9/11 and state's rights issues. New York should have dealt with the emergency not the fed.

An emergency occurred in New York, and so New York should have handled it. New York fire department should have put out the fires in the towers (which they didn't), New York police should have investigated the scene, including the debris of the tower (which they didn't). Only afterwards if they needed help in getting to the bottom of the crime, they would ask the federal government for help, but not in the sense that they ask them to track down a terrorist in some cave a thousand miles away, but more likely investigating put options prior to 9/11 (which the feds said had no correlation to 9/11).

Constitution: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.

When the constitution was written airplanes were not used in military so we can assume the airforce also falls under this power.

If the president thought this was a terrorist attack, then he would have the power to send the airforce to New York for assistance (which did not happen), or allow the air force to protect the rest of the United States (which they didn't, even hours later when the pentagon was struck). This means the only military action the president should have taken on 9/11 was not taken. That was the only interference the federal government should have done on 9/11.

If the president wished to go to war, he would have needed the consent of the congress, which was manipulated following the post 9/11 brainwashing, so in that regard we can only say that those congressmen were fooled big time, which happens, but the fact that they are continuing to be "fooled" is just a cover for their treason.

In conclusion, the only thing the president should have done on 9/11 was order the airforce to ASSIST the state of New York in dealing with their emergency, since it happened within the sovereignty of New York. This was not done, so they refused to employ the only constitutional power they had in that situation. The fact that Bush did not fire Cheney is proof of his own treason and he can not blame events on Cheney after the fact if he was his supervisor.

Sorry for no links, I hear links are becoming illegal, plus they won't change your mind this late in the game, I just thought of this in thinking about state rights issues and how 9/11 should not have been the big circus show the federal government put on. They should really have no business in this at all, and just because it was "terrorism" doesn't mean much because they didn't even do what they were supposed to do, send the military to help assist the state and country.

So whether you believe 9/11 was an "inside job" or not, the fact is the federal government should not have brought NIST in to white wash the investigation, the investigation should have been conducted by the state of New York. And if New York was corrupt (the mayor obviously was) then the power is reserved to the people, and of course the 9/11 truth movement started in New York, so the investigation happened, it is just not "official".

Because a Federal Building was involved as well on 9/11 the FEDs had no choice but to investigate it. That automatically put them at the top of the list.

Federal offices were attacked that day. In-and-of-itself I think is more than enough justification to make it a federal matter, thus rendering NY investigative authority useless and superceded. It sucks, yes. But I think that's how it was handled.

Originally posted by Manhater
Because a Federal Building was involved as well on 9/11 the FEDs had no choice but to investigate it. That automatically put them at the top of the list.

edit on 5-7-2011 by Manhater because: (no reason given)

Where in the constitution does it say a federal building makes the land around it property of the government? That means the government owns your house because a post office is nearby. If anything the federal government is designated by Washington, D.C. and its jurisdiction should not fall anywhere outside of D.C, if even that (again, show me where in the constitution the federal government can proclaim property simply by building a building onto it).

But on that note, thanks for reminding me that WTC 7 was a federal building, all the more likely it was brought down by controlled demolition.

Originally posted by TXRabbit
Federal offices were attacked that day. In-and-of-itself I think is more than enough justification to make it a federal matter, thus rendering NY investigative authority useless and superceded. It sucks, yes. But I think that's how it was handled.

It not just "sucks" but it is unconstitutional. This is what people are not understanding. The constitution does not allow for the federal government to put up military bases. The "base" is actually the state. So this would be a state within a state (a federal building inside the state of New York). So again, the logical mantra is "why have states" if state rights are non-existent. Why have a New York police department if there are federal buildings in New York? Why not just federal police to enforce the federal building and all the space around it? Also, on a technical point, the building did not come down until 7 hours later, meaning the city should have had their own detectives working on the case even before the fed had any reason to get involved .Again, the building was on fire for 7 hours, so why didn't the federal fire fighters take care of the building? Wouldn't it make more sense for the New York fire fighters to put the fire out (which they didn't, probably because they were sitting around waiting for the feds to tell them what to do). So, using your logic, the federal government's building was in danger (it was on fire, it had not yet collapsed), so why didn't the feds send the military helicopters to put out the fire? Probably because it would make more sense to let the states do this.

Originally posted by TXRabbit
Federal offices were attacked that day.

This seems to me to be another myth that was in plain sight all along. At the time, how did they know it was a terrorist attack if they had no prior knowledge? By normal routine, when something happens the federal government has to "investigate" and the two parties bicker about it in congress, so it would take a few days before they even realized their building was attacked. All the more to indicate that they did have prior knowledge of the attack and was ready to tell the media just who exactly did it something that would have taken days to do if this wasn't a controlled operation.

If anyone can give me a constitutional argument as to why the feds had to investigate 9/11, I will gladly listen, so far I have two identical posts saying the exact same punch line, and not much else. So am I wrong or are you just bored listening to me talk?

Well it seems that you posted this thread with pre-conceived answers, rebuttals and remarks, so there really isn't any point in a continued discussion. Good luck making your point.

Terrorism is a federal crime, handled by federal authorities. If you think 9/11 was a false flag attack, fine, but in that case it is still going to be treated as an act of terrorism and handled by federal authorities.

Not to mention that the WTC attacks were only half of a larger operation that also targeted Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia.

The assertion that this should have been handled by the respective states that were hit is baseless and silly.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
Terrorism is a federal crime,

The assertion that this should have been handled by the respective states that were hit is baseless and silly.

That assertion is baseless and silly, where in the constitution does it say terrorism is a federal crime? If terrorism was such a federal crime why did they need to pass the patriot act (the terrorist act) for in the first place?

Originally posted by TXRabbit
Well it seems that you posted this thread with pre-conceived answers,

No, I kindly asked for constitutional arguments in favor of allowing for the investigation of 9/11 by the feds.

reply to post by filosophia


The constitution does not limit which crimes the federal government may investigate, now does it? If you think it does, then cite it.

The patriot act was not required for the government to investigate.

reply to post by filosophia


It is quite obvious that you do not fully understand the functionality of the Constitution of the United States; otherwise you would not be arguing such an unfounded, ridiculous point.

The law of the United States has many layers, and it does not stop solely at the Constitution.

The Constitution sets out the boundaries of federal law, which consists of constitutional acts of Congress, constitutional treaties ratified by Congress, constitutional regulations promulgated by the executive branch, and case law originating from the federal judiciary.

In other words, the Constitution is the barometer by which every other law must adhere. When Congress passes an act, it must be in strict accordance to the Constitution, or it will be struck down by the Supreme Court. As such, there are multiple sources of law (not just Congress), such as constitutional law, statutory law, common law, and administrative regulations (which falls under your argument--procedures taken after an attack by a foreign entity falls under the administrative section of federal law, which is ABSOLUTELY Constitutional, btw).

After the United States was attacked on September 11th, the Federal Government had the Constitutional right and obligation to follow federal law--and they did. Just because the law that they followed is not in the Constitution (and there are literally hundreds, if not thousands that are not) doesn't mean that the law they followed was unconstitutional. If it was, it would have never been passed in the first place.

Why do you think the United States involved themselves with the Pearl Harbor attacks? Following your line of logic, Hawaii was not a state yet, and as such we were violating their sovereignty by investigating the attack. And again, why do you think the United States government involved itself with an investigation following the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City? Do you honestly believe that the FBI was violating the sovereignty of the state of Oklahoma?

You are missing the point when you say something like "well how could they know it was a terrorist attack if they had no knowledge of an impending attack?" The point is, we were attacked. It did not matter who or what we were attacked by.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by filosophia

 

The constitution does not limit which crimes the federal government may investigate, now does it? If you think it does, then cite it.

article 3 section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

As far as I'm concerned that is the only crime defined by the constitution.

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by filosophia

 

It is quite obvious that you do not fully understand the functionality of the Constitution of the United States; otherwise you would not be arguing such an unfounded, ridiculous point.

The law of the United States has many layers, and it does not stop solely at the Constitution.

The Constitution sets out the boundaries of federal law, which consists of constitutional acts of Congress, constitutional treaties ratified by Congress, constitutional regulations promulgated by the executive branch, and case law originating from the federal judiciary.

In other words, the Constitution is the barometer by which every other law must adhere. When Congress passes an act, it must be in strict accordance to the Constitution, or it will be struck down by the Supreme Court. As such, there are multiple sources of law (not just Congress), such as constitutional law, statutory law, common law, and administrative regulations (which falls under your argument--procedures taken after an attack by a foreign entity falls under the administrative section of federal law, which is ABSOLUTELY Constitutional, btw).

After the United States was attacked on September 11th, the Federal Government had the Constitutional right and obligation to follow federal law--and they did. Just because the law that they followed is not in the Constitution (and there are literally hundreds, if not thousands that are not) doesn't mean that the law they followed was unconstitutional. If it was, it would have never been passed in the first place.

Why do you think the United States involved themselves with the Pearl Harbor attacks? Following your line of logic, Hawaii was not a state yet, and as such we were violating their sovereignty by investigating the attack. And again, why do you think the United States government involved itself with an investigation following the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City? Do you honestly believe that the FBI was violating the sovereignty of the state of Oklahoma?

You are missing the point when you say something like "well how could they know it was a terrorist attack if they had no knowledge of an impending attack?" The point is, we were attacked. It did not matter who or what we were attacked by.

So, you think I don't understand the constitution, yet you do not give me one passage from the constitution, so am I just supposed to believe you are an expert above my level of intelligence?

The Constitution sets out the boundaries of federal law, which consists of constitutional acts of Congress, constitutional treaties ratified by Congress, constitutional regulations promulgated by the executive branch, and case law originating from the federal judiciary.

You just kind of throw this out there without any link as to where it came from, but where it didn't come from is the constitution.

You also seem to contradict yourself a bit

The law of the United States has many layers, and it does not stop solely at the Constitution.

and

the Constitution is the barometer by which every other law must adhere.

So, if every law has to adhere to the constitution, it means the law does stop at the constitution, considering it is the SUPREME LAW of the land. I'd say the only place the constitution continues is into the will of the people, since they create the government.

After the United States was attacked on September 11th, the Federal Government had the Constitutional right and obligation to follow federal law--and they did.

Where in the constitution can you cite this? I already explained how the president failed to do the only thing constitutionally allowed during 9/11 (sending in the military).

reply to post by filosophia


You, my friend, are entirely ignorant to anything concerning federal law. Why is federal divorce law not contained within the Constitution? What about federal animal cruelty laws? What about federal business laws, or federal murder laws? You are arguing that if it isn't in the Constitution, then it is unconstitutional or illegal.

What do you think the responsibility of a local, state, or federal judge is?

The problem with people's understanding, which is why they can not comprehend the constitution's simplicity and brilliance, is that they think the federal government is the law of the land, which is ridiculous, since the constitution includes the rights of the people, so if you want to be technical the federal government AND the people are equal, which makes sense historically since the constitution was created out of the battle between the federalists and anti-federalists, the constitution gave greater power to the federal government compared to the articles of confederation, but also sought to limit the federal government. The myth of the day is the federal government has absolute power, which completely goes against the intention of the constitution to limit the powers of the federal government. If the government had unlimited power, there'd be no point in having a constitution. Even if the federal government was the main law of the land, and states and people don't count, it is still divided into 3 branches which SHOULD be opposed to each other and keeping each other in check. The only reason this is not happening is because the criminals in charge have usurped all three branches thanks to the long history of ignorance of the true intent of the constitution. However, the tide is changing.

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by filosophia

 

You, my friend, are entirely ignorant to anything concerning federal law. Why is federal divorce law not contained within the Constitution? What about federal animal cruelty laws? What about federal business laws, or federal murder laws? You are arguing that if it isn't in the Constitution, then it is unconstitutional or illegal.

What do you think the responsibility of a local, state, or federal judge is?

That just means those laws are unconstitutional. The birth of America is not just the constitution but the Declaration of Independence which defined all men as having a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that by itself takes care of the law of murder. The federal government should not be involved in business, that is one of the tyrannies the revolutionaries fought against. The federal government does not need to implement animal cruelty laws and in fact they don't, animals aren't considered to have rights, you can not sue for more than the animal is worth if your own pet is killed, if the police kill your dog (which happens all the time to people) nothing seems to happen although they will probably only get the dog's price if that, and as for putting people in jail for exposing them to dog fights that's quite hypocritical since the same government is bombing indigenous tribes with depleted uranium. And why can't the states enact animal cruelty laws? Why must it be the federal government? Why have states at all if only the feds can deal with animal cruelty. They might as replace local cops with federal cops because only federal cops can regulate everything needed, no point at all of having states and cities (of course this is the dream of the one world orderers). And of course why should the government be concerned with marriage? It makes no sense. I'm still waiting for you to cite just one passage from the constitution proving me wrong on anything I've said.

reply to post by filosophia


That sentence does not limit the US government to investigating only treason. The Constitution doesn't need to define crimes. Congress may do so by legislation.

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by TXRabbit
Well it seems that you posted this thread with pre-conceived answers,

No, I kindly asked for constitutional arguments in favor of allowing for the investigation of 9/11 by the feds.

The attack involved airplanes - airplanes are a part of interstate commerce - interstate commerce is the original jurisdiction of the Federal government. End of story.