Martial Law: Elite Marines called to active duty 10/19/2019

Cecile

Well-known member
[FONT=&quot]The Reserve Component of the Marines has been called to active duty October 19, 2019 “to provide assistance in response to a disaster or emergency.”[/FONT][FONT=&quot] https://www.marines.mil/News/Messages/Messages-Display/Article/1979422/manpower-guidance-for-activation-and-deactivation-of-reserve-component-rc-marin [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This was an exercise in futility apparently, so I'm deleting the text. Live and learn.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I do have a copy saved to my documents as I did some very good research!
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
 

Attachments

  • Transits to USA zero hour Chart for October 20.pdf
    99.5 KB · Views: 48
  • BOOMERANG forms in USA chart.pdf
    201.5 KB · Views: 40
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
Cecile, I don't think this means what you think it means. Being on active duty simply means that members are full time in the service, vs. being in the reserves. Your attachment was hard to decipher but I read it to mean that marines can be called to deal with national emergencies, a job usually relegated to the state national guards.

For example, one paragraph in your link stated:

if a Governor requests Federal assistance in responding to a major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in §102 of REF C) the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) may, without the consent of the member affected, order any unit, and any member not assigned to a unit organized to serve as a unit, of the Marine Corps Reserve to active duty for a continuous period of not more than 120 days to respond to the Governor’s request.

This just says that members of the Marine Corps reserves can be called up for active duty if a state governor needs extra help in dealing with something like a devastating hurricane.

This is not martial law.

The sky is not falling.
 
Last edited:

Cecile

Well-known member
Waybread, I didn't realize that that's what a call to active duty meant. I'm happy to delete it if you can tell me how.

BTW I did say that this was to protect people's rights, etc. in an emergency contrary to what fearmongers believe. It was not my intent to convey the sky is falling attitude. Quite the opposite actually.

It was a good learning experience to do the work up in any case.

Thanks.
Cecile
 

waybread

Well-known member
You should be able to delete your post by clicking on "edit" and then probably "go advanced." To remove the thread title, contact a moderator: Osamenor or Tim Wilson.
 

waybread

Well-known member
I could see that!

But let's hope that the US never gets to a point where we need it.

So far as I know, the US Constitution and laws do not allow for martial law. This isn't to say that a rogue president, as Commander in Chief, couldn't try something. Trump has almost threatened as much. But then we have all of the gun rights advocates armed to the teeth in the event of such a scenario.

I don't think he's that crazy, even though solar arc Uranus is currently pinging on his Mars-ascendant conjunction.
 

Cecile

Well-known member
Hi Waybread,
Your kindness is appreciated. I seem to have a knack for "seeing" things in astrology readings I do for individuals. I thought I'd apply that to Mundane astrology. Truth is I was seeing a lot of things clear as day in my exposee. Nevertheless I am in unfamiliar waters and have no desire to enter into a political discussion which I was afraid would happen. Although the US constitution makes no special provisions for Martial Law, Martial Law has been declared 9 times since WWII. This lists some https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law#United_States

But which constitution?

https://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/two-us-constitutions

There's so much the public school system has kept us in the dark about.
If anyone desires a copy of my astrological exposee, crazy as it may seem, send me a message.

Cecile
 

AJ Astrology

Well-known member
So far as I know, the US Constitution and laws do not allow for martial law.

Hi waybread,

Yes, it certainly does. The US Supreme Court has so stated on numerous occasions.

The body of the Constitution does five things:

1) establishes a republican form of government and guarantees that each State will have a republican form of government
2) establishes a federal system as opposed to a confederacy or unitary-State
3) creates a system of Checks & Balances between the federal government, the States and the People
4) creates a system of Checks & Balances among the three branches of the federal government
5) states the duties, responsibilities, power and authority of each branch of government.

The Amendments to the Constitution either place restrictions and limitations on government power, or grant the government certain powers.

Until the 14th Amendment, the Constitution did not apply to the States. It only applied to the federal government.

The US is a sovereign State and a sovereign State has certain inherent powers. To enumerate those powers in the Constitution would make it about 16,000 to 20,000 pages long.

Likewise, the head-of-State has certain inherent powers and to enumerate them would add another 15,000 pages to the Constitution.

A more elegant way of writing a Constitution is simply to assume those powers and place limitations or restrictions upon them as desired.

For example, it is an inherent power of the head-of-State to declare war, but the Framers saw fit to give that power to the combined House and Senate: the People and the States, since the House originally represented the People and the Senate represented the States.

Dalton v. Specter, 511 US 462 (1994)

Held: Judicial review is not available for respondents' claims. Every action by the President, or by another elected official, in excess of his statutory authority is not ipso facto in violation of the Constitution, as the Court of Appeals seemed to believe.

Not only does a US President have inherent powers, so do cabinet members, in this instance the Secretary of Defense.

Each cabinet member by virtue of his/her position has certain inherent powers which are not subject to judicial review, even though those powers are not enumerated in the Constitution, because that would add another 200,000 pages to the Constitution to enumerate all of their inherent powers.

The US Constitution does not say that the Secretary of Defense has the power to decide which military bases will be opened or closed or remain in operation, because that is a power inherent to the position.

The courts have no power to do anything about it, and neither does Congress, since all things military excepting a declaration of war are vested in the Executive Branch.

That's how it works.

Any President as head-of-State or Commander-in-Chief or Chief Law Enforcement Officer has the power to declare a federal emergency or martial law or both and the courts and Congress can do nothing about it.

The only way that will change is with an Amendment to the Constitution that restricts or limits those powers.
 

moonkat235

Well-known member
@AJ

I think there are a lot of limitations to what you've just said with that second to last paragraph. Martial Law is definitely limited by several major judicial decisions, as well as the Posse Comitatus Act. The military can't get involved with domestic law enforcement without congressional approval. That's a huge limitation on enacting martial law, just sayin.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
Dear mods-- please bear with me. This post lays some groundwork-- the astrology follows up in the next post.

Thanks, Moonkat!

Hi waybread,

Yes, it certainly does. The US Supreme Court has so stated on numerous occasions.

The body of the Constitution does five things:

1) establishes a republican form of government and guarantees that each State will have a republican form of government
2) establishes a federal system as opposed to a confederacy or unitary-State
3) creates a system of Checks & Balances between the federal government, the States and the People
4) creates a system of Checks & Balances among the three branches of the federal government
5) states the duties, responsibilities, power and authority of each branch of government.

The Amendments to the Constitution either place restrictions and limitations on government power, or grant the government certain powers.

Until the 14th Amendment, the Constitution did not apply to the States. It only applied to the federal government.

Nothing in the Constitution specifically authorizes martial law. The 10th Amendment, in the Bill of Rights (1791) gives rights not spelled out in the Constitution to the states or to the people.

Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Habeas Corpus deals with illegal confinement.

.Article II. sec. 2 makes the president commander in chief., but sec. 8 outlines the responsibilities of Congress in maintaining the armed services, including "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repeal Invasions." III.4 obligates the federal government to protect states from foreign invasion or domestic violence if the state legislature or governor so request. This can be done withtout the imposition of martial law.

I've tried to find the legal basis for the imposition of martial law in Hawaii after Pearl Harbour. Hawaii was then a territory, not a state, and the Organic Act of 1900 gave the governor broad powers. https://encyclopedia.densho.org/Organic_Act/ Roosevelt signed off on establishing military rule, probably on the grounds that 37% of Hawaii's residents were of Japanese descent. When a case testing its legality came before the Supreme Court, the justices ruled against military tribunals that stripped citizens of their rights.

Rather than place tens of thousands of clauses in the Constitution as you suggest, the Constitution enables Congress and the states to pass laws

It requires an act of Congress to declare war, but the executive branch has circumvented this constitutional requirement by declaring American troops to be advisors or peace-keepers or somesuch-- notably in Vietnam.

Not only does a US President have inherent powers, so do cabinet members, in this instance the Secretary of Defense.

Each cabinet member by virtue of his/her position has certain inherent powers which are not subject to judicial review, even though those powers are not enumerated in the Constitution, because that would add another 200,000 pages to the Constitution to enumerate all of their inherent powers.

It is important to distinguish between the Constitution, federal, and state laws. The Constitution enables Congress and state legislatures to pass laws. Occasionally federal and state laws are challenged or overturned as being unconstitutional.

The US Constitution does not say that the Secretary of Defense has the power to decide which military bases will be opened or closed or remain in operation, because that is a power inherent to the position.

The courts have no power to do anything about it, and neither does Congress, since all things military excepting a declaration of war are vested in the Executive Branch.

That's how it works.

Lets look at the facts. The issue is not adding thousands of pages to the Constitution. The issue is laws passed by Congress, as well as congressional oversight on the cabinet-level executive positions. More on base closures, which is not a process undertaken unilaterally by a cabinet secretary: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R43425.pdf

Any President as head-of-State or Commander-in-Chief or Chief Law Enforcement Officer has the power to declare a federal emergency or martial law or both and the courts and Congress can do nothing about it.

The only way that will change is with an Amendment to the Constitution that restricts or limits those powers.

This isn't entirely correct. A president engaged in a serious abuse of power could face legal challenges directed at his policies (vs. at the person) or perhaps removal from office-- which the Constitution provides for. President Trump, for example, has faced all kinds of legal challenges for the "emergency" of Latino mothers and children seeking refugee status. Presidential protections under federal law apparently do not apply to state laws in all cases.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
This article deals with ingress charts, but happens to be a good primer for mundane astrology. https://www.skyscript.co.uk/ingresses.html

I've attached "the" Sibly chart, drawn up by astrologer Ebenezer Sibly in 1787 for the "birth" of the United States. There are multiple rectified versions of it. Here's one. Uranus was just barely known in 1787 but not incorporated into astrology yet. The outer planets are unknown. I don't know what house system Sibly would have used.

It is possible that the founding fathers knew about astrology-- there are interesting arguments for Masonic influences. It is also possible that the birth was not based upon astrological principles.

Even though the idea of the presidency did not exist in 1776, the Sibly chart has shown itself to be radical, when comparing it with historical events.

Mars and the 6th house govern the military. The 7th rules foreign affairs. The 10th house and sun rule the head of state and party in power. The law is a 9th house matter.

It is interesting that the founding fathers were very concerned to limit their leaders' power. We see Saturn in the 10th, and sun square Saturn. Saturn rules limitations.

In terms of the military, the major experience of the new republic seems to have been abuses by the British military occupation of the colonies-- hence the second and third amendments. Mars is actually in the terms of Venus. Venus rules the 6th house and conjuncts beneficial Jupiter. Venus is the planetary ruler of peace

This chart has undergone many transits and progressions. So all kinds of influences have affected it since 1776. We know about the USA's military involvements. But it is hard for for me to see martial law baked into this chart.
 

Attachments

  • sibly chart minus outers.jpg
    sibly chart minus outers.jpg
    43.7 KB · Views: 33

Cecile

Well-known member
Good morning, Conspiracy Theorist.

I had to look up Antares-Aldebaran. Wow! Knowing only what I'm reading now this certainly adds another dimension to my opus (text deleted from thread though I believe to be accurate in spite of conspiratorial overtones and misunderstandings regarding Martial Law).

To me the stars and planets are like a huge multidimensional clock, such that Antares-Aldebaran being on the horizons are certainly not to be ignored. I definitely got a Wow feeling when I understood what little I do understand about them. :)

I imagine the planets and the stars too as a theatrical performance with the different celestial bodies representing the theater, the stage, the backdrop, the props, the actors, the action, the dialog, etc. Antares-Aldebaran in my simple scenario would be the proscenium.

I truly do appreciate your chiming in, and I look forward to reading what the other Mundane Astrologers have to say about Antares-Aldebaran.
Question: How or why "warlike"?

Cecile
 

Cecile

Well-known member
Good morning, AJ.

Any President as head-of-State or Commander-in-Chief or Chief Law Enforcement Officer has the power to declare a federal emergency or martial law or both and the courts and Congress can do nothing about it.

The only way that will change is with an Amendment to the Constitution that restricts or limits those powers.


Do you and Waybread and everyone commenting on the constitution have a JD in Constitutional Law?

Despite the disagreement on Martial Law, I would advise keeping an eye open for Sunday 10/20/2019 with the Moon conjuncting Zero Hour USA's MC 4:54AM; then conjuncting USA's Sun 6:35AM, and then that precisely formed Boomerang 7:25AM D.C. time. I see troops on the move. The 12th-6th reversal to Virgo-Pisces, Neptune in each, Mars in 12th reeks of stealth and precison.

Enough said. I got shot down. Chances are the covert nature of this operation will keep it out of the main stream media.

Ignorance is bliss -- until it's not.
Cecile
 
Last edited:

leomoon

Well-known member
I truly do appreciate your chiming in, and I look forward to reading what the other Mundane Astrologers have to say about Antares-Aldebaran.
Question: How or why "warlike"
There is nothing in the universe that forces a planet or a fixed star (are Antares-Aldebaran), to be warlike. The reason why they are mentioned over eons of time as being thus is because the ancient astrologers who worked for Kings and Emperors, noticed these fixed stars prominently displayed either in natal charts of the country's generals or during battle. After a while, (I would assume, much like anything being scrutinized and watched over long periods of time), and then written about, the adjectives stuck.

From the time of Ptolemy or before then, astrologers assigned the adjectives of behaviors for known planets to he fixed stars. Some are more Mars-Saturn like for example, or Mars-Jupiter like then others i.e. Mercury etc.may think more before acting out. Antares is currently around 9 degrees tropical sign Sagittarius and Aldebaren directly across in Gemini.




Now we know thousands of years later thanks to the diligence of astrologers of old, to watch these two Royal Persian stars more carefully when we see them prominently displayed in the charts.


I have written about Alderbaran & Antares quite a bit, having watched them for myself over time. Aldebaran is more about (as said by the ancients), "honor in intelligence" then about mindless war mongernig or Mars like behaviors. That is usually assigned more to Antares although this star too, (Anti-Ares) Mars like can be benign until one sees it in a totally spontaneous murder victim. Sad to say.
 
Last edited:

leomoon

Well-known member
Speaking about the armed services, does anyone know what tRump meant when he said yesterday in a crowd, (proudly), crowing about Saudi Arabia will now for the first time in our history (he meant other Presidents), will PAY for anything that the US seems worthwhile for them to have.



It sounded much like mercenaries which I think maybe against the Constitution isn't it? Perhaps Waybread would know, because I do not and wondered about this.


President Trump said if U.S. forces are employed to assist Saudi Arabia, the Kingdom will have to provide payment.
Speaking with reporters on Monday, President Donald Trump said if the U.S. military assists Saudi Arabia in responding to the alleged Iranian attack on Saudi oil fields, the Kingdom would be required to pay up, according to ABC News.



https://mavenroundtable.io/theintel...ries-for-saudi-arabia-ZgkPR9S1EEmfxsjdXJV-rg/
 

Cecile

Well-known member
Hi LeoMoon,

This is the quote that has ABC News calling it "mercenary."
"Trump said if the U.S. offers assistance, it will come with a price tag."
The term "price tag" could mean anything - tariffs, trade deals, agreements. Mercenaries are guns for hire.

Here's what I was able to cobble together:

Following the money leads to the petrodollar and why the attack on SA oil fields on 9/14 happened when all security guards were away, and SA's economy imploding with their Big Oil Company Aramaco downgraded to an A, possibly BB grade company, and SA having to defend itself from Israel is turning to Russia for missiles.

The deployment of US military personnel is in response to the escalating situation between Turkey and Syria. As many as 1,800 military personnel are expected to be deployed to the region including Saudi Arabia. As I understand it, we have troops sandwiched between Turkey and Syria which Turkey fired upon without US retaliation, but than an OK to return fire has been handed down.
Trump Tweeted: "The Kurds and Turkey have been fighting for many years. Turkey considers the PKK the worst terrorists of all. Others may want to come in and fight for one side or the other. Let them! We are monitoring the situation closely. Endless Wars! Very smart not to be involved in the intense fighting along the Turkish border, for a change.”
I'm attaching USA's chart with transits for the morning of the 20th simply for an astrological reference.


Cecile
 

Attachments

  • Transits to USA zero hour Chart for October 20.pdf
    99.5 KB · Views: 38

leomoon

Well-known member
not the best copy of a chart, but it'll do.



Sibley chart with 9-11 transits of the Twin Towers - See tr Pluto tr the Ascendant as well as tr Uranus on Aldebaran::surprised:

Click on image to enlarge:
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
Good morning, AJ.




Do you and Waybread and everyone commenting on the constitution have a JD in Constitutional Law?

Despite the disagreement on Martial Law, I would advise keeping an eye open for Sunday 10/20/2019 with the Moon conjuncting Zero Hour USA's MC 4:54AM; then conjuncting USA's Sun 6:35AM, and then that precisely formed Boomerang 7:25AM D.C. time. I see troops on the move. The 12th-6th reversal to Virgo-Pisces, Neptune in each, Mars in 12th reeks of stealth and precison.

Enough said. I got shot down. Chances are the covert nature of this operation will keep it out of the main stream media.

Ignorance is bliss -- until it's not.
Cecile

No JD, Cecile, I'm just an information junky.

In my previous working life, I had to read huge amounts of material within short periods of time, so I developed speed reading habits. Plus I'm retired, so I can spend a lot of my time on this sort of thing.

Here's another saying: never attribute to a conspiracy what you can attribute to sheer incompetence.
 
Top