Is it true the president can declare martial law and suspend the election?

Question

If so, for what reasons. Does congress approve it?

Answer 1

that  would be great

KEEP  BUSH IN!!!!!!!!!!!!  KEEP  McCain and Obama  OUT

Answer 2

Yes with the stroke of a pen, congressional approval not required.  See Executive Directive 51, signed last year by President Bush.

Martial law suspends the Constitution, which would mean no election.

There are martial law drills taking place all over the country.  FEMA detention camps are being built all over the country.  The question is "Why"?  

Look at HR1955 which criminalizes political dissent in America.  The stage is set.  The question is "when does the show start"?

EDIT.

I forgot to answer "for what reason".  Martial law can be declared for whatever reason the president alone declares a national emergency, or for the rapid deployment of new programs.  For this purpose, the president is the sole "decider".

Answer 3

I'm sure it's in their minds to do it. Guilanni tired to suspend the mayoral election in 2001. Bush doesn't have much support from the people right now. But he does have a lot of audacity.

Answer 4

As I understand it, Bush revoked the Posse Comitatus Act of 1879, which allows a President to declare martial law without the consent of Congress.

That means Bush COULD attack Iran just prior to (or right after) the November election. He'd have to stage another 'terrorist attack' on U.S. soil (this time in the Midwest, perhaps St. Louis or Chicago). Then his handlers would order him to declare martial law, claiming that it's in the best interests of 'national security' not to change administrations at this time.

There were published reports in Israel claiming Bush planned to invade Iran before the elections. Naturally, the White House vigorously denied those reports. But it would allow the handful of wealthy elitists, industrialists, oil barons and power brokers (who control Bush) to become wealthier and more powerful without having to deal with that 'pesky' election (and this time, it would be more difficult to 'steal' an election).   -RKO-  07/12/08

Answer 5

Everyone puts it on Bush yet they ignore Abraham Lincoln he declared martial law, suspended the writ of habeous corpus, in which he did so by imprisoning most of the Maryland legislature and considered throwing Chief justice of the Supreme Court in jail because he didn't agree with him. But then again we don't hear about that and more like how racist he was now because History is wrote by the victors.

Answer 6

Bush thinks that by writing an executive order, he could get away with destroying the CONSTITUTION(?)

This is just one of the MANY reasons why we must support impeachment of CHENEY and BUSH! NOW!

Communicate with your representatives and DEMAND JUSTICE!

Answer 7

He can try. The 'sheeple" that will follow blindly a tyrant into a FEMA camp deserve everything they get.

Then there are those that will stand up and say "no. I do not consent".

Answer 8

Yes he can, but I doubt it will happen, as the CFR has both of their boys on the ticket. Either way they win. Now if someone like say...Ron Paul were to have gotten elected, then I am sure it would happen.

Iran is the wildcard. I am convinced we will invade them, as they are the key property on the block to make this region a monopoly, and fall in line with a one world government.

Obama, or McCain will finish what Bush started, as they are already in bed with the CFR, and but puppets dangling from the world banks strings.

Afterthought... However if Bush were to do it,(start a war with Iran) he would get the blame, so the next in line could start off without being hated as badly for adding another war.  Hmm...Guess we will soon see.

Answer 9

Is it true?

Not according to the Constitution.  IF HE, OR ANY OTHER PRESIDENT WERE TO ATTEMPT IT, HE WOULD BE GUILTY OF TRYING TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Politicians do a lot of things that are not legal, like giving themselves immunity for violating the law.  Just imagine the n***s at the Nuremberg Trials informing the court that Hitler had given them immunity from prosecution!

Breaking the law does not change the law, and giving yourself, or anyone else "immunity" for violating the law, only compounds the offense.

So, to answer your question, who would enforce such a decree?  The police?  The military?  They all take an oath to support and defend the Constitution.

More likely, mercenary forces like Blackwater are the only thugs who would enforce it, and there are not enough of them.  So, I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Answer 10

Sure; elect me and I'll show you how it's done, too!

The Audacity of Audacity! '08

Answer 11

Shameless isnt it?

300 years of law and order, flashed into the toilet by a self-proclaimed patriot/wannabee dictator.

Answer 12

While the president CAN order martial law via presidential directive PD51 presidential directives cannot repeal laws made by congress such as Posse Comitatus though may remain as color of law unless challenged in the courts by congress.

Suspending presidential elections however, the means and manner of which, are enshrined in the constitution cannot be done legally by either a presidential directive nor an act of congress short of amending the constitution without resorting to patently false theories such as that of the unitary executive. This assumes however that the US constitution has legal authority which can be seen to have already been suspended by the current acts of the federal government.

In practical terms however, the Bush administration and congress have both been quite active in unconstitutional laws regulations and activities. This being the case the constitution has already been illegally suspended and all US law is legally null and void since a constitution which grants both the president and the congress with it's powers no longer exists as a matter of practicality. So there is currently no lawful legal authority in the United states except for that granted to the states by their individual state constitutions. In other words the only legitimate federal law is the law of the gun. Should the people or states choose to resist such martial law such actions would be legal under the currently suspended constitution since no federal level law exists, all such law having been rendered void by the federal governments own actions.

So the answer as to whether the president can actually do these things is yes since there are no federal laws to prohibit it. The legality of such actions would depend entirely upon state law under the state constitutions since the federal government now has legal authority only over the District of Columbia. The currently mandated law of the gun declared by the federal government may differ with state law and such disagreements could only be resolved upon the battlefield or by widespread public acceptance of unconstitutional slavery under this new regime.

It is quite unlikely that the constitution will be restored by the current illegal regime especially since it has stripped itself of the power and authority to legally do so. The states cannot do so either since there is no longer a legal federal entity to apply to for an article V constitutional convention.

In order for the constitution to be reconstituted or remade the states will have to hold a constitutional convention to do so outside the illegal auspices of the current regime.

All "federal" entities should, at this point, be considered to be foreign invaders.

Answer 13

hmm.......... this question is interesting I wanna see the out come I'll star it

Answer 14

one reason would be if a marxist was elected president, the current president would be required to nullify it and remain in office till a non-marxist person is elected,,..btw,..Obama is a marxist...i hope this will help you decide who to vote for in november...remember...Barack is a marxist...marxist don't get to serve.....think.....McCain in 08!!

Answer 15

President Bush issued an 'executive order'.  Not a law duly passed by Congress but just an 'executive order' on his own, that allows him to take over the entire government in the case of an 'emergency'.  And who gets to decide what constitutes an 'emergency'?  HE does!  8^O   BTW the same order also allows him to seize all the mass media and the Internet.

It is clearly unconstitutional for a president to simply take over the entire government.  Whether he could get away with it is anyone's guess.

But a lot of people think he has something up his sleeve for this year's election.  Either just before the election, or if Obama wins, just after, we could have another 9/11-style attack, and Bush could use that as a justification to nullify the election or postpone it indefinitely.  The media, of course, would become his cheerleaders and -boom-, we become a fascist dictatorship.

Personally I don't think we're quite that far gone.  I don't think he could get away with it.  But the Republicans and Bush's 'handlers' really have no shame.  They will stop at nothing.  So it will be interesting to see if they try it.

Answer 16

Yes, it is true.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...

But then we reserve the right to overthrow his government as the founders intended.

I SAY BRING IT. The time has come.

Answer 17

It's true---but it is very narrowly defined in the constitution of the U.S.  The president can only call for martial law in cases of rebellion or invasion.  Below is the link for you to read up on the entire thing if you like. The explanations given in there are actually pretty good....

Answer 18

It's a real shame Bush doesn't have a penchant for small moustaches and jackboots... how the h**l will the mass of ignorant Americans realise what his political actions mean otherwise?

Read the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by Wiliam L Shirer - you will be enlightened far more than you'd ever imagine!