PDA

View Full Version : George Bush's Power Grab... Is Martial Law Coming?


drake3781
May 28th, 2007, 07:39 AM
GEORGE BUSH'S POWER GRAB... IS MARTIAL LAW COMING?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jatpX6kuxHQ


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55824


http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19092

Lord Nelson
May 28th, 2007, 12:53 PM
Are you bored? ;)

Sam L
May 28th, 2007, 01:19 PM
Are you bored? ;)
;)

Pureracket
May 28th, 2007, 01:34 PM
Nelson, SamL,
Neither of you even lives in the USA, right?

kiwifan
May 28th, 2007, 04:30 PM
GEORGE BUSH'S POWER GRAB... IS MARTIAL LAW COMING?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jatpX6kuxHQ


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55824


http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19092

interesting and scary in theory. the best chance for this to work would have been on 9/12.

Dubya doesn't have the backing to pull something like this off. His power base is a coalition of people who have very very different agendas and the only ones in that coalition who would be willing to "get their hands dirty" are the Patriotic Gun Nut types who are already paranoid about Govt control in various forms both real and imagined.

In practice, Dubya's base would take him out if he tried it. Those middle American gun nuts are training to deal with the "New World Order" as we speak.

The nightmare scenario would have to involve a "Private Army"; many would say "see Haliburton" but once again I think you're talking about a lot of those same gun nuts. ;) They don't have a problem shooting "A-Rabs" but when its their hometown teacher, guys they played high school sports with, like to drink beer with - not gonna happen. ;)

One of the few advantages of having all those guys running around. It makes taking over this country a leeetle deeeficult. I don't think the Dubya Govt could take over Clarks Summit, PA unless the people of Clarks Summit allowed it to happen. :p

That said, it is disturbing that News like this isn't on the front pages of every newspaper...all the time.

I read conspiracy books for fun so I was already aware that there are quite a few of these fishy directives floating around out there...

...potential power is scary but the actual power always meets sufficient resistance to move everything back to the middle, I think we're headed back to the middle currently and there's very little Dubya can do about that. :shrug:

Sam L
May 28th, 2007, 06:08 PM
Nelson, SamL,
Neither of you even lives in the USA, right?

Did I say anything? :rolleyes:

Lord Nelson
May 28th, 2007, 07:26 PM
Nelson, SamL,
Neither of you even lives in the USA, right?
What does that have to do with my question? You mean no one gets bored in the U.S? Ok cool, I will fly there when I get bored. I will party every day like you. :p

Volcana
May 28th, 2007, 07:57 PM
interesting and scary in theory. the best chance for this to work would have been on 9/12.

Dubya doesn't have the backing to pull something like this off. His power base is a coalition of people who have very very different agendas
I disagree. The thing is, he doesn't HAVE to declare martial law. This new directive essentially, combined with Bush's power to detain American citizens indefinitely without trial, gives him all the powers he'd have if he declares martial law. Congress could try to pass legislation that specifically denied him the power, but he'd veto it.

Where are the Democrats going to find 10 Republican votes to override a veto?

What Bush is doing, with the enthusiastic help of the rest of the Republican party, is trying to re-make the USA so it's a nation of 'men, not laws', as opposed to a nation of laws, not men.' Ruled by a single person, not the representatives of the people.

Mother_Marjorie
May 28th, 2007, 09:02 PM
Nelson, SamL,
Neither of you even lives in the USA, right?
Funny thing is, they are more American than you, Commie.

kiwifan
May 28th, 2007, 09:17 PM
I disagree. The thing is, he doesn't HAVE to declare martial law. This new directive essentially, combined with Bush's power to detain American citizens indefinitely without trial, gives him all the powers he'd have if he declares martial law. Congress could try to pass legislation that specifically denied him the power, but he'd veto it.

Where are the Democrats going to find 10 Republican votes to override a veto?

What Bush is doing, with the enthusiastic help of the rest of the Republican party, is trying to re-make the USA so it's a nation of 'men, not laws', as opposed to a nation of laws, not men.' Ruled by a single person, not the representatives of the people.

And he would do what with this scary power? :p

Fuck with Muslims, Fuck with Blacks, Fuck with Hispanics, Fuck with Hippies; that's already been done and can be done again :(

Its harder to do now :bounce:, depending on who the Black, Hispanic, Hippie, etc. is and what they stand for in relationship with the majority of the "enfranchised*** citizens" in this country.

Volcana despite any differences we've had in the past, I know you know as well as I, that there are hundreds of Americans more powerful than the President of the United States. ;)

To get it away from Bush because what I'm saying needs to be stated in a very theoretical manner...

...the people who attempt to control this country against the will of this country, I'm talking Hitler style, a dictatorship, no elections anymore...

...would not live, they'd be killed plain and simple. :armed:

Potential power is waaaay different than carrying out the takeover of the nation.

My best example is the one I used to use in college...

...abortion...

...the GOP can rally a vocal minority that will get them elected by hinting around getting rid of/limiting abortion. This only works because of the low percentage of Americans who participate in the political process.

The second they actually pass/try to enforce a fed law making abortion illegal in the USA all the apathetic chicks who don't participate in the system will suddenly find a reason to care and guess who will be out of office for easily the next 12+ years...

...anyone connected with actually making abortion illegal...

...the GOP knows that actually passing the law is political suicide; but talking about it wins them primary seats - it is "the game"...

...Dubya's fun and games only last as long as they don't have an intolerable effect on a certain enfranchised % of the American Public***.

There are enough enfranchised people on both sides of most of the REAL matters of political debate that Dubya's power will remain potential no matter what's on paper...

...once again, that said, the shit shouldn't be on paper in the first place.

I'm definitely not saying that your point isn't valid, we as citizens really need to focus much more uncovering all of Dubya's dirty tricks that are slowly coming to light.

I'm just saying that the mechanisms of correction are in place and are currently moving the Nation away from Dubya and back toward the center...shit pick a name connected to Bush, damn near everybody but Condi is currently under fire. :lol:

__________________
***this enfranchised % is the reason Charles Rangel is always talking about reinstating the draft, if these people's kids could be sent to Iraq...

...we wouldn't be in Iraq. ;)

drake3781
May 28th, 2007, 10:53 PM
The White House would control all governments, state and local. And all private companies. And the military. Without authorization by Congress. And he can declare an emergency, then take these powers.

It's not just Democrats who are alarmed by this. This violates the principles of Republicans as well. Even the man who brought this to light is a right-winger.

What I'm not clear on is: as a presidential directive, is this already in place? I have to re-read the article.

:help:

meyerpl
May 29th, 2007, 04:29 AM
Funny thing is, they are more American than you, Commie.
You actually still throw the word "commie" around like some 1960's John Birch Society card carrying throw-back? Wow. Do you call people who disagree with you "pinko" too? Do you own a t-shirt that says, "Archie Bunker was right!" on the front?

Lord Nelson
May 29th, 2007, 12:00 PM
You actually still throw the word "commie" around like some 1960's John Birch Society card carrying throw-back? Wow. Do you call people who disagree with you "pinko" too? Do you own a t-shirt that says, "Archie Bunker was right!" on the front?
The word commie is the same as the word fascist. Both are extremes which are really no different from one another. Many have called me fascist for my views which are pretty moderate. So I could throw back what you just said to others that call me fascist.

Sammm
May 29th, 2007, 12:09 PM
Sounds like the 1930s German Notstandgesetze (emergency laws).....

miffedmax
May 29th, 2007, 01:42 PM
On the bright side, is there any reason that the Bushistas could be expected to pull off a coup with any more competence than they demonstrated in Iraq, after Hurricane Katrina, in preventing North Korea's missle testing or Iran's nuclear testing?

If the past is any indicator, they'll announce the coup weeks in advance and do nothing. Protest marches will break out, and Bush will immediately order them crushed. His generals will ask for 500,000 troops to put down the protesters, but Bush will only send 12. He'll then subcontract the repression of the counterrevolution to Haliburton, which will simply embezzle the billions slated for smashing the forces of Democracy. Hugo Chavez and Iran will begin arming the rebels, easily circumventing the efforts of Homeland Security which will have neither the technology nor human resources to stop the influx of arms because of underfunding due to the Iraq war.

Bush will order the CIA to kidnap the revolutionary leaders from the temporary capital in Baltimore. They will sign in using their own names, forgetting that they're not in Italy.

Within days, Bush will be hauled before a restored justice system and convicted of war crimes.

The end.

Volcana
May 29th, 2007, 06:32 PM
Volcana despite any differences we've had in the past, I know you know as well as I, that there are hundreds of Americans more powerful than the President of the United States. The president of the United States commands the greatest military force in the recorded history of the planet, measured in raw destructive capability.

There may be people with more influence in certain situation, but if you sit in the Oval Office, and you have no morals, no scuples and no conscience, you're pretty much the most powerful person on the planet.

kiwifan
May 29th, 2007, 06:47 PM
The president of the United States commands the greatest military force in the recorded history of the planet, measured in raw destructive capability.

There may be people with more influence in certain situation, but if you sit in the Oval Office, and you have no morals, no scuples and no conscience, you're pretty much the most powerful person on the planet.

commands is the key word here.

The next question is related to the word obey.

Now lets connect the dots for the easy question, will a group of soldiers attack Boston just because the President of the United States wakes up one day and is in a bad mood, declared a state emergency and then tells them to?

This isn't Star Wars and the US Military isn't Imperial Stormtroopers :lol:, they're actual living breathing people many of who don't even like Dubya.

Remain vigilant, expose Dubya's actions :worship:...

...but Dubya can't take over the USA...

"no way, no day" - Heathers

Lord Nelson
May 29th, 2007, 08:13 PM
On the bright side, is there any reason that the Bushistas could be expected to pull off a coup with any more competence than they demonstrated in Iraq, after Hurricane Katrina, in preventing North Korea's missle testing or Iran's nuclear testing?

If the past is any indicator, they'll announce the coup weeks in advance and do nothing. Protest marches will break out, and Bush will immediately order them crushed. His generals will ask for 500,000 troops to put down the protesters, but Bush will only send 12. He'll then subcontract the repression of the counterrevolution to Haliburton, which will simply embezzle the billions slated for smashing the forces of Democracy. Hugo Chavez and Iran will begin arming the rebels, easily circumventing the efforts of Homeland Security which will have neither the technology nor human resources to stop the influx of arms because of underfunding due to the Iraq war.

Bush will order the CIA to kidnap the revolutionary leaders from the temporary capital in Baltimore. They will sign in using their own names, forgetting that they're not in Italy.

Within days, Bush will be hauled before a restored justice system and convicted of war crimes.

The end.
I have a better scenario. In a few centuries from now a U.S. leader down the road decides along with some influential memebers of the government to suspend the constitution and enact emergeny rule. Many Generals would protest agaisnt this and when demonstrations get out of hand the army is sent to crush the protests. Civil rights are suspended and country is rule by the army. General Raul Sanchez decries that he is the ruler of the U.S. and that from now onwards U.S. would be ruled for the people and by the people. The blue book would contain the new constitution. Some of the army and politicians want U.S. to remain isolationist whereas others such as descendants of purercket would want the U.S. to spread the revolution. But these descendants want to know if goverment is right or left and more importantly if it iss ruled by americans. The government says that it is up and that it is 100% gringo. It does not look to the left or right but upwards. Ther sky is the limit and this revolution has never been seen before.

But the hardline generals will supplant the moderates and the revolution will spread. Soon nuclear weapons will be launched and living beings will cease to exist.
THE END
A nuclear war could well happen unfortunately. I think Drake will agree with me on this.

drake3781
May 30th, 2007, 12:35 AM
On the bright side, is there any reason that the Bushistas could be expected to pull off a coup with any more competence than they demonstrated in Iraq, after Hurricane Katrina, in preventing North Korea's missle testing or Iran's nuclear testing?

If the past is any indicator, they'll announce the coup weeks in advance and do nothing. Protest marches will break out, and Bush will immediately order them crushed. His generals will ask for 500,000 troops to put down the protesters, but Bush will only send 12. He'll then subcontract the repression of the counterrevolution to Haliburton, which will simply embezzle the billions slated for smashing the forces of Democracy. Hugo Chavez and Iran will begin arming the rebels, easily circumventing the efforts of Homeland Security which will have neither the technology nor human resources to stop the influx of arms because of underfunding due to the Iraq war.

Bush will order the CIA to kidnap the revolutionary leaders from the temporary capital in Baltimore. They will sign in using their own names, forgetting that they're not in Italy.

Within days, Bush will be hauled before a restored justice system and convicted of war crimes.

The end.


Nicely written. Brush that up just a bit, and you could publish it. :wavey:

Scotso
May 30th, 2007, 12:49 AM
The president of the United States commands the greatest military force in the recorded history of the planet, measured in raw destructive capability.

There may be people with more influence in certain situation, but if you sit in the Oval Office, and you have no morals, no scuples and no conscience, you're pretty much the most powerful person on the planet.

But the power here rests with the military force. They have to support this person who could supposedly use and abuse it... and the military would not support him.

The second Bush tried to overstep his constitutional powers and usurp control for himself, they would overthrow him with the Senate and the people's support.

The military is not at all pleased with Bush's presidency, they'll be as happy as anyone when it's over.

drake3781
May 30th, 2007, 03:31 AM
Lawyer: Cheney visitor logs not recorded

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

A lawyer Vice President Dick Cheney told the Secret Service in September to eliminate data on who visited Cheney at his official residence, a newly disclosed letter states.

The Sept. 13, 2006, letter from Cheney's lawyer says logs for Cheney's residence on the grounds of the Naval Observatory are subject to the Presidential Records Act.

Such a designation prevents the public from learning who visited the vice president.

The Justice Department filed the letter Friday in a lawsuit by a private group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, seeking the identities of conservative religious leaders who visited Cheney at his official residence.

The newly disclosed letter about visitors to Cheney's residence is accompanied by an 18-page Secret Service document revealing the agency's long-standing practice has been to destroy printed daily access lists of visitors to the residence.

Separately, the agency says it has given Cheney's office handwritten logs of who visits him at his personal residence.

Because of pending lawsuits, the Secret Service says it is now keeping copies of all material on visitors to Cheney's residence.
According to the Secret Service document, Cheney's office has approved the agency's retention of the records, while maintaining they are presidential records subject to Cheney's control.

"The latest filings make clear that the administration has been destroying documents and entering into secret agreements in violation of the law," said Anne Weismann, CREW's chief counsel.

Regarding visitor information, the Secret Service "shall not retain any copy of these documents and information" once the material is given to the office of the vice president, says the September 2006 letter by Shannen Coffin, counsel to the vice president.

"If any documents remain in your possession, please return them to OVP as soon as possible," the letter added.

The vice president's lawyer wrote the letter as The Washington Post sought copies of Cheney's visitors at his residence. The Post requested the records under the Freedom of Information Act. The newspaper subsequently dropped a lawsuit seeking the information.

The letter regarding the vice president's residence was in addition to an agreement quietly signed between the White House and the Secret Service a year ago when questions were raised about visits to the executive compound by convicted influence peddler Jack Abramoff.

That agreement, which didn't surface publicly until late last year, said White House entry and exit logs were presidential records not subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

When the agreement was signed in May 2006, a number of private groups and news organizations had filed FOIA requests with the Secret Service in an effort to identify how many times Abramoff or members of his lobbying team visited the White House.

drake3781
Jul 4th, 2007, 03:55 AM
House balks at Bush order for new powers
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 35 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - President Bush this month is giving an obscure White House office new powers over regulations affecting health, worker safety and the environment. Calling it a power grab, Democrats running Congress are intent on stopping him.


The House voted last week to prohibit the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs from spending federal money on Executive Order 13422, signed by Bush last January and due to take effect July 24.

The order requires federal officials to show that private companies, people or institutions failed to address a problem before agencies can write regulations to tackle it. It also gives political appointees greater authority over how the regulations are written.

The House measure "stops this president or any president from seizing the power to rewrite almost every law that Congress passes, laws that protect public health, the environment, safety, civil rights, privacy and on and on," said Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C., its sponsor.

"OIRA has quietly grown into the most powerful regulatory agency in Washington," the House Science investigations subcommittee, chaired by Miller, said in a report in April.

The administration contends Bush's order merely strengthens a similar directive issued by President Clinton in 1993 giving the White House budget office oversight of federal agency rulemaking.

Andrea Wuebker, a spokeswoman for the Office of Management and Budget, which manages the White House regulatory affairs office, said the order, along with an OMB good guidance bulletin, "will help increase the quality, accountability and transparency of agency guidance documents."

Bush's executive order:

_Requires agencies to identify "market failures," where the private sector fell short in dealing with a problem, as a factor in proposing a rule. The White House regulatory affairs office is given authority to assess those conclusions.

_States that no rulemaking can go forward without the approval of an agency's Regulatory Policy Office, to be headed by a presidential appointee.

_Directs each agency to provide an estimate of costs and benefits of regulations.

_Requires agencies to inform the White House regulatory affairs office of proposed significant guidance documents on complying with rules. Critics say this will create a new bottleneck delaying the issuance of guidelines needed to comply with federal regulations.

"This can only further delay implementing health, safety and environmental protections," said Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, a private watchdog group that joined numerous labor and good-government groups, including the AFL-CIO, Public Citizen and the Union of Concerned Scientists, in opposing Bush's order.

Miller tried unsuccessfully at a hearing in April to persuade the White House regulatory affairs office's former acting administrator, Steven Aitken, to reveal what private groups might have been involved in rewriting the Clinton-era order.

Aitken stressed that the Clinton order also used market failure as a criteria in advancing new rules and directing agencies to appoint regulatory policy officers, many of whom were political appointees. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., backed Aitken up at the hearing.

"The pattern is that we are challenging the president's authority, hoping to find a mistake and then making a lot of political hay about it," Rohrabacher said.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service noted in an analysis last February that President Reagan made the White House regulatory affairs office the central clearinghouse for substantive rulemaking, reviewing 2,000 to 3,000 proposed regulations per year. With Clinton's 1993 order, White House reviews of proposed regulations dropped to between 500 and 700 a year, the researchers said.


Bill Kovacs, vice president for regulatory affairs with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the White House's regulatory affairs office now has about 35 people to keep track of the 4,000 rules federal agencies issue every year.

"It's only reasonable that you have some way of monitoring what your agencies are doing," Kovacs said, adding that the White House needs to assert control over the process.
___ The House bill is HR 2829.

Philbo
Jul 4th, 2007, 03:24 PM
And he would do what with this scary power? :p

Fuck with Muslims, Fuck with Blacks, Fuck with Hispanics, Fuck with Hippies; that's already been done and can be done again :(

Its harder to do now :bounce:, depending on who the Black, Hispanic, Hippie, etc. is and what they stand for in relationship with the majority of the "enfranchised*** citizens" in this country.

Volcana despite any differences we've had in the past, I know you know as well as I, that there are hundreds of Americans more powerful than the President of the United States. ;)

To get it away from Bush because what I'm saying needs to be stated in a very theoretical manner...

...the people who attempt to control this country against the will of this country, I'm talking Hitler style, a dictatorship, no elections anymore...

...would not live, they'd be killed plain and simple. :armed:

Potential power is waaaay different than carrying out the takeover of the nation.

My best example is the one I used to use in college...

...abortion...

...the GOP can rally a vocal minority that will get them elected by hinting around getting rid of/limiting abortion. This only works because of the low percentage of Americans who participate in the political process.

The second they actually pass/try to enforce a fed law making abortion illegal in the USA all the apathetic chicks who don't participate in the system will suddenly find a reason to care and guess who will be out of office for easily the next 12+ years...

...anyone connected with actually making abortion illegal...

...the GOP knows that actually passing the law is political suicide; but talking about it wins them primary seats - it is "the game"...

...Dubya's fun and games only last as long as they don't have an intolerable effect on a certain enfranchised % of the American Public***.

There are enough enfranchised people on both sides of most of the REAL matters of political debate that Dubya's power will remain potential no matter what's on paper...

...once again, that said, the shit shouldn't be on paper in the first place.

I'm definitely not saying that your point isn't valid, we as citizens really need to focus much more uncovering all of Dubya's dirty tricks that are slowly coming to light.

I'm just saying that the mechanisms of correction are in place and are currently moving the Nation away from Dubya and back toward the center...shit pick a name connected to Bush, damn near everybody but Condi is currently under fire. :lol:

__________________
***this enfranchised % is the reason Charles Rangel is always talking about reinstating the draft, if these people's kids could be sent to Iraq...

...we wouldn't be in Iraq. ;)


Great post Kiwi...

Onto more important matters - did u enjoy the game over the weekend?? Reckon the aussies stand a chance in the World Cup??

*JR*
Jul 4th, 2007, 11:06 PM
And he would do what with this scary power? :p

Fuck with Muslims, Fuck with Blacks, Fuck with Hispanics, Fuck with Hippies; that's already been done and can be done again :(

I never realized that the West Coast Coalition gave a flying fuck about Hippies. :lol:

kiwifan
Jul 5th, 2007, 07:56 AM
Great post Kiwi...

Onto more important matters - did u enjoy the game over the weekend?? Reckon the aussies stand a chance in the World Cup??

:topic: Pat me on the back (my post) then kick me in the nuts (Aussies beat Kiwis) all in one post. :lol:

Hurts like watching Venus win and Serena lose on the same day. :tape:

The loss is good for the Kiwis, it will keep them focused on the ultimate prize. :shrug:

The win is good for the Aussies because it gives them hope they most definitely didn't have a week earlier. :(

Unfortunately its also good for those stupid Boks who beat the Aussies and might have incentive not to send a B-side to the rest of the Tri-Nations. :rolleyes:

I never realized that the West Coast Coalition gave a flying fuck about Hippies. :lol: actually we're the ones that let Dubya know that its still okay to fuck with Hippies. :devil: jk

http://th106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/RiverIsMyGoddess/icons/th_smiley_hippie1.jpg (http://photobucket.com/mediadetail/?media=http%3A%2F%2Fi106.photobucket.com%2Falbums% 2Fm252%2FRiverIsMyGoddess%2Ficons%2Fsmiley_hippie1 .jpg&searchTerm=smiley%20icons&pageOffset=11) "Flower Power, Baby" http://th106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/RiverIsMyGoddess/icons/th_smiley_hippie1.jpg (http://photobucket.com/mediadetail/?media=http%3A%2F%2Fi106.photobucket.com%2Falbums% 2Fm252%2FRiverIsMyGoddess%2Ficons%2Fsmiley_hippie1 .jpg&searchTerm=smiley%20icons&pageOffset=11)

drake3781
Jul 30th, 2007, 06:46 AM
Former US veep Mondale accuses Cheney of power grab

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/uscheneymondale;_ylt=AkoXWFOhXVcKHomY5OT.BIMDW7oF

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Vice President Dick Cheney has presided over an unprecedented power grab during his six years in the White House, former Vice President Walter Mondale wrote in a rare, scathing critique Sunday.

Mondale, the former number two to Democratic President Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s, in an opinion piece appearing Sunday in the Washington Post newspaper, fingered Cheney as the chief transgressor in a White House guilty of "great excess" and "exceeding its authority."

He wrote that since the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, "Cheney set out to create a largely independent power center in the office of the vice president."

"His was an unprecedented attempt not only to shape administration policy but, alarmingly, to limit the policy options sent to the president," he wrote, calling the George W. Bush administration "seriously off track" in the unprecedented amount of power it has ceded to Cheney.

"Through his vast government experience, through the friends he had been able to place in key positions and through his considerable political skills, he (Cheney) has been increasingly able to determine the answers to questions put to the president -- because he has been able to determine the questions," Mondale continued.

In particular, many of the policy positions Cheney has pushed through on handling terror suspects and the domestic use of intelligence "have proved offensive to the values of the constitution and have been embarrassingly overturned by the courts."

Mondale also slammed "Cheney's zealous embrace of secrecy" and his "near total aversion to the notion of accountability" to the public and Congress.

"I've never seen a former member of the House of Representatives demonstrate such contempt for Congress and contempt for the will of Congress," wrote Mondale in The Post.

"It's almost as if he denies the legitimacy of an equal branch of government," he added.