It is simple if you ignore the complexity. Look at the recent changes to the Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus Act by way of the Congress approved MCA and 2007 Warner Defense Auth bill.

President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of (’refuse’ or ‘fail’ in) maintaining public order, ‘in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.’”…

I guess that conspiracy category would preclude any action for legal removal from office?

That is really scary. Just what sort of “incident” would it take to set these guys off?

Legal removal from office sounds awfully like it might be enough.

Governors lose in power struggle over National Guard

A little-noticed change in federal law packs an important change in who is in charge the next time a state is devastated by a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina…..
….To the dismay of the nation’s governors, the White House now will be empowered to go over a governor’s head and call up National Guard troops to aid a state in time of natural disasters or other public emergencies. Up to now, governors were the sole commanders in chief of citizen soldiers in local Guard units during emergencies within the state…..
…Over objections from all 50 governors, Congress in October tweaked the 200-year-old Insurrection Act to empower the hand of the president in future stateside emergencies. In a letter to Congress, the governors called the change “a dramatic expansion of federal authority during natural disasters that could cause confusion in the command-and-control of the National Guard and interfere with states’ ability to respond to natural disasters within their borders.”….
…A bipartisan majority of both chambers of Congress adopted the change as part of the 439-page, $538 billion 2007 Defense Authorization Bill signed into law last October….
…Congress changed the Insurrection Act to list “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident” as conditions under which the president can deploy U.S. armed forces and federalize state Guard troops if he determines that “authorities of the state or possession are incapable of maintaining public order.”
——————————-

Remarks Of Sen. Patrick Leahy

The changes to the Insurrection Act will allow the President to use the military, including the National Guard, to carry out law enforcement activities without the consent of a governor. When the Insurrection Act is invoked posse comitatus does not apply. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy, and it is for that reason that the Insurrection Act has only been invoked on three — three — in recent history. The implications of changing the Act are enormous, but this change was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals.

—————————
Bush’s Martial Law Act of 2007

…Bush’s Martial Law Act of 2007 modifies the Insurrection Act and deals yet another blow to the Posse Comitatus Act. “Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, ‘Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies,’” explains Morales. “Section 333, ‘Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law’ states that ‘the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of (’refuse’ or ‘fail’ in) maintaining public order, ‘in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.’”…

I guess that conspiracy category would preclude any action for legal removal from office?

Sorry, but you do realize NFL football is as rigged as US elections, don’t you?

It’s about big advertising dollars and they can’t let the action flag til the very end, else the viewers will go away. It’s like Wheel of Fortune or Jeopardy. No matter how well someone does early-on it all comes down to the last puzzle or clue after the last commercial ad break.

Seriously, consider that winning American presidential elections (and increasingly Congressional elections) is about big big money. Where does it come from in sufficient amounts? Does my giving $5 to somebody tilt the scales? Nope. It takes millions. For a long time the Democrats received a lot from wealthy American Jews. When the Neocons were kicked from the party there was probably a drop in funding. [ Somebody needs to check me on this sheer speculation. ] In the 90s Bill Clinton went out west and asked computer companies to help out and put less emphasis on Jewish contributors. Where did they go? They dropped in on Reagan & friends and were pushed aside (for a while). Some time later they found a home with Dubya. Now we’ve got foreign policy designed by Netanyahu, Halliburton, Exxon and all the other bloodsuckers who are using America as their tool. Remember, Cheney even went to Saudi Arabia to ask them what policy we should follow in Iraq (wild-eyed speculation, but likely).

So, what I’m saying is the Republican Party allowed itself to be used as a vehicle, letting the AIPAC people use our government and military for their purposes in the Middle East, so Republicans can get Jewish money forever. Dems better get California Silicon Valley money and that may explain why California is maybe moving their primary up front ahead of New Hampshire!

Too many payoffs? Rotten speculation on my part? Perhaps. But, just consider these possibilities as possible underpinnings to the plans executed in public. Were the Republicans saying they had it locked up because they were going to have money out the wazoo (and ya know how they consider that the golden road to victory)?

Somehow I don’t feel the vast American population is being taken for a ride — it feels more like they’re being run over by the whole process.

I wonder how much Jewish money Hillary will get for her campaign? It would be interesting to know if they’ll give Dems anywhere near as much as they give the next Repub presidential candidate?

Hey, I don’t blame them for using our political process to get what they want. It’s just their national survival at stake. We’d do the same if we had to. BTW, I think the green-line wall is a great idea. If the Palestinians can’t attack then there’s no justification for the Israelis to occupy the West Bank or attack there. It should bring peace, even if the locals don’t want it. Whose idea was it anyway?

Go Green Line Wall! Give Peace a Chance!

I’d have bet on the Pats, despite Brady’s sinful Republicanism. But, after watching a while and seeing Indy score a goal after it was clear the guy’s knee was down before he got the ball over, I said forget it, it’s rigged for Indy to win. It’s their time to move forward.

rant mode = off … for now

Kristine @
88

neokneme @ 74

As a defensive ploy, is there any reason the Chimperor can’t just fire Fitz whenever? AbuG’s axing the USAs like they’re kindling (good management and all). (Heck, why not just insert BabCom as the new prosecutor…heh heh.)

Too blatant at this point, even for BushCo. If Fitz was taken off the case the day before opening statements, it would be obstruction of justice, IMHO, as well as rasing the nation’s ire at this Administration to an even higher level. I also suspect the remaining Conservatives with any remaining loyalty to the Constitution and the Rule of Law will join the chorus.

Remember Nixon’s Saturday Night Masacre?

Yes. However so does Cheney. And he holds the trump card. And who’d resign, AbuG?

Ha, Murphy’s Law is the only one they haven’t abrogated.

“Whatever can go wrong will go wrong, and at the worst possible time,”

I still think BushCo misunderestimated Fitz. They thought they could blow him off like an irritating little fly. WRONG! The man is a laser-focused pit-bull. Personally, I don’t really think he gives a fast flying f*ck where the chips land when they fall. He’ll just pick them up and start building the next case with them. The man is a zen master, as focused as a samuri.

Now, let us all chant: Ohm, madne, patne, Fitz… ;-)

Dick on the stand channeling Eric Stratton: The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules or…took a few liberties with our female party guests. We did.

The defense did tell the Judge they were going to call Chaney; that Chaney was going to testify for the defense; that a supbeona was not necessary, Chaney had agreed.

Fitz, had said he wasn’t going to call Cheney to testify for the prosecution but after Libby’s lawyers said they were going to call Cheney, Fitz said “That settles that.”

Mickey 148

You’re actually serious, aren’t you?!

the faceshooter as a character witness

definitely has a certain appeal, but not favoring the defense. in fact, they wouldn’t pull that just to have grounds for an appeal, would they?

IANADL..but if I were I’d be doing just as you suggest.
Irony isn’t just a taste of blood, but in this case…
[If I ever need counsel, I’d find ‘ya…tout suite.]
Nice catch, imho.

You’re actually serious, aren’t you?!

the faceshooter as a character witness

definitely has a certain appeal, but not favoring the defense. in fact, they wouldn’t pull that just to have grounds for an appeal, would they?