 vote, put aside for now the larger issue of whether the Constitution should be amended to allow for temporary appointments in the event that an attack caused mass fatalities among lawmakers.

The House, said Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., sponsor of the elections bill and a foe of appointments, "is rooted in democratic principles and those principles must be preserved at all costs."

Hearings were also scheduled on the issue of incapacitation, or how to define when a member who is still alive is unable to carry out his congressional duties, possibly because of a biological or chemical attack."




[Edited on 22-4-2004 by Agent47]

[Edited on 4-22-2004 by Valhall]

How is this in any way comparable to the Spanish train attacks? Those didn't kill any politicians, last I checked. If anything, since it ensures quick elections, it would make a defeat as in Spain more likely.

Critics claim that the period of time is too short to set up proper elections and to long to keep Congress in chaos.

It's a Catch-22. You can't keep Congress in chaos for extended time, so you need elections. But you can't have quick elections, so you need to extend the time.

And how is this NWO? It calls for emergency elections, not emergency appointments.


[Edited on 4-22-2004 by Esoterica]

Good point about spain, I should probably edit that out.

Its a step towards the NWO. First its elections then appointment.

Originally posted by Agent47

Its a step towards the NWO. First its elections then appointment.

Well, it's one of the two. You either have elections, or you have appointments. You can't have a government in which half of the voting officials are dead.

No offense, but it seems you're looking for a conspiracy where none exists. If they have elections, appointments are next. If they have appointments, the NWO is already here.

They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

With this new bill in mind read the following:

Hitler was not entirely certain of his position. The party itself was not united behind his vision of National Socialism. On the Night of the Long Knives this situation was rectified. Hitler asserted that Rohm, the leader of the SA, had plotted to overthrow him. 400 members of the organization were rounded up and killed. This brutal action secured the loyalty of the Armed forces, who had previously been wary of the SA's influence. Hitler was now in control of both his party and the Government.

Notice any potential similarities? See this thread for a more extensive comparison and explanation:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I dont like the bill anyway but this has great concern for the slippery slope. iF this is passed the wording needs to be perfect where it can not be abused by countless of people that would if they had a chance. BUt anyway this is terrible because this would bring many over zealous war mongers into congress if this was to happen and again take away from states rights on how they would appoint a new representative. A terrorist attack could be considered anything. Yes the core values of the bill are wholesome it can be easilly abused. LIke what is 100 dem. reps are at a funraiser and it is attacked and they are all killed. Uhoh guess what like i said before i guarentee you in the immediat days when peopel are thinkin with passion not intellegence mar mongers will be put in who are probly republicans how would you liberals like that?

Its only a matter of time before elections become "emergency appointments", and no one will remember when we lost that ability.

[Edited on 22-4-2004 by Agent47]

Like i said an ideal example of the slippary slope

OK then, besides this, how would you like mass government casualties to be handled?

It would be far more wise to allow the existing appointment system to operate after such a crisis scenario. Governors would offer appointments with the kind of stability a Republic truly requires. There is no doubt that after such a crisis, an election process would indicate massive special interests ready to feed at the public trough.

This bill is a bad idea regardless, it should reinforce our Republic, not top feeders who dump pounds of cash on candidates, for tons in deficit spending.

You can notice the decline into all the bad features of democracy after the direct election of Senators. Appointed Senators represented their States, not their campaign contributors, who were usually massively wealthy. The people too often go along with that kind of "democracy," getting peanuts even from the most liberal.

We have the most stable government in human history, don't ruin it when the next fake "terrorism scenario," actually happens. Keep going "like nothing happened," pass no new laws, because that is the entire reason it happened.

Wait after the appointments for the next election. Does anyone seriously think that the Patriot Act or Homeland Security Act would have passed under ordinary day to day circumstances? Why put up with it after a phoney "falling on the sword," which is too highly likely to have happened.

No more of these atrocious bills that follow even more atrocities with all good intentions paving the road to H-E double hockey sticks.

(At the close of the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin replied, �A republic, if you can keep it.�)



[Edited on 23-4-2004 by SkipShipman]

Originally posted by Esoterica
OK then, besides this, how would you like mass government casualties to be handled?

How about letting the citizens decide? Has that concept been so lost?

Originally posted by Satyr
How about letting the citizens decide? Has that concept been so lost?

Magically, you have the power to institute any mechanism you see fit. Tell me what you would do.

Originally posted by Esoterica

Originally posted by Satyr
How about letting the citizens decide? Has that concept been so lost?

Magically, you have the power to institute any mechanism you see fit. Tell me what you would do.

I'd reorganize a committee of wise men, as they did back when we started all this crap...people who are hardcore Libertarians, who value freedom, and realize that power is all corruptive. Then, these wise men would be rigorously tested to to see if they're really wise and, most importantly, humble. We'd then hold a Yes/No election to see if any of these people were to be acceptable representatives for the citizens. None of this being forced to vote for the lesser of two idiots. Does that sound like a good start? When everyone decided who they would like to represent them, then the process of creating an entirely new form of society would begin. There may not even be a standard form of gov't, so to speak. I truly believe there's a better system. The one we had originally was good, but obviously, far too open to exploitation. We were all warned over and over again, but no one listened, apparently.

Hmm i was just thinkin about this. FEMA would prohably be in power if soemthing of that magnitude was to happen. ANd guess what the people who dont agree with then would be in a detention camp?? SO guess whowould be left to vote in these new elections the people who supports FEMA. So when congress gets a cahnce to review it would be too late

Well, I was speaking in terms of no gov't officials left to run the show, since he said "Magically, you have the power to institute any mechanism you see fit." Of course, with the long line of assholes just waiting to take advantage of America, that'll never happen anyway. Someone will always be threatening us to give them money at gunpoint or threat of prison.

Ok, so I hear some of you saying, "Gunpoint? Huh?" Well, let's assume you decide you're not going to support the gov't anymore. What happens then? They come to your house with guns, or men with guns take you to jail or prison. Yes, gunpoint....whether you realize it or not. We're all held at gunpoint. Everything in America is enforced at gunpoint, even seatbelt laws.

[Edited on 4-23-2004 by Satyr]

Originally posted by Satyr
I'd reorganize a committee of wise men, as they did back when we started all this crap...people who are hardcore Libertarians, who value freedom, and realize that power is all corruptive. Then, these wise men would be rigorously tested to to see if they're really wise and, most importantly, humble. We'd then hold a Yes/No election to see if any of these people were to be acceptable representatives for the citizens. None of this being forced to vote for the lesser of two idiots. Does that sound like a good start? When everyone decided who they would like to represent them, then the process of creating an entirely new form of society would begin. There may not even be a standard form of gov't, so to speak. I truly believe there's a better system. The one we had originally was good, but obviously, far too open to exploitation. We were all warned over and over again, but no one listened, apparently.

That's very good, in theory. But men that you describe don't exist, in theory. The founding fathers we had at the beginning of this nation were slave-holding, adultering alcoholics and smugglers. They had a spark of inspiration with regards to freedom, but they were far from perfect. Remember, only landholding white males could vote.

These supermen, as you describe them, are figments of history's imagination. The men we see in our statues and on our money never existed. They are only the ideal of mortals who lived long ago.

Don't ever put your trust in wise men, because they don't exist. Power corrupts even those with the best intentions.

Originally posted by Esoterica
OK then, besides this, how would you like mass government casualties to be handled?

Split the congress between remaining senators and reps and then use the supreme court and executive branch to bear the burden.

Originally posted by Esoterica
That's very good, in theory. But men that you describe don't exist, in theory. The founding fathers we had at the beginning of this nation were slave-holding, adultering alcoholics and smugglers. They had a spark of inspiration with regards to freedom, but they were far from perfect. Remember, only landholding white males could vote.

These supermen, as you describe them, are figments of history's imagination. The men we see in our statues and on our money never existed. They are only the ideal of mortals who lived long ago.

Don't ever put your trust in wise men, because they don't exist. Power corrupts even those with the best intentions.

I'm not talking about hiring politicians. I'm talking about something organized by "real" individuals, who want to be in charge of their own lives, not everyone elses'. That's what we need. "Freedom" is a joke now days. We have the gov't so far up our asses, in our private lives, I feel raped. Everyone should.

Cant anyone see the other posibilities?

What if a terrorist attack took out your most powerful opposition?

This could, if one really stretches the mind, turn into a new way to eliminate rivals.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Cant anyone see the other posibilities?

What if a terrorist attack took out your most powerful opposition?

This could, if one really stretches the mind, turn into a new way to eliminate rivals.

What do you mean? Senators having others "offed" by terrorists so that they can face less oppisition?