Of the Bill of Rights? [Archive] - Page 2 - Debate Policy

View Full Version : Of the Bill of Rights?

Pages : 1 [2]

J.T

09-18-2011, 05:43 PM

Stop with the tantrum, child. The subject is same-sex marriage, not polyamorous marriage. Why do you have to keep trying to change the subject, unless you have you intelligent argument?

ConHog

09-18-2011, 05:44 PM

Stop with the tantrum, child. The subject is same-sex marriage, not polyamorous marriage. Why do you have to keep trying to change the subject, unless you have you intelligent argument?

YOU brought up the four people one marriage thing, not me, I merely addressed it. Damn you're dumb.

J.T

09-18-2011, 05:47 PM

Why do you lie? You brought up polyamory (specifically, letting four people get married) in post 248.

LuvRPgrl

09-18-2011, 07:47 PM

So you're just a queer who just luvs to rp as a grl?

If you name yourself grl, people assume you're a female. That's your own fault.e

hahah, you sound a bit pissed. Kinda when a guy oogles a long haired beauty from behind and then it turns out she is a guy with long hair.

Just cuz Im more creative than you are able to figure out, luv,,,,,,,,,,,RP (republic of the philippines,,,,grl (girl)

its a handle I had originally when dating my filipino wife, but now I have so much saved background with it, to change it would be extremely difficult, but hey, just for you, maybe I should

LuvRPgrl

09-18-2011, 07:49 PM

Okay, so there is discrimination based on sex when filing a legal contract.

It only took you one post to refute your own bullshit this time.

2462

no there isnt. Marriage isnt a right.

LuvRPgrl

09-18-2011, 07:53 PM

The moment you has to jump from two people entering into a legal contract to polyamory, you revealed you have no intelligent argument to support your claim that sexual discrimination when deciding what two adults can enter into a legally recognized contract is somehow not discrimination.

You are dismissed.

So now the pupil can dismiss the teacher?

J.T

09-18-2011, 09:38 PM

no there isnt. Marriage isnt a right.

We have consistently denied [388 U.S. 1, 12] the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause. ...
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=316&invol=535#541) (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=125&invol=190) (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

So SCOTUS has already recognized marriage as a right of free persons and there's already precedent for discrimination based on sex in other areas. You have no argument.

ConHog

09-18-2011, 09:41 PM

no there isnt. Marriage isnt a right.

marriage is a right, a license from the state to call it marriage is not.

J.T

09-18-2011, 10:04 PM

marriage is a right, a license from the state to call it marriage is not.

The court already rejected all your arguments in Loving v. Virginia

Either the equal protection clause, if one couple can enter a legal contract called marriage, then any couple can. If you don't want to give two women a marriage license, you have to take everyone's away and refuse to give them to anyone anymore. You'd have to do it something like they did in Rome, as you've already voiced support for.

LuvRPgrl

09-18-2011, 10:11 PM

We have consistently denied [388 U.S. 1, 12] the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause. ...
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=316&invol=535#541) (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=125&invol=190) (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

So SCOTUS has already recognized marriage as a right of free persons and there's already precedent for discrimination based on sex in other areas. You have no argument.

so what. I disagree with them. They are wrong

LuvRPgrl

09-18-2011, 10:14 PM

The court already rejected all your arguments in Loving v. Virginia

Either the equal protection clause, if one couple can enter a legal contract called marriage, then any couple can. If you don't want to give two women a marriage license, you have to take everyone's away and refuse to give them to anyone anymore. You'd have to do it something like they did in Rome, as you've already voiced support for.

oh, ok, they also say abortion is a right also, does that make it moral or good for society? I know millions of people will disagree.

marriage isnt a right, its a privledge.

The court is simply wrong. An institution created by people cannot be a right, cuz many people lived when and where there is no such institution, and all rights are universal to all people

J.T

09-18-2011, 10:21 PM

The court is simply wrong. An institution created by people cannot be a right, cuz many people lived when and where there is no such institution, and all rights are universal to all people

So there's no right to a fair and speedy trial by a jury of one's peers, no right to bear arms, no right against cruel and unusual punishment...?

People lived before jury trials were ever conceived, before any weapons were made, and before any such concept as that embodied in the Eighth Amendment was ever dreamed up. Oh, and people existed before they created any religion for themselves, let alone any of the organized religious institutions we're familiar with today, so that means, according to your reasoning, there's no right to believe or practice one's religion.

LuvRPgrl

09-18-2011, 10:28 PM

So there's no right to a fair and speedy trial by a jury of one's peers, no right to bear arms, no right against cruel and unusual punishment...?

People lived before jury trials were ever conceived, before any weapons were made, and before any such concept as that embodied in the Eighth Amendment was ever dreamed up. Oh, and people existed before they created any religion for themselves, let alone any of the organized religious institutions we're familiar with today, so that means, according to your reasoning, there's no right to believe or practice one's religion.
as long as there has been at least 3 people, juries have existed. They didnt call them juries, but they were.
right to pick up a rock has existed since day one
people have always inflicted cruel and unusual punishment, and it has been a right since cain and able, remmeber them? Cain slayed able, wasnt that cruel and unusual, did not God punish cain for t

can you name me another right that involves people being single out by some actions they are doing, and A RIGHT that is between two people and only two people?:

ConHog

09-18-2011, 10:52 PM

as long as there has been at least 3 people, juries have existed. They didnt call them juries, but they were.
right to pick up a rock has existed since day one
people have always inflicted cruel and unusual punishment, and it has been a right since cain and able, remmeber them? Cain slayed able, wasnt that cruel and unusual, did not God punish cain for t

can you name me another right that involves people being single out by some actions they are doing, and A RIGHT that is between two people and only two people?:

Why are you arguing with that buffoon? He thinks the COTUS created rights rather than just assuring that the US government would never violate certain rights. I've seen the idiot post on other boards on this subject, he also believes that COTUS protects you're rights from being violated by anyone and everyone, not JUST the government.

J.T

09-19-2011, 02:00 AM

it has been a right since cain and able, remmeber them? Cain slayed able

So not from the beginning, but since Cain and Able? Adam and Eve didn't have this right? Then it's no right at all, since you claim that 'all rights are universal to all people'- ergo, if Adam and Eve did not possess this right, then it is no right.

can you name me... A RIGHT that is between two people and only two people?:
Are endorsing the legalization of polyamory? Also, are you saying there's no right to reproduce and no parental right to decide what care a child receives (eg: whether to subject their prenatal child to testing for Down's or decide whether their daughter is given Gardisil)?

Also, since toy claim these rights have always existed and been held by all persons at all times in all places... perhaps you can demonstrate the existence of these rights. How can they be detected or measured? What objective, scientific, repeatable method can be used to test for the existence of any given right?
He thinks the COTUS created rights
Blacks and women had no right to vote until these rights were demanded, fought fore, accepted/recognized, and enshrined in the Constitution. Rights are philosophical and legal constructs fathomed by human beings, put forth by human beings, and accepted or rejected by human beings. They are a legal fiction and a construct of moral philosophy. You cannnot prove that any 'rights' exist in nature or can be detected or measured as real things in the natural universe.

logroller

09-19-2011, 02:59 AM

marriage isnt a right, its a privledge.

Does that make people who've been married multiple times more privileged?:laugh:

Even if persons are married, it fails and they get a divorce, they aren't precluded from getting married again-- regardless of statutory condition (save not being currently married). There are no other privileged behaviors treated in this manner; so in practice, marriage appears to be more of a right than a privilege.

What's the main difference between heter and homo persons-- sex, right? But is sex a condition of marriage? Should government officials monitor consummation? Of course not, not that it hasn't been done. We do have an established rule for marriage based on morals, love, care sickness and health yada yada--I'm sure we'd have a healthier society if we validated one for marital competency; and organizations like churches can provide this, but that is not a legitimate role of government. If someone wants to get married in my church, I have a say in what constitutes marriage and that assertion is protected from government intrusion and those morals enjoy legal protection. In a court of law, however, such protections are not to be construed as an established rule-- that violates the 1st Amendment.

LuvRPgrl

09-19-2011, 11:02 AM

So not from the beginning, but since Cain and Able? Adam and Eve didn't have this right? Then it's no right at all, since you claim that 'all rights are universal to all people'- ergo, if Adam and Eve did not possess this right, then it is no right.

Are endorsing the legalization of polyamory? Also, are you saying there's no right to reproduce and no parental right to decide what care a child receives (eg: whether to subject their prenatal child to testing for Down's or decide whether their daughter is given Gardisil)?

Also, since toy claim these rights have always existed and been held by all persons at all times in all places... perhaps you can demonstrate the existence of these rights. How can they be detected or measured? What objective, scientific, repeatable method can be used to test for the existence of any given right?
Blacks and women had no right to vote until these rights were demanded, fought fore, accepted/recognized, and enshrined in the Constitution. Rights are philosophical and legal constructs fathomed by human beings, put forth by human beings, and accepted or rejected by human beings. They are a legal fiction and a construct of moral philosophy. You cannnot prove that any 'rights' exist in nature or can be detected or measured as real things in the natural universe.

You dont seem to be able to answer questions. Name me a right that is between two people, and only two people. Why should I be forced to pay for someone elses college education, when I cant afford to send myself, or my kids to college?

LuvRPgrl

09-19-2011, 11:06 AM

Does that make people who've been married multiple times more privileged?:laugh:

Even if persons are married, it fails and they get a divorce, they aren't precluded from getting married again-- regardless of statutory condition (save not being currently married). There are no other privileged behaviors treated in this manner; so in practice, marriage appears to be more of a right than a privilege.

What's the main difference between heter and homo persons-- sex, right? But is sex a condition of marriage? Should government officials monitor consummation? Of course not, not that it hasn't been done. We do have an established rule for marriage based on morals, love, care sickness and health yada yada--I'm sure we'd have a healthier society if we validated one for marital competency; and organizations like churches can provide this, but that is not a legitimate role of government. If someone wants to get married in my church, I have a say in what constitutes marriage and that assertion is protected from government intrusion and those morals enjoy legal protection. In a court of law, however, such protections are not to be construed as an established rule-- that violates the 1st Amendment.

why do homos want to get married?

J.T

09-19-2011, 11:49 AM

[desperate attempt to change the subject]
Why the flailing?

why do homos want to get married?
Why does anyone? Go find some married couples and ask why they got married.

logroller

09-19-2011, 12:09 PM

why do homos want to get married?

I don't know, don't rightly care-- it doesn't matter to me why another gets married. One need only justify it to their spouse last I checked.

I think the question we should be asking is why the state recognizes marriage?

ConHog

09-19-2011, 02:25 PM

I don't know, don't rightly care-- it doesn't matter to me why another gets married. One need only justify it to their spouse last I checked.

I think the question we should be asking is why the state recognizes marriage?

'
Exactly right. let CHURCHES recognizes marriages and let the government recognize contracts. The problem with that of course is that isn't good enough for SOME gays who won't be content unless EVERYONE is forced to recognize their "marriage" as equal to any other.

J.T

09-19-2011, 06:45 PM

'
Exactly right. let CHURCHES recognizes marriages and let the government recognize contracts. The problem with that of course is that isn't good enough for SOME gays who won't be content unless EVERYONE is forced to recognize their "marriage" as equal to any other.

So your entire problem is with equality before the law?

You don't want the state recognizes your marriage to KRB? Then get the state out of marriage entirely- of course, you'll take away everyone else's [legal] marriage in the process, so good luck ever getting any such thing passed.

If we'd done it like Pr-Christian Rome from in the first place, we wouldn't have these problems.

logroller

09-19-2011, 07:50 PM

So your entire problem is with equality before the law?

equality :laugh:. Traditional marriage was anything but.

Psychoblues

09-19-2011, 08:21 PM

The government absolutely has and takes the responsibility to tell us how to live.

Bullshit, dimples. Give just an iota of proof of that or are you simply bloviating once again?

Psychoblues

ConHog

09-20-2011, 12:04 AM

So your entire problem is with equality before the law?

You don't want the state recognizes your marriage to KRB? Then get the state out of marriage entirely- of course, you'll take away everyone else's [legal] marriage in the process, so good luck ever getting any such thing passed.

If we'd done it like Pr-Christian Rome from in the first place, we wouldn't have these problems.

Why are such a liar? You know damn well that personally I wouldn't care if 20 lesbians marched down to City Hall and got hitched in one big giant lesbian free for all. But the reality is that most people DO care about this issue in one way or the other, so the LOGICAL answer is to give each side part of what they want. Let the queers get married, but a church. no laws against it, but the government doesn't officially recognize the word marriage at all. Some on either side won't be happy, too bad it's called compromise. You should try it once in awhile.

logroller

09-20-2011, 12:25 AM

one big giant lesbian free for all.

At the courthouse you say...could you PM me a mapquest link?

J.T

09-20-2011, 12:33 AM

So fj is evading again and conhog wastes time to attack me before saying we should do what I've advocated for years.

:rolleyes:

logroller

09-20-2011, 12:57 AM

So fj is evading again and conhog wastes time to attack me before saying we should do what I've advocated for years.

:rolleyes:

You're such a loser-- neg rep me for posting to a fact. Traditional marriage was all about establishing ownership, ie patriarchal dominance. That is no longer an accepted premise to marriage, but that is the root of traditional puritanical models for marriage. Do a little research into something before you go casting about your boorish mantra. Are you even married? I doubt it. And your constant hate and insults makes me think you weren't raised in an intact loving home either. I am from a family of intact marriages as far back as family history allows, 5 generation in my tree. So don't think for a minute you know more about marriage than I do. Its hard work to married--something I think you have absolutely no clue as to what that entails. gays getting married, I could care less. You however, I'd recommend mental competency tests be done on whomever is dumb enough to marry you. Ignore ON!

J.T

09-20-2011, 01:01 AM

Traditional marriage was all about
It doesn't matter what you think traditional marriage was 'all about'. We're not discussing the history of the institution of marriage. We're discussing equality before the law today and the ability of two persons, regardless of sex, to enter into a legally binding union/contract.

Now, do you have anything other than trolling, lame personal attacks, and irrelevant distractions to contribute to the discussion?

darin

09-20-2011, 05:13 AM

While we want all members to feel free from constant or beyond the pale attacks, reporting every flame, fight, spat, or anything you don't LIKE just wastes our time. Lets report SERIOUS stuff, okay?

fj1200

09-20-2011, 07:39 AM

So fj is evading again...

I'm evading? I haven't posted in this thread for two months. You should really have your unhealthy obsessions looked into. I'm sure there is something free where you're getting your GED.

LuvRPgrl

09-20-2011, 12:21 PM

So fj is evading again and conhog wastes time to attack me before saying we should do what I've advocated for years.

:rolleyes:

Why should I have to pay for someone elses college educ when I cant pay for mine or my kids to get one?

I have a long list of others you avoided cuz you dont like them

LuvRPgrl

09-20-2011, 12:32 PM

Ignore ON!

Yea, until and if he starts answering questions without another question, I will put him on ignore also. He isnt even debating at all.
By responding to a question with a question he controls the direction of the discussion and avoids having to answer a question that he doesnt have an answer for.

I gave him many chances to change that, but now Im going to follow CH and ignore him. I suggest FJ do the same, and if CH goes back to having him on ignore, I dont know whom he will have to talk to, so, Im gonna ignore him, I hope everyone else does too, its the only way to control him at all

ConHog

09-20-2011, 05:38 PM

While we want all members to feel free from constant or beyond the pale attacks, reporting every flame, fight, spat, or anything you don't LIKE just wastes our time. Lets report SERIOUS stuff, okay?

I reported you for discussing moderator action on the open board. :laugh2:

ConHog

09-20-2011, 05:40 PM

Yea, until and if he starts answering questions without another question, I will put him on ignore also. He isnt even debating at all.
By responding to a question with a question he controls the direction of the discussion and avoids having to answer a question that he doesnt have an answer for.

I gave him many chances to change that, but now Im going to follow CH and ignore him. I suggest FJ do the same, and if CH goes back to having him on ignore, I dont know whom he will have to talk to, so, Im gonna ignore him, I hope everyone else does too, its the only way to control him at all

I don't have him on ignore, but I won't be responding to most of inane BS, BUT in his defense, he is just used to doing what nearly EVERYONE at the board we used to post at together does, he just hasn't figured out yet that this board is intellectually superior to that board and hence wants REAL discussion.

I doubt he'll ever get it, because he doesn't want to get it.

revelarts

10-07-2011, 12:32 PM

This Is kind of a Response to several threads that touch on rights,
A little background info on the original intent of the Constitution from the framers and critics at the time.
from the Federalist and Anti Federalist papers...

-----
FEDERALIST PAPER No. 84  
Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered From McLean's Edition, New York. Alexander Hamilton
{Hamilton arguing against the need for a bill of rights becuase the people retain all right}

....It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the PETITION OF RIGHT assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America.'' Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government....

But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights....
…
------------------
{a portion of the antifederalist rebutable}
AntiFederalist Paper No. 84
ON THE LACK OF A BILL OF RIGHTS
...We find they have, in the ninth section of the first article declared, that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless in cases of rebellion,-that no bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, shall be passed,-that no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, etc. If every thing which is not given is reserved, what propriety is there in these exceptions? Does this Constitution any where grant the power of suspending the habeas corpus, to make ex post facto laws, pass bills of attainder, or grant titles of nobility? It certainly does not in express terms. The only answer that can be given is, that these are implied in the general powers granted. With equal truth it may be said, that all the powers which the bills of rights guard against the abuse of, are contained or implied in the general ones granted by this Constitution….
BRUTUS
----------------------------------------------------

{Anti Federalist and Federalist on the LIKELIHOOD of the corruption of Congress.}

The Federalist Papers No. 57
Hamilton or Madison
...THE THIRD charge against the House of Representatives is, that it will be taken from that class of citizens which will have least sympathy with the mass of the people, and be most likely to aim at an ambitious sacrifice of the many to the aggrandizement of the few. Of all the objections which have been framed against the federal Constitution, this is perhaps the most extraordinary.
Whilst the objection itself is levelled against a pretended oligarchy, the principle of it strikes at the very root of republican government. The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust....
If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it. If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty. Such will be the relation between the House of Representatives and their constituents. Duty, gratitude, interest, ambition itself, are the chords by which they will be bound to fidelity and sympathy with the great mass of the people.
It is possible that these may all be insufficient to control the caprice and wickedness of man. But are they not all that government will admit, and that human prudence can devise? Are they not the genuine and the characteristic means by which republican government provides for the liberty and happiness of the people?….

-----------

AntiFederalist Paper No. 57
WILL THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BE GENUINELY REPRESENTATIVE
…it is said the members of congress must return home, and share in the burdens they may impose; and, therefore, private motives will induce them to make mild laws, to support liberty, and ease the burdens of the people, This brings us to a mere question of interest under this head. I think these observations will appear, on examination, altogether fallacious; because this individual interest, which may coincide with the rights and interests of the people, will be far more than balanced by opposite motives and opposite interests. If, on a fair calculation, a man will gain more by measures oppressive to others than he will lose by them, he is interested in their adoption. It is true, that those who govern generally, by increasing the public burdens, increase their own share of them; but by this increase they may, and often do, increase their salaries, fees, and emoluments, in a tenfold proportion, by increasing salaries, forming armies and navies, and by making offices. If it shall appear the members of congress will have these temptations before them, the argument is on my side. They will view the account, and be induced continually to make efforts advantageous to themselves and connections, and oppressive to others…
THE FEDERAL FARMER

revelarts

10-10-2011, 02:46 PM

TALKING ABOUT DRUGS A NEW CRIME?

...The House Judiciary Committee passed a bill yesterday that would make it a federal crime for U.S. residents to discuss or plan activities on foreign soil that, if carried out in the U.S., would violate the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) -- even if the planned activities are legal in the countries where they're carried out. H.R. 313, the "Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act of 2011," is sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), and allows prosecutors to bring conspiracy charges against anyone who discusses, plans or advises someone else to engage in any activity that violates the CSA, the massive federal law that prohibits drugs like marijuana and strictly regulates prescription medication.
"Under this bill, if a young couple plans a wedding in Amsterdam, and as part of the wedding, they plan to buy the bridal party some marijuana, they would be subject to prosecution," said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, which advocates for reforming the country's drug laws. "The strange thing is that the purchase of and smoking the marijuana while you're there wouldn't be illegal. But this law would make planning the wedding from the U.S. a federal crime."
The law could also potentially affect academics and medical professionals. For example, a U.S. doctor who works with overseas doctors or government officials on needle exchange programs could be subject to criminal prosecution. A U.S. resident who advises someone in another country on how to grow marijuana or how to run a medical marijuana dispensary would also be in violation of the new law, even if medical marijuana is legal in the country where the recipient of the advice resides. If interpreted broadly enough, a prosecutor could possibly even charge doctors, academics and policymakers from contributing their expertise to additional experiments like the drug decriminalization project Portugal (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080), which has successfully reduced drug crime, addiction and overdose deaths.
The Controlled Substances Act also regulates the distribution of prescription drugs, so something as simple as emailing a friend vacationing in Tijuana some suggestions on where to buy prescription medication over the counter could subject a U.S. resident to criminal prosecution. "It could even be something like advising them where to buy cold medicine overseas that they'd have to show I.D. to get here in the U.S.," Piper says....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/06/us-drug-policy-war-congress_n_998993.html?1318006907&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

God Help America

Kathianne

10-10-2011, 08:22 PM

Why the left is so off base in 'trusting government for rights.' While it's their job, unless forced to those limits, they will expand to usurpation:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1372187

Crime pays for police
By Larry Salzman / As you were saying... | Monday, October 10, 2011

Russell and Patricia Caswell are a hard-working couple who may soon have their American Dream taken from them by the unholy alliance of local and federal law enforcement officials seeking to cash in on the Caswell’s property.

The Caswells face this dilemma even though they have broken no law and have spent their entire professional career working to combat crime with the very police force that now seeks to take their property though civil forfeiture. What is happening to Russ and Pat, however, is by no means an isolated instance and local law enforcement’s end-run around state laws designed to end the abuse of civil forfeiture should give anyone who owns Massachusetts property pause.

The Caswells have owned and operated the Motel Caswell in Tewksbury for more than 30 years. They took it over from Russ’s father, who built it in the 1950s. The motel is mortgage-free and the Caswells expected it to provide for their retirement. And it is precisely because they don’t owe on the property that they now face the loss of their life’s work.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and Tewksbury Police Department plan to take the entire property — worth well over $1 million — because on some 30 dates since 1994 guests staying at the motel have been arrested for drug-related crimes. During that period, the Caswells have rented more than 125,000 rooms.

The government doesn’t claim that the Caswells are guilty of any crime. The government only says that federal civil forfeiture laws give them the power to take the property.

Civil forfeiture laws allow law enforcement agencies to take property when the government suspects it of being used in criminal activity, regardless of whether the owner is guilty or innocent.

Over the years drug and gang activity have become commonplace in Tewksbury, but — out of their own self-interest to run a crime-free establishment — the Caswells have worked hard to prevent it from bleeding onto their property. They report suspicious activities and crime to the police. They have installed security cameras, inspect the rooms and, upon request, make available to police the auto and identity records of guests.

Incredibly, until the government filed papers in federal court to seize the motel, no one from the police department ever suggested to the Caswells that they should do more than they have always done to prevent crime on their property.

But civil forfeiture laws treat property owners worse than criminals. Criminals must be proven guilty before their property is taken. Once the government targets a property for civil forfeiture, however, the property owner must prove his innocence. For the Caswells, that means squaring off against the U.S. attorney’s office in federal court to make the difficult if not impossible case that they did not know that guests brought drugs into their rented rooms.

Even more shocking, local police and the federal government have a direct financial stake in the forfeiture. Through so-called “equitable sharing,” Washington pays local police departments 80 percent of what they seize and keeps the rest...

ConHog

10-10-2011, 08:28 PM

So under this law it would be illegal to tell your friends that you're going to Amsterdam to get high?

Fucking ridiculous.

revelarts

10-12-2011, 02:55 PM

logroller

10-12-2011, 05:41 PM

revelarts

10-12-2011, 06:59 PM

In matters of national security, the executive branch has long-standing privacy privileges which date back to Pres. George Washington. Not to mention al zawa--caca (whatever is name is/was) was in Yemen-- if he were in the US I would have more concern over due-process; which I'm sure he wished to avoid any such process in the US because he was, in fact, a terrorist-- not merely alleged as such by the govt.

not privacy to create enemy of the state list to imprison and kill the people of the U.S. log. Sorry, NEVER.
Habeus is constitution, and right to trial -due process- is constitution, which predated GW's term. It also created the office of President which G.W held. And he and ever other Prez swore to defend IT.

A citizens local doesn't negate his/her rights as a U.S. citizen. Period.

LuvRPgrl

10-12-2011, 10:50 PM

Why the left is so off base in 'trusting government for rights.' While it's their job, unless forced to those limits, they will expand to usurpation:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1372187

this is beyond incredible, and is unconstitutionAL, but like I have been saaying for some time now, we arent under the COTUS anymore.

Instead of beefing up security, they would have been better off not helping the cops, and not reporting any crimes. And pele wonder about why people like timothy mcveigh, do what they do.

but hey, the DOJ and DEA have to fund "fast and furiouis

logroller

10-13-2011, 12:21 AM

not privacy to create enemy of the state list to imprison and kill the people of the U.S. log. Sorry, NEVER.
Habeus is constitution, and right to trial -due process- is constitution, which predated GW's term. It also created the office of President which G.W held. And he and ever other Prez swore to defend IT.

A citizens local doesn't negate his/her rights as a U.S. citizen. Period.

Privacy on methods of ascertaining who is an enemy of state--you bet they do. As for habeus corpus, if al zawacaca wanted to bring himself to face justice in the states, as a citizen of the US, he was certainly free to do so-- and govt would be compelled to honor all constitutional rights; as were the Yemenese free to deliver him to the US -- neither did so, why not? perhaps, neither honors our system of justice-- because he was an enemy of the state that enjoyed an immunity from prosecution from a known enemy state--so we dispensed justice in a form they find more compelling.

This does, however, bring about a series of questions. Do Const. protections only extend to US territory? US citizens? Isn't the bill of rights meant for ALL people, not just citizens; a persuasive argument-- but lacks teeth outside US jurisdiction; certainly in known enemy states like Yemen.

If I'm abroad and commit a crime against another US citizen in say, Saudi Arabia--- am I tried according to US law, or local law? What if I was preventing my wife from leaving, which according to local law, may be perfectly acceptable and a defacto imprisonment was considered to be no crime at all. Is the US obligated to intervene and bring me to justice? If I refused, prosthelytzing the US to be the great satan and vowing to destroy them at all costs with agreement from local government, can I reasonably expect to be afforded US protections while also enjoying the protection of local laws (which are in clear violation of US law)? I don't think you can enjoy protections from two separate frameworks of law, where one violates the other-- Or else, am I free to go abroad and do whatever I want, attack fellow countrymen abroad; and so long as i never go back to US soil, never be held accountable? Pretty big loophole rev. Sometimes justice need be served with a heavy helping of executive discretion.

jimnyc

10-13-2011, 07:42 AM

fj1200

10-13-2011, 07:52 AM

What if it's a serial killer or cannibal on the loose in the US. He is listed as "armed and dangerous". Should law enforcement immediately plan on being nice and capturing him with the first and foremost on mind to bring him to courts - or do they plan on stopping the crime spee and taking him out? The should take all necessary actions to just kill th serial killer and remove the danger from the streets. But yet somehow you think we should extend further right to a terrorist in another country. Unbelievable. He should be treated as a terrorist, as armed and dangerous, and to just remove the fucking danger from the streets - hopefully with a 2000lb bunker buster.

YES. That's a false analogy to Al Waliki. The issue is that he's an American citizen; there's no easy answer to this.

jimnyc

10-13-2011, 08:58 AM

YES. That's a false analogy to Al Waliki. The issue is that he's an American citizen; there's no easy answer to this.

Nope, that's EXACTLY my point. Even an American citizen, on American soil - if he's a serial killer, the police are breaching wherever he is at and shooting first and asking questions later - and 99% of the nation would applaud the death of a serial killer. Now we're supposed to be angry about a terrorist, American, on foreign soil who has been killed? Fuck that, he gets the same treatment on foreign soil that a lunatic would get here on our soil.

fj1200

10-13-2011, 09:17 AM

Nope, that's EXACTLY my point. Even an American citizen, on American soil - if he's a serial killer, the police are breaching wherever he is at and shooting first and asking questions later - and 99% of the nation would applaud the death of a serial killer. Now we're supposed to be angry about a terrorist, American, on foreign soil who has been killed? Fuck that, he gets the same treatment on foreign soil that a lunatic would get here on our soil.

Then you just agreed that Al Waliki is entitled to constitutional protections because no one would argue that an ACCUSED serial killer doesn't deserve the protections of the constititution, "innocent until guilty," and the right not to be just hunted down and killed.

And I call BS to the police "shooting first" because of all the serial killers that have been gunned down while not engaging in an armed confrontation.

logroller

10-13-2011, 11:07 AM

Then you just agreed that Al Waliki is entitled to constitutional protections because no one would argue that an ACCUSED serial killer doesn't deserve the protections of the constititution, "innocent until guilty," and the right not to be just hunted down and killed.

And I call BS to the police "shooting first" because of all the serial killers that have been gunned down while not engaging in an armed confrontation.

We allow for discretion in such matters, don't we? Say, if the police said, "Come out with your hands up." to which the person replied, "you'll never take me alive coppers" -- Hasn't the person relinquished their right to a court trial? Its kind of like the rules of engagement, where if there is a reasonable belief they will commit a violent crime, you can shoot somebody in the back to prevent it. I mean, do you believe that, if we'd of sent a special ops team into where he was, he would of surrendered and been brought to justice? I don't think so, I'm 99.999% sure he would have fought to the death and attempting to capture him would have placed a far greater number of people at risk of losing their right...to life. So the question is--What is a reasonable attempt to bring someone to justice in a court of law? Is issuing an arrest warrant for a known terrorist a reasonable attempt?

maybe we need a new set of foreign miranda rights, we'll call them Al Waliki rights-- "You are wanted by the US Government. You have rights. If you choose to accept them, please notify us, in person, at the nearest American Consulate. Failure to do so will result in their forfeiture. This is your final notice."

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/images/sized/stuff/uploads/general/Kabul_bombing-260x190.png

"This is John, I'm at the embassy in Kabul-- I think he waived his right to a trial."

ConHog

10-13-2011, 11:19 AM

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Taken literally this amendment clearly has exceptions. One of those exceptions is a TERRORIST. The Amendment itself allows for them to be treated differently than a common criminal.

fj1200

10-13-2011, 11:21 AM

We allow for discretion in such matters, don't we? Say, if the police said, "Come out with your hands up." to which the person replied, "you'll never take me alive coppers" -- Hasn't the person relinquished their right to a court trial? Its kind of like the rules of engagement, where if there is a reasonable belief they will commit a violent crime, you can shoot somebody in the back to prevent it. I mean, do you believe that, if we'd of sent a special ops team into where he was, he would of surrendered and been brought to justice? I don't think so, I'm 99.999% sure he would have fought to the death and attempting to capture him would have placed a far greater number of people at risk of losing their right...to life. So the question is--What is a reasonable attempt to bring someone to justice in a court of law? Is issuing an arrest warrant for a known terrorist a reasonable attempt?

That's not even close to the situation presented, re-read Jim's posts. If someone won't be "taken alive" or is resisting and shooting back... I don't expect them to make it to trial. If OBL was deserving of attempted capture in less than hospitable Pakistan then why isn't Awlaki as a US citizen?

fj1200

10-13-2011, 11:33 AM

... except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; ...

Taken literally this amendment clearly has exceptions. One of those exceptions is a TERRORIST. The Amendment itself allows for them to be treated differently than a common criminal.

Exceptions for those in the US military or taken up against the US? You might be able to read that either way but I recall someone mentioning a case re: US citizen saboteurs (for Germany) during WWII that allowed deadly action.

revelarts

10-13-2011, 11:42 AM

ConHog

10-13-2011, 01:12 PM

jimnyc

10-13-2011, 01:13 PM

logroller

10-13-2011, 03:11 PM

the Christmas day under paints bomber wasn't on U.S Soil and is NOT a U.S. citizen, he was in the act of terrorism against americans yet he gets a captured and put on a plane to the U.S. for a trail.
Not GUNNED DOWN in Said Foreign country. And the world is safe enough and justice is being done.
the fort hood Shooter, a U.S. citizen a terrorist, caught in the act of terrorism on a Military base, is some how captured and is now awaiting a trial in U.S. courts on U.S. soil.
NOT SHOT OR HUNG ON SIGHT. And the world is safe enough. And the world is safe enough and justice is being done.
The man who the gov't SAYS inspired them both, a U.S. citizen living in Yemen, is riding quietly down the street in car and is blown up by the CIA. Because he's on a secret hit list.
We don't see a problem with this? From what we've been told it seems he could have been captured.
Log, do you honestly think George Washington would approve of this? Would Adams or Monroe.

And where were all these terrorists arrested...on US soil. I believe the enforcement of our laws are bounded by our territory; their impact, and therefore our interests, are not so limited. Congress makes laws which carry their weight wholly in the domestic setting. In response to focusing events, like 9/11, the shoe and underwear bomber, we implement rules regs laws etc which have a great impact on our domestic activities--and yet these heinous actions continue to evolve around our laws-- predominantly borne in foreign locales, not within reach of either our judicial or congressional authority. So I ask you, would you rather have terrorists attacking us domestically, so we can bring them to justice--or-- attack them abroad, before they do so?

I'm sure you can agree that the domestic terror prevention policies have done little to abate such attacks-- threats still remain. The judicial role is to ensure those laws, when broken, are subject to validation by an independent body-- but this requires a law to be broken-- it is in no way preventative. The President has a unique constitutional role in our government, specifically with regards to foreign relations. George Washington sought privilege for exactly this kind of action regarding the communications of high-level executive government; specifically diplomatic relations and the avoidance of foreign wars-- (see, Jay's Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Treaty).)

AS far as your what if's concerning Citizens on foreign soil, the Yemanese gov't is working with the U.S. and if certain portions aren't well Obviously we knew where he came from on that road and probably knew where he was going. We've rendered plenty of people from full on hostile countries. That's not Kosher but rendering for a trial makes some sense though legally that's a bit suspect as well.
But IF your a U.S. citizen drug dealer in Venezuela, the DEA could pick you up and surreptitiously transport you to the U.S. for drug smuggling. Without an extradition treaty, for a fair trail. Sure the DEA could Just Shoot you dead in the street coffee shop in the morning but that would be against Venezuela's laws and the DEA would agents would be put on trail for murder.

now there's a thought
except the Venezualan govt and drug cartels don't bother with such niceties-- that's kinda the point. Fight fire with fire. Or maybe we place them under arrest like we did Escobar-- that was effective.:rolleyes:

So you consider venezuala and yemen, even Pakistan, to be sympathetic to our plight on global terrorism, that diplomacy will win over the entrenched hatred of freedom bounded by law and order??? How exactly, does a justice system, which requires one to be brought before a court, seek to dispense justice to those who willfully promote, conspire and engage in suicidal acts? New threats demand new tactics.

revelarts

10-13-2011, 03:57 PM

And where were all these terrorists arrested...on US soil. I believe the enforcement of our laws are bounded by our territory; their impact, and therefore our interests, are not so limited. Congress makes laws which carry their weight wholly in the domestic setting. In response to focusing events, like 9/11, the shoe and underwear bomber, we implement rules regs laws etc which have a great impact on our domestic activities--and yet these heinous actions continue to evolve around our laws-- predominantly borne in foreign locales, not within reach of either our judicial or congressional authority. So I ask you, would you rather have terrorists attacking us domestically, so we can bring them to justice--or-- attack them abroad, before they do so?
KSM was "arrested" in Pakistan. the U.S. citizen that was killed was no more dangerous than him. No need for extraordinary unconstitutional measures. There's nothing evolving but the same old desperate weak mans thuggery tactics that others countries have been dealing with for the past 40 yrs. No need to elevate the crimes to super villian status IMO at all. the ACTIVE enemy is small and weak. So far the best weapon against terrorist has been an alert public. not any of the extra constitutional activity.

...The President has a unique constitutional role in our government, specifically with regards to foreign relations. George Washington sought privilege for exactly this kind of action regarding the communications of high-level executive government; specifically diplomatic relations and the avoidance of foreign wars-- (see, Jay's Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Treaty).)

except the Venezualan govt and drug cartels don't bother with such niceties-- that's kinda the point. Fight fire with fire. Or maybe we place them under arrest like we did Escobar-- that was effective.:rolleyes:

Firefighters fight fire with water and other chemicals, it's typically more effective.

So you consider venezuala and yemen, even Pakistan, to be sympathetic to our plight on global terrorism, that diplomacy will win over the entrenched hatred of freedom bounded by law and order??? How exactly, does a justice system, which requires one to be brought before a court, seek to dispense justice to those who willfully promote, conspire and engage in suicidal acts? New threats demand new tactics.
I never said they were sympathetic, Obama and Bush have said that Pakistan and Yeman are or "partners" and "friends" my point is even if they aren't completely on our team we don't have to loose our standards, our constitutional rights to remain "safe". and Again it's the same old threats we've known about 70 yrs., random bombing by a desperate enemy trying to shock a people off it's game. don't let them get to you.
spy, arrest, trials and throw the bums in jail.

Gunny

10-13-2011, 04:11 PM

The only particular issue I have with his opinion is his insistence on putting homosexuality up with pedophilia and incest. They are not nearly the same thing, where in pedophilia, obviously one of the participants is not old to have informed consent and in incest where it is actually bad in a provable sense (creates mutations in the genetic code, that sort of thing).

Homosexuality most often is between two consenting adults, in which it falls under life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is allowed by the ideals we stand by, that the government has no right to tell you how to live your life, or with whom. It is not the same as allowing sexual predators to do whatever they want, and it never will be.

I agree AND disagree. A male pedophile that preys on males is a homosexual also. I don't go in for that if you're one you can't be the other.

At the same time, I also do not agree that homosexuality necessarily leads to pedophilia and/or incest.

The "slippery slope" argument however IS a valid one. Our morals as a society have gone to shit as the left has pushed further and further left with all their blather and no one standing up to them without getting horsewhipped by the media.

ConHog

10-13-2011, 06:31 PM

I agree AND disagree. A male pedophile that preys on males is a homosexual also. I don't go in for that if you're one you can't be the other.

At the same time, I also do not agree that homosexuality necessarily leads to pedophilia and/or incest.

The "slippery slope" argument however IS a valid one. Our morals as a society have gone to shit as the left has pushed further and further left with all their blather and no one standing up to them without getting horsewhipped by the media.

100% correct. Every time you give a group an inch, some of them take a mile. There comes a point where you have to say "NO" doesn't there? I say the same thing about drugs. Fundamentally, I have no problem legalizing pot. It's a plant and MOST pot smokers are in fact not a danger to anyone due to pot. However, we all know that the minute we legalize pot, there will be very vocal group demanding that we also legalize meth. And that is another kettle of fish entirely .

Gunny

10-13-2011, 06:46 PM

100% correct. Every time you give a group an inch, some of them take a mile. There comes a point where you have to say "NO" doesn't there? I say the same thing about drugs. Fundamentally, I have no problem legalizing pot. It's a plant and MOST pot smokers are in fact not a danger to anyone due to pot. However, we all know that the minute we legalize pot, there will be very vocal group demanding that we also legalize meth. And that is another kettle of fish entirely .

Agreed.

Then there is the issue of the "right" to marriage. WHO has this right? I must have missed it in the US Constitution. Oh, it's in the 10th Amendment, correct? Those powers not expressly given to the Fed in the Bill of Rights go to the states?

Are not states voting/legislating whatever they want to on the matter? Oh yeah, they are. Some states have forced it down the throats of their citizens. Other states like Texas, had a referendum vote and marriage is between a man and woman was 80% approved. 80% of Texans are NOT GOP. It's up to the states and Federal courts making douchewad rulings are overstepping their Constitutional powers.

ConHog

10-13-2011, 06:57 PM

Agreed.

Then there is the issue of the "right" to marriage. WHO has this right? I must have missed it in the US Constitution. Oh, it's in the 10th Amendment, correct? Those powers not expressly given to the Fed in the Bill of Rights go to the states?

Are not states voting/legislating whatever they want to on the matter? Oh yeah, they are. Some states have forced it down the throats of their citizens. Other states like Texas, had a referendum vote and marriage is between a man and woman was 80% approved. 80% of Texans are NOT GOP. It's up to the states and Federal courts making douchewad rulings are overstepping their Constitutional powers.

It always cracks me up when people scream that they have a right to be married by the state. Umm no, you don't actually. The state of Arkansas could just up and decide they weren't going to issue marriage licenses anymore and guess what? There wouldn't be damn thing you could do about it. And you know why? Because NO ONE is going to be arrested from saying they are married to someone else if they don't have that little piece of paper. Ever notice that when you file your taxes for married filing jointly the IRS doesn't even bother to verify that you are in fact married? They just assume you're telling the truth (although one would assume in the case that you got audited they'd fuck you over for lying.) Why? Because ultimately the whole state sanctioned marriage thing is nothing but a money scam and the government knows it.

I could NOT care less if Uncle Sam recognizes my marriage, as long as they recognize the legal contracts I have with my wife if and when the need arises.

Gunny

10-13-2011, 07:13 PM

It always cracks me up when people scream that they have a right to be married by the state. Umm no, you don't actually. The state of Arkansas could just up and decide they weren't going to issue marriage licenses anymore and guess what? There wouldn't be damn thing you could do about it. And you know why? Because NO ONE is going to be arrested from saying they are married to someone else if they don't have that little piece of paper. Ever notice that when you file your taxes for married filing jointly the IRS doesn't even bother to verify that you are in fact married? They just assume you're telling the truth (although one would assume in the case that you got audited they'd fuck you over for lying.) Why? Because ultimately the whole state sanctioned marriage thing is nothing but a money scam and the government knows it.

I could NOT care less if Uncle Sam recognizes my marriage, as long as they recognize the legal contracts I have with my wife if and when the need arises.

Not sure how it works in different states. In Texas, if you live together for 2 years, you are common law married. According to the state. If that is based on a "Right", I don't know.

I completely agree the state sanctioning marriage is money scam. Been saying it for years.

Odd isn't it that the state can intercede in the church when it wants but you can't say a prayer in f-ing school because that's the church interceding in the state?

ConHog

10-13-2011, 07:14 PM

Not sure how it works in different states. In Texas, if you live together for 2 years, you are common law married. According to the state. If that is based on a "Right", I don't know.

I completely agree the state sanctioning marriage is money scam. Been saying it for years.

Odd isn't it that the state can intercede in the church when it wants but you can't say a prayer in f-ing school because that's the church interceding in the state?

It is odd. Arkansas doesn't have common law marriage anymore. Used to be 7 years and you were considered married for all state purposes. Now they don't care if you live in sin.

Gunny

10-13-2011, 07:26 PM

It is odd. Arkansas doesn't have common law marriage anymore. Used to be 7 years and you were considered married for all state purposes. Now they don't care if you live in sin.

If marriage actually belongs to the religion, how does the state sanctioning and/or not sanctioning it have anything to do with "living in sin"?

I live according to MY religious beliefs. Not the beliefs of some brand of Christianity. I AM a Christian according to the Word. Not according to the doctrine of some flavor of church. Just asking.

ConHog

10-13-2011, 07:30 PM

If marriage actually belongs to the religion, how does the state sanctioning and/or not sanctioning it have anything to do with "living in sin"?

I live according to MY religious beliefs. Not the beliefs of some brand of Christianity. I AM a Christian according to the Word. Not according to the doctrine of some flavor of church. Just asking.

Oh, I was just putting it in my words Gunny. As far as the state is concerned it's not a sin of course.

And in actuality, I don't think of it that way either. My brother just married a woman he's been living with for 10 years. I guess he figured he may as well marry her since they bought a house and 2 new cars together.

LuvRPgrl

10-15-2011, 11:08 AM

All terrorists need to die, and deserve to die, no matter where they live. All terrorists deserve no rights, none whatsoever. Whether in USA, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan... they are on the "battlefield" in the war on terror/terrorists, and get treated as the enemy. You give up your "constitutional rights" the minute you become a traitor and terrorist against the USA and her citizens. Arguing for the protection of a terrorist is completely asinine. With that "logic", an American citizen can go on a killing spree, kill thousands of innocent citizens in a terror attack, move out ofA the country and have the knowledge that the people hunting you down will be gentle and only trying to capture you and honor your "rights".

Problem with most of the 'LAW AND ORDER" SUPPORT on this, is you are assuming guilty until proven innocent.

It certainly give the govt alot of power to be able to kill someone just because "THEY DEEM HIM A TERRORIST". I mean, they can go and assisnate pretty much whomever they want and just declare them a terrorist or enemy of the state. The way our country is going, the "enemies of the state" will soon be the only true patriots we will have anymore.

LuvRPgrl

10-15-2011, 11:15 AM

I agree AND disagree. A male pedophile that preys on males is a homosexual also. I don't go in for that if you're one you can't be the other.

At the same time, I also do not agree that homosexuality necessarily leads to pedophilia and/or incest.

The "slippery slope" argument however IS a valid one. Our morals as a society have gone to shit as the left has pushed further and further left with all their blather and no one standing up to them without getting horsewhipped by the media.

Not to mention that Tammy Bruce, former LA president of NOW, and a lesbian, says that most homos have their first sexual encounter as under age teens.
So that means that many homos are preying on young teens and converting them, and I know this for a fact because someone tried it on me, TRIED, but many guys that are my age at that timew, are very suseptable

jimnyc

10-15-2011, 11:19 AM

Problem with most of the 'LAW AND ORDER" SUPPORT on this, is you are assuming guilty until proven innocent.

It certainly give the govt alot of power to be able to kill someone just because "THEY DEEM HIM A TERRORIST". I mean, they can go and assisnate pretty much whomever they want and just declare them a terrorist or enemy of the state. The way our country is going, the "enemies of the state" will soon be the only true patriots we will have anymore.

I understand that the judicial system works differently, but his own videotapes takes away ANY chance of his innocence, IMO. These terrorists like to makes these videos and brag to the world about prior acts and about how they would like to kill "infidels" going forward. While most would say this is good evidence to be used in a trial - I think it's good enough evidence to send a drone above his convoy and blow him into a few thousand pieces.

Gunny

10-15-2011, 08:16 PM

Jess

10-15-2011, 08:35 PM

Not to mention that Tammy Bruce, former LA president of NOW, and a lesbian, says that most homos have their first sexual encounter as under age teens.
So that means that many homos are preying on young teens and converting them, and I know this for a fact because someone tried it on me, TRIED, but many guys that are my age at that timew, are very suseptable

Whether or not a person is gay or straight aside, don't most people (especially in today's society) have their first sexual encounter when they are underage?

Gay people are generally just that - gay. Homosexuals. Whatever. Gay men don't want little boys, they want hot men. Heck, the straight men I know are much more likely to have sex with an underage girl than the gay men I know are likely to go after underage boys.

Gunny

10-15-2011, 08:39 PM

Whether or not a person is gay or straight aside, don't most people (especially in today's society) have their first sexual encounter when they are underage?

Gay people are generally just that - gay. Homosexuals. Whatever. Gay men don't want little boys, they want hot men. Heck, the straight men I know are much more likely to have sex with an underage girl than the gay men I know are likely to go after underage boys.

You're wrong and I am NOT sleeping on the couch.

Jess

10-15-2011, 08:42 PM

You're wrong and I am NOT sleeping on the couch.

Am not.

And I'll sleep on the couch - that tv has cable. :D

LuvRPgrl

10-16-2011, 03:52 PM

revelarts

10-17-2011, 11:48 AM

We fabricated drug charges against innocent people to meet arrest quotas, former detective testifies

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2011/10/13/2011-10-13_excop_we_fabricated_drug_raps_for_quotas.html#i xzz1b3dDPESG

A former NYPD (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/New+York+City+Police+Department) narcotics detective snared in a corruption scandal testified it was common practice to fabricate drug charges against innocent people to meet arrest quotas.
The bombshell testimony from Stephen Anderson (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Stephen+Anderson) is the first public account of the twisted culture behind the false arrests in the Brooklyn (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Brooklyn+(New+York+City)) South and Queens narc squads, which led to the arrests of eight cops and a massive shakeup.
Anderson, testifying under a cooperation agreement with prosecutors, was busted for planting cocaine, a practice known as "flaking," on four men in a Queens bar in 2008 to help out fellow cop Henry Tavarez (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Henry+Tavarez), whose buy-and-bust activity had been low.
"Tavarez was ... was worried about getting sent back [to patrol] and, you know, the supervisors getting on his case," he recounted at the corruption trial of Brooklyn South narcotics Detective Jason Arbeeny (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Jason+Arbeeny).
"I had decided to give him [Tavarez] the drugs to help him out so that he could say he had a buy," Anderson testified last week in Brooklyn Supreme Court (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Brooklyn+Supreme+Court).
He made clear he wasn't about to pass off the two legit arrests he had made in the bar to Tavarez.
"As a detective, you still have a number to reach while you are in the narcotics division," he said.
NYPD officials did not respond to a request for comment.
Anderson worked in the Queens and Brooklyn South narcotics squads and was called to the stand at Arbeeny's bench trial to show the illegal conduct wasn't limited to a single squad.
"Did you observe with some frequency this ... practice which is taking someone who was seemingly not guilty of a crime and laying the drugs on them?" Justice Gustin Reichbach (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Gustin+Reichbach) asked Anderson.
"Yes, multiple times," he replied.
The judge pressed Anderson on whether he ever gave a thought to the damage he was inflicting on the innocent.
"It was something I was seeing a lot of, whether it was from supervisors or undercovers and even investigators," he said.
"It's almost like you have no emotion with it, that they attach the bodies to it, they're going to be out of jail tomorrow anyway; nothing is going to happen to them anyway."
The city paid $300,000 to settle a false arrest suit by Jose Colon (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Jose+Colon) and his brother Maximo, who were falsely arrested by Anderson and Tavarez. A surveillance tape inside the bar showed they had been framed.
A federal judge presiding over the suit said the NYPD's plagued by "widespread falsification" by arresting officers.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2011/10/13/2011-10-13_excop_we_fabricated_drug_raps_for_quotas.html#i xzz1b3gHWdIb

------------------------------------
Across the board this is just bad news but it just insult to injury when you speculate on the the probably predominate ages, income level and races of the people falsely accused

revelarts

10-17-2011, 12:13 PM

...A corrupt ex-undercover cop says NYPD (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/New+York+City+Police+Department) supervisors paid detectives extra overtime for hard-drug busts, creating a covert reward system for cocaine and heroin arrests.

Undercovers taking down smack or crack suspects routinely got two or three hours of overtime as payback, ex-cop Stephen Anderson (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Stephen+Anderson) testified in a Brooklyn (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Brooklyn+%28New+York+City%29) courtroom.
"So giving you overtime for a crack cocaine arrest is a reward for the nature of the crime ... would that be a fair statement?" asked Justice Gustin Reichbach (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Gustin+Reichbach).

"Yes, that's fair to say," Anderson testified last week at the corruption trial of Brooklyn South narcotics Detective Jason Arbeeny (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Jason+Arbeeny).
The defendant is accused of conspiring with others in "flaking" suspects - cop talk for planting cocaine on innocent victims.
Although Anderson didn't say so directly, the system provided rogue cops with a financial incentive to fabricate cocaine and heroin busts....

The OT had nothing to do with the amount of casework, he said.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2011/10/14/2011-10-14_excop_ot_rewarded_in_drug_raps_added_incentive_ to_fabricate_charges.html#ixzz1b3mSTLLO

Police work and a capitalistic reward system shouldn't really mix much.

revelarts

10-17-2011, 01:24 PM

revelarts

11-17-2011, 08:31 PM

While the President can Kill Americans as long as it's recommended by a secret panel, and can sell guns to drug cartels the DOJ wants to jail or fine people for Uploading Youtube videos.

...The erosion of our freedoms continues as the Department of Justice is criminalizing (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/9805-doj-says-lying-on-the-internet-is-a-federal-crime)activities that it deems may be detrimental to public security. Among those activities are “lying on the Internet” and “uploading videos (http://www.infowars.com/DOJ-wants-to-criminalize-uploading-you-tube-videos/) that break YouTube’s terms of service,” as well as any other action determined to “contravene a website’s usage policy.” “In a statement obtained by CNET that’s scheduled to be delivered tomorrow, the Justice Department argues that it must be able to prosecute violations of Web sites’ often-ignored, always-unintelligible “terms of service” policies,” writes Declan McCullagh (http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57324779-281/doj-lying-on-match.com-needs-to-be-a-crime/).
The DOJ has expanded its Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) to indicate that an agreement with a website’s terms of service would be identical to signing a contract with an employer, and as such, any such violation should provoke the same sort of punishment.
Passed by Congress in 1986, CFAA was originally intended to stop hackers from breaking into computer systems and to address all federal computer-related offenses. The Department of Justice now seeks to greatly expand the use of CFAA to target a number of different “violations.”...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/9817-doj-wants-to-criminalize-uploading-of-youtube-videos
Im sure the secret panel thinks that's Ok, so It's OK, as long as they get those law breaking terms of service breakers, the gov't knows how to keep us safe.

fj1200

11-18-2011, 08:53 AM

Passed by Congress in 1986, CFAA was originally intended to stop hackers from breaking into computer systems and to address all federal computer-related offenses. The Department of Justice now seeks to greatly expand the use of CFAA to target a number of different “violations.”...

Well that's pretty sweet! If original intent can't be trusted since 1986, 1789 has no chance.

Gunny

11-18-2011, 09:29 AM

Actually, marriage was considered an inherent right as of the Constitution. And by what you're saying, we might as well throw regular old marriage out the window, cause that ends badly 2/3 of the time these days. You really want to go there, we can go there, but there won't be anything left to do with your life by the time we're. I can easily use your logic there as a means to illegalize drinking, smoking, guns, marriage, sex, driving, flying, the list goes on and on.

the government has NO right to tell us how to live our lives. None at all, unless you can show it to me in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.

Yes, the bible does mention incest back in Genesis, and if we want really want to go down that road, I can oblige again. Everyone on this forum would be "put to death" before we hit the end (if you've ever eaten meat on a Friday or cursed at your parents, prepare to die). Actually, if you want to go biblical, you have no right judge, or make a call on what God would think or say on the matter, both of those were denied directly Jesus.

Now, as to a point, you are telling me that to consenting women having sex with each other is exactly the same as raping a child? Those are one and the same? This seems to be your claim.

The attempts to put homosexuality up there with bestiality, incest, and pedophilia is the most debase sort of argument, one used to paint them as vile creatures as opposed to human beings.

I was thinking the same thing with the exception that I disagree with your assumption that marriage is an inherent Right of the Constitution.

revelarts

12-03-2011, 02:43 PM

FYI
Obama riding Bush train to removing all civil liberties ...for your safety

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/20-examples-of-obama-administration.html

20 Examples of the Obama Administration Assault on Domestic Civil Liberties December 2, 2011

By Bill Quigley - Activist Post (http://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/20-examples-of-obama-administration.html)
..Here are twenty examples of serious assaults on the domestic rights to
freedom of speech,
freedom of assembly,
freedom of association,
the right to privacy,
the right to a fair trial,
freedom of religion,
and freedom of conscience
that have occurred since the Obama administration has assumed power. Consider these and then decide if there is any fundamental difference between the Bush presidency and the Obama presidency in the area of domestic civil liberties....

Patriot Act

On May 27, 2011, President Obama, over widespread bipartisan objections, approved a Congressional four year extension of controversial parts of the Patriot Act that were set to expire. In March of 2010, Obama signed a similar extension of the Patriot Act for one year. These provisions allow the government, with permission from a special secret court, to seize records without the owner’s knowledge, conduct secret surveillance of suspicious people who have no known ties to terrorist groups and to obtain secret roving wiretaps on people.

Criminalization of Dissent and Militarization of the Police
...Protest police sport ninja turtle-like outfits and are accompanied by helicopters, special tanks, and even sound blasting vehicles first used in Iraq. Wireless fingerprint scanners first used by troops in Iraq are now being utilized by local police departments to check motorists. Facial recognition software introduced in war zones is now being used in Arizona and other jurisdictions. Drones just like the ones used in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan are being used along the Mexican and Canadian borders. These activities continue to expand under the Obama administration.

Wiretaps
Wiretaps for oral, electronic or wire communications, approved by federal and state courts, are at an all-time high. Wiretaps in year 2010 were up 34% from 2009, according to the Administrative Office of the US Courts.

Criminalization of Speech
Muslims in the US have been targeted by the Obama Department of Justice for inflammatory things they said or published on the internet. First Amendment protection of freedom of speech, most recently stated in a 1969 Supreme Court decision, Brandenberg v Ohio, says the government cannot punish inflammatory speech, even if it advocates violence unless it is likely to incite or produce such action. A Pakistani resident legally living in the US was indicted by the DOJ in September 2011 for uploading a video on YouTube. The DOJ said the video was supportive of terrorists even though nothing on the video called for violence. ...

Domestic Government Spying on Muslim Communities
In activities that offend freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and several other laws, the NYPD and the CIA have partnered to conduct intelligence operations against Muslim communities in New York and elsewhere. The CIA, which is prohibited from spying on Americans, works with the police on “human mapping”, commonly known as racial and religious profiling to spy on the Muslim community. Under the Obama administration, the Associated Press reported in August 2011, informants known as “mosque crawlers,” monitor sermons, bookstores and cafes.

Top Secret America
In July 2010, the Washington Post released “Top Secret America,” a series of articles detailing the results of a two year investigation into the rapidly expanding world of homeland security, intelligence and counter-terrorism. It found 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence at about 10,000 locations across the US. Every single day, the National Security Agency intercepts and stores more than 1.7 billion emails, phone calls and other types of communications. The FBI has a secret database named Guardian that contains reports of suspicious activities filed from federal, state and local law enforcement. According to the Washington Post the FBI Guardian database contained 161,948 files as of December 2009. From that database there have been 103 full investigations and at least five arrests the FBI reported. The Obama administration has done nothing to cut back on the secrecy.

Other Domestic Spying
There are at least 72 fusion centers across the US which collect local domestic police information and merge it into multi-jurisdictional intelligence centers, according to recent report by the ACLU. These centers share information from federal, state and local law enforcement and some private companies to secretly spy on Americans. These all continue to grow and flourish under the Obama administration.

Abusive FBI Intelligence Operations
The Electronic Frontier Foundation documented thousands of violations of the law by FBI intelligence operations from 2001 to 2008 and estimate that there are over 4000 such violations each year. President Obama issued an executive order to strengthen the Intelligence Oversight Board, an agency which is supposed to make sure the FBI, the CIA and other spy agencies are following the law. No other changes have been noticed.

Wikileaks
The publication of US diplomatic cables by Wikileaks and then by main stream news outlets sparked condemnation by Obama administration officials who said the publication of accurate government documents was nothing less than an attack on the United States. The Attorney General announced a criminal investigation and promised “this is not saber rattling.” Government officials warned State Department employees not to download the publicly available documents. A State Department official and Columbia officials warned students that discussing Wikileaks or linking documents to social networking sites could jeopardize their chances of getting a government job, a position that lasted several days until reversed by other Columbia officials. At the time this was written, the Obama administration continued to try to find ways to prosecute the publishers of Wikileaks.

Censorship of Books by the CIA
In 2011, the CIA demanded extensive cuts from a memoir by former FBI agent Ali H. Soufan, in part because it made the agency look bad. Soufan’s book detailed the use of torture methods on captured prisoners and mistakes that led to 9-11. Similarly, a 2011 book on interrogation methods by former CIA agent Glenn Carle was subjected to extensive black outs. The CIA under the Obama administration continues its push for censorship.

Blocking Publication of Photos of U.S. Soldiers Abusing Prisoners
In May 2009, President Obama reversed his position of three weeks earlier and refused to release photos of US soldiers abusing prisoners. In April 2009, the US Department of Defense told a federal court that it would release the photos. The photos were part of nearly 200 criminal investigations into abuses by soldiers.

Technological Spying

The Bay Area Transit System, in August 2011, hearing of rumors to protest against fatal shootings by their police, shut down cell service in four stations. Western companies sell email surveillance software to repressive regimes in China, Libya and Syria to use against protestors and human rights activists. Surveillance cameras monitor residents in high crime areas, street corners and other governmental buildings. Police department computers ask for and receive daily lists from utility companies with addresses and names of every home address in their area. Computers in police cars scan every license plate of every car they drive by. The Obama administration has made no serious effort to cut back these new technologies of spying on citizens.

Use of “State Secrets” to Shield Government and Others from review
When the Bush government was caught hiring private planes from a Boeing subsidiary to transport people for torture to other countries, the Bush administration successfully asked the federal trial court to dismiss a case by detainees tortured because having a trial would disclose “state secrets” and threaten national security. When President Obama was elected, the state secrets defense was reaffirmed in arguments before a federal appeals court. It continues to be a mainstay of the Obama administration effort to cloak their actions and the actions of the Bush administration in secrecy.

In another case, it became clear in 2005 that the Bush FBI was avoiding the Fourth Amendment requirement to seek judicial warrants to get telephone and internet records by going directly to the phone companies and asking for the records. The government and the companies, among other methods of surveillance, set up secret rooms where phone and internet traffic could be monitored. In 2008, the government granted the companies amnesty for violating the privacy rights of their customers. Customers sued anyway. But the Obama administration successfully argued to the district court, among other defenses, that disclosure would expose state secrets and should be dismissed. The case is now on appeal.

Material Support
The Obama administration successfully asked the US Supreme Court not to apply the First Amendment and to allow the government to criminalize humanitarian aid and legal activities of people providing advice or support to foreign organizations which are listed on the government list as terrorist organizations. The material support law can now be read to penalize people who provide humanitarian aid or human rights advocacy. The Obama administration Solicitor General argued to the court “when you help Hezbollah build homes, you are also helping Hezbollah build bombs.” The Court agreed with the Obama argument that national security trumps free speech in these circumstances.

Chicago Anti-war Grand Jury Investigation
In September 2010, FBI agents raided the homes of seven peace activists in Chicago, Minneapolis and Grand Rapids seizing computers, cell phones, passports, and records. More than 20 anti-war activists were issued federal grand jury subpoenas and more were questioned across the country. Some of those targeted were members of local labor unions, others members of organizations like the Arab American Action Network, the Columbia Action Network, the Twin Cities Anti-War Campaign and the Freedom Road Socialist Organization. Many were active internationally and visited resistance groups in Columbia and Palestine. Subpoenas directed people to bring anything related to trips to Columbia, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Israel or the Middle East. In 2011, the home of a Los Angeles activist was raided and he was questioned about his connections with the September 2010 activists. All of these investigations are directed by the Obama administration.

Punishing Whistleblowers
The Obama administration has prosecuted five whistleblowers under the Espionage Act, more than all the other administrations in history put together. They charged a National Security Agency advisor with ten felonies under the Espionage Act for telling the press that government eavesdroppers were wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on misguided and failed projects. After their case collapsed, the government, which was chastised by the federal judge as engaging in unconscionable conduct allowed him to plead to a misdemeanor and walk. The administration has also prosecuted former members of the CIA, the State Department, and the FBI. They even tried to subpoena a journalist and one of the lawyers for the whistleblowers.

Bradley Manning
Army private Bradley Manning is accused of leaking thousands of government documents to Wikileaks. These documents expose untold numbers of lies by US government officials, wrongful killings of civilians, policies to ignore torture in Iraq, information about who is held at Guantanamo, cover ups of drone strikes and abuse of children and much more damaging information about US malfeasance. Though Daniel Ellsberg and other whistleblowers say Bradley is an American hero, the US government has jailed him and is threatening him with charges of espionage which may be punished by the death penalty. For months Manning was held in solitary confinement and forced by guards to sleep naked. When asked about how Manning was being held, President Obama personally defended the conditions of his confinement saying he had been assured they were appropriate and meeting our basic standards.

Solitary Confinement
At least 20,000 people are in solitary confinement in US jails and prisons, some estimate several times that many. Despite the fact that federal, state and local prisons and jails do not report actual numbers, academic research estimates tens of thousands are kept in cells for 23 to 24 hours a day in supermax units and prisons, in lockdown, in security housing units, in “the hole”, and in special management units or administrative segregation. Human Rights Watch reports that one-third to one-half of the prisoners in solitary are likely mentally ill. In May 2006, the UN Committee on Torture concluded that the United States should “review the regimen imposed on detainees in supermax prisons, in particular, the practice of prolonged isolation.” The Obama administration has taken no steps to cut back on the use of solitary confinement in federal, state or local jails and prisons.

Special Administrative Measures
Special Administrative Measures (SAMS) are extra harsh conditions of confinement imposed on prisoners (including pre-trial detainees) by the Attorney General. The U.S. Bureau of Prisons imposes restrictions such segregation and isolation from all other prisoners, and limitation or denial of contact with the outside world such as: no visitors except attorneys, no contact with news media, no use of phone, no correspondence, no contact with family, no communication with guards, 24 hour video surveillance and monitoring. The DOJ admitted in 2009 that several dozen prisoners, including several pre-trial detainees, mostly Muslims, were kept incommunicado under SAMS. If anything, the use of SAMS has increased under the Obama administration.

These twenty concrete examples document a sustained assault on domestic civil liberties in the United States under the Obama administration. Rhetoric aside, how different has Obama been from Bush in this area?

Bill is a human rights lawyer and law professor at Loyola University New Orleans. He also serves as Associate Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. He can be reached at Quigley77@gmail.com

ConHog

12-03-2011, 04:56 PM

FYI
Obama riding Bush train to removing all civil liberties ...for your safety

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/20-examples-of-obama-administration.html

You were the inspiration for the movie Conspiracy Theory , weren't you? :laugh:

But , I do have to admit I find it amusing that the very people who screamed bloody murder when Bush took these steps defend them now that Obama has done so.

revelarts

12-07-2011, 07:45 AM

You were the inspiration for the movie Conspiracy Theory , weren't you? :laugh:

But , I do have to admit I find it amusing that the very people who screamed bloody murder when Bush took these steps defend them now that Obama has done so.

Me and a few others are screaming about both of them.
but I'm not sure what conspiracy theory has to do with the post.
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents." James Madison .
I mean we had more freedoms and now we've got less. the gov't could not do "X" now they can. It was illegal for them to "Y" now it's written into the law or assumed they do.
the supposed motivation is our safety -true, false or mixed- the result is that we have lossed freedoms.

jimnyc

12-07-2011, 08:12 AM

but I'm not sure what conspiracy theory has to do with the post.

Because 90% of what you post is anti-government. 90% of that is rhetoric and assumptions. You read into every little thing you can possibly find to criticize our government. Do they do shitty things? Yup. Have they even done things that might be unconstitutional and need to be reversed? Absolutely. But if one were to solely follow your posts, you would think we live in North Korea.

revelarts

12-07-2011, 11:24 AM

Because 90% of what you post is anti-government. 90% of that is rhetoric and assumptions. You read into every little thing you can possibly find to criticize our government. Do they do shitty things? Yup. Have they even done things that might be unconstitutional and need to be reversed? Absolutely. But if one were to solely follow your posts, you would think we live in North Korea.

that's funny, rsr and others post more rhetoric and assumptions about the democrats being the death of America, evil, stupid and crazy and most people here seem to agree based on some real evidence, but a lot of it is just rude insults. But the same level of scrutiny is rarely given to republicans or the military. Most here would say they are anti BIG gov't as well, and call it wrong too. But 90% of what i post is fact based. real crimes real unconstitutional activities. A few are in the form of 1st steps, in the wrong direction but folks here don't mind blowing people up for "planning" terror acts before they strike us or attacking whole coutries BEFORE they have a weapon that might hurt us one day. A few loud comments on bad domestic laws or acts before they become ubiquitous seems a reasonable response too me. Some things I've mentioned are huge and just been deied or ignored. But Thankfully we are not North Korea but every year we are moving in that direction. Somewhere I got this weird idea that public officials, police and the military should follow the constitution they swore to defend. if that's makes me anti-gov't then what has the gov't become?

ConHog

12-07-2011, 11:29 AM

that's funny, rsr and others post more rhetoric and assumptions about the democrats being the death of America, evil, stupid and crazy and most people here seem to agree based on some real evidence, but a lot of it is just rude insults. But the same level of scrutiny is rarely given to republicans or the military. Most here would say they are anti BIG gov't as well, and call it wrong too. But 90% of what i post is fact based. real crimes real unconstitutional activities. A few are in the form of 1st steps, in the wrong direction but folks here don't mind blowing people up for "planning" terror acts before they strike us or attacking whole coutries BEFORE they have a weapon that might hurt us one day. A few loud comments on bad domestic laws or acts before they become ubiquitous seems a reasonable response too me. Some things I've mentioned are huge and just been deied or ignored. But Thankfully we are not North Korea but every year we are moving in that direction. Somewhere I got this weird idea that public officials, police and the military should follow the constitution they swore to defend. if that's makes me anti-gov't then what has the gov't become?

So you're complaining that some of us are okay with being proactive when it comes to fighting terrorism? Disgusting.

By the way, my oath was to defend this country, AND the COTUS. Not one or the other. And since the COTUS does in fact NOT mention terrorism, there is no constitutional limits on dealing with them.

PS you're belief that RSR is a kook does not then translate to mean that it is okay for YOU to be a kook as well.

revelarts

12-07-2011, 12:04 PM

So you're complaining that some of us are okay with being proactive when it comes to fighting terrorism? Disgusting.

By the way, my oath was to defend this country, AND the COTUS. Not one or the other. And since the COTUS does in fact NOT mention terrorism, there is no constitutional limits on dealing with them.

PS you're belief that RSR is a kook does not then translate to mean that it is okay for YOU to be a kook as well.

i think your use of it for terrorism is off here but in general, If it's not in the constitution them you DON"T have jurisdiction to do it. The constitution is a limiting document for the gov't and it's public servants. Not a limiting doc for the people.

And when proactive mean murdering people who haven't had a trail or done *&$%# or by secret POTUS decree in my country's name, yes I've got a problem with it.

I never said RSR is a kook, just obsessed with ever democratic hang nail. he's right a lot of the times though.

____________

ConHog

12-07-2011, 12:07 PM

ithink you use of it for terrorism is off here but in general, If it's not in the constitution them you DON"T have jurisdiction to do it. The constitution is a limiting document for the gov't and it's public servants. Not a limiting doc for the people.

And when proactive mean murdering people who haven't had a trail or done *&$%# or by secret POTUS decree in my country's name, yes I've got a problem with it.

I never said RSR is a kook, just obsessed with ever democratic hang nail. he's right a lot of the times though.

____________

Wait, so the COTUS doesn't give the federal government the responsibility of safeguarding our country and our population from foreign attacks?

revelarts

12-07-2011, 12:15 PM

Wait, so the COTUS doesn't give the federal government the responsibility of safeguarding our country and our population from foreign attacks?
Yes it does, you said it didn't say anything about terrorism. But what you just mention should cover that. however now i have to relook at it to clear my own thinking.

ConHog

12-07-2011, 12:20 PM

Yes it does, you said it didn't say anything about terrorism. But what you just mention should cover that. however now i have to relook at it to clear my own thinking.

As you said it is a limiting document. It doesn't limit how we deal with threats. Just says deal with them.

revelarts

12-07-2011, 12:32 PM

As you said it is a limiting document. It doesn't limit how we deal with threats. Just says deal with them.it does outline how to deal with them, if it's war then it's very specific, If crimes then there are limitson how to treat and try people etc.. it's not a blank check

ConHog

12-07-2011, 02:18 PM

it does outline how to deal with them, if it's war then it's very specific, If crimes then there are limitson how to treat and try people etc.. it's not a blank check

If you can accurately point out whether terrorism is an act of war or a crime you are a lot smarter than most every attorney who has spoke on the matter who all agree that it is a gray area at best.

By the way, the COTUS makes NO mention of dealing with foreign nationals who have committed crimes against our nation while living outside of our jurisdiction. It would be nice if it were written in there somewhere . But it isn't. However, I refer you to the way Monroe handled African pirates during his Presidency. He most assuredly did not have them arrested and tried.

revelarts

12-07-2011, 03:05 PM

concerning the general more personal points made against me of late, i refer you to these portion of a Reagan speech, the words reflex my sentiments almost exactly. I don't think he followed through as well as he could have but he did better than many and that's another story

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ENRbKixne7Q?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

revelarts

01-02-2012, 07:44 PM

How Congress is signing it's own arrest warrants

I never thought I would have to write this: but—incredibly—Congress has now passed the National Defense Appropriations Act (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf), with Amendment 1031, which allows for the military detention of American citizens. The amendment is so loosely worded that any American citizen could be held without due process. The language of this bill can be read to assure Americans that they can challenge their detention — but most people do not realize what this means: at Guantanamo and in other military prisons, one’s lawyer’s calls are monitored, witnesses for one’s defense are not allowed to testify, and one can be forced into nudity and isolation. Incredibly, ninety-three Senators voted to support this bill and now most of Congress: a roster of names that will live in infamy in the history of our nation, and never be expunged from the dark column of the history books. They may have supported this bill because—although it’s hard to believe—they think the military will only arrest active members of Al Qaida; or maybe, less naively, they believe that ‘at most’, low-level dissenting figures, activists, or troublesome protesters might be subjected to military arrest. But they are forgetting something critical: history shows that those who signed this bill will soon be subject to arrest themselves.
Our leaders appear to be supporting this bill thinking that they will always be what they are now, in the fading light of a once-great democracy — those civilian leaders who safely and securely sit in freedom and DIRECT the military. In inhabiting this bubble, which their own actions are about to destroy, they are cocooned by an arrogance of power, placing their own security in jeopardy by their own hands, and ignoring history and its inevitable laws. The moment this bill becomes law, though Congress is accustomed, in a weak democracy, to being the ones who direct and control the military, the power roles will reverse: Congress will no longer be directing and in charge of the military: rather, the military will be directing and in charge of individual Congressional leaders, as well as in charge of everyone else — as any Parliamentarian in any society who handed this power over to the military can attest.

Perhaps Congress assumes that it will always only be ‘they’ who are targeted for arrest and military detention: but sadly, Parliamentary leaders are the first to face pressure, threats, arrest and even violence when the military obtains to power to make civilian arrests and hold civilians in military facilities without due process. There is no exception to this rule. Just as I traveled the country four years ago warning against the introduction of torture and secret prisons – and confidently offering a hundred thousand dollar reward to anyone who could name a nation that allowed torture of the ‘other’ that did not eventually turn this abuse on its own citizens — (confident because I knew there was no such place) — so today I warn that one cannot name a nation that gave the military the power to make civilian arrests and hold citizens in military detention, that did not almost at once turn that power almost against members of that nation’s own political ruling class. This makes sense — the obverse sense of a democracy, in which power protects you; political power endangers you in a militarized police state: the more powerful a political leader is, the more can be gained in a militarized police state by pressuring, threatening or even arresting him or her....

.... US Congresspeople and Senators may think that their power protects them from the treacherous wording of Amendments 1031 and 1032: but their arrogance is leading them to a blindness that is suicidal. The moment they sign this NDAA into law, history shows that they themselves and their staff are the most physically endangered by it. They will immediately become, not the masters of the great might of the United States military, but its subjects and even, if history is any guide — and every single outcome of ramping up police state powers, unfortunately, that I have warned for years that history points to, has come to pass — sadly but inevitably, its very first targets.
LINKS:
National Defense Appropriations Act (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf)
Indefinite military detention for U.S. citizens now in the hands of a secretive conference committee
December 8, 2011 – by Donny Shaw
http://bit.ly/sxolqr

http://naomiwolf.org/2011/12/how-congress-is-signing-its-own-arrest-warrants-in-the-ndaa-citizen-arrest-bill/

fj1200

06-26-2013, 02:44 PM

U.S. Supreme Court denies Missouri’s push for warrantless blood tests in DUI cases (http://www.kansascity.com/2013/04/17/4187515/supreme-court-denies-missouris.html)

Missouri’s push to more easily draw blood from people suspected of driving drunk failed to convince U.S. Supreme Court justices Wednesday.

Law enforcement must continue to seek warrants to take blood from drivers stopped for possibly driving impaired, the court ruled in a case that originated in southeast Missouri.

revelarts

06-27-2013, 07:12 AM

revelarts

07-22-2013, 04:24 PM

America No Longer Has a Functioning Judicial System July 21, 2013

Source: Washington's Blog (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/07/america-no-longer-has-a-functioning-judiciary.html)

The Separation of Powers Which Define Our Democracy Have Been Destroyed
The Department of Justice told a federal court this week that the NSA’s spying “cannot be challenged in a court of law” (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/07/spygate-snooping-standing/).
(This is especially dramatic given that numerous federal judges and legal scholars – including a former FISA judge – say that the FISA spying “court” is nothing but a kangaroo court (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/07/even-fisa-court-judge-says-its-a-kangaroo-court.html).)
Also this week, the Department of Justice told a federal court that the courts could not review the legality of the government’s extra-judicial assassination (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/20/us/politics/judge-challenges-white-house-claims-on-authority-in-drone-killings.html) by drone of Americans abroad:

“‘Are you saying that a US citizen targeted by the United States in a foreign country has no constitutional rights?’ [the judge] asked Brian Hauck, a deputy assistant attorney general. ‘How broadly are you asserting the right of the United States to target an American citizen? Where is the limit to this?’
“She provided her own answer: ‘The limit is the courthouse door’ . . . .
“‘Mr. Hauck acknowledged that Americans targeted overseas do have rights, but he said they could not be enforced in court either before or after the Americans were killed.’”
(Indeed, the Obama administration has previously claimed the power to be judge, jury and executioner (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/the-white-house-is-judge-jury-and-executioner-of-both-drone-and-cyber-attacks.html) in both drone and cyber-attacks. This violates Anglo-Saxon laws which have been on the books in England and America for 800 years (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/the-white-house-is-judge-jury-and-executioner-of-both-drone-and-cyber-attacks.html).)
The Executive Branch also presents “secret evidence” in many court cases … sometimes even hiding the evidence from the judge (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/did-the-department-of-justice-really-say-that-the-government-would-not-assassinate-americans.html) who is deciding the case.
Bush destroyed much of the separation of powers which made our country great. But under Obama, it’s gotten worse.
For example, the agency which decides who should be killed by drone is the same agency which spies on all Americans (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/10/the-same-secret-government-agency-which-spies-on-all-americans-also-decides-who-gets-assassinated-by-drones.html).
Daniel Ellsberg notes that even the Founding Fathers didn’t have to deal with a government claiming that it could indefinitely detain Americans (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/daniel-ellsberg-obama-bush-cheney-rumsfeld-and-senators-voting-for-indefinite-detention-are-enemies-of-the-constitution.html) … even on American soil (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/constitutional-expert-president-obama-says-that-he-can-kill-you-on-his-own-discretion-he-can-jail-you-indefinitely-on-his-own-discretion.html).
After Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges, journalist Naomi Wolf, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and others sued the government to enjoin the NDAA’s allowance of the indefinite detention of Americans – the judge asked the government attorneys 5 times whether journalists like Hedges could be indefinitely detained simply for interviewing and then writing about bad guys. The government refused to promise (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_victory_for_all_of_us_20120518/) that journalists like Hedges won’t be thrown in a dungeon for the rest of their lives without any right to talk to a judge
The Department of Justice has also tapped Congressional phones (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/05/department-of-justice-tapped-congressional-rooms-as-well-as-reporters-offices.html), and a high-level NSA whistleblower says that the NSA is spying on – and blackmailing – top government officials and military officers (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/06/nsa-whistleblower-nsa-spying-on-and-blackmailing-high-level-government-officials-and-military-officers.html) including all 9 Supreme Court justices (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/06/nsa-whistleblower-nsa-spyed-on-to-gain-leverage-general-petraeus-and-other-generals-supreme-court-justice-alito-and-all-of-the-other-supreme-court-justices-and-the-white-house-s.html).
It’s not just the Executive Branch which has attacked the courts. For example, Congress passed a bill stripping courts of the power to review (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/congress-passes-monsanto-rider-pushing-genetically-modified-foods-onto-our-plates.html) issues related to genetically modified foods.
The Constitution is mortally mounded (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/constitution.html). While the “war on terror” is commonly cited as the excuse, most of the attacks on our rights started before 9/11 (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/08/u-s-government-planned-indefinite-detention-of-citizens-long-before-911.html). Indeed, the Founding Fathers warned 200 years ago that open-ended wars give the Executive an excuse to take away our liberties (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/11/the-founding-fathers-warned-against-standing-armies.html).
Two former U.S. Supreme Court Justices (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/2-u-s-supreme-court-justices-and-numerous-other-top-government-officials-warn-of-dictatorship.html) have warned that America is sliding into tyranny. A former U.S. President (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/07/former-president-and-commander-in-chief-america-is-no-longer-a-democracy.html), and many other (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/07/top-experts-have-warned-for-50-years-that-mass-surveillance-would-lead-to-tyranny-in-america.html) high-level American officials (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/2-u-s-supreme-court-justices-and-numerous-other-top-government-officials-warn-of-dictatorship.html) agree.
In addition to attacks on the judiciary by the White House and Congress, judges are voluntarily gutting the justice system … and laying down in lapdog-obeisance to D.C.
For example, the Supreme Court ruled that if judges don’t like plaintiffs’ allegations of bad government actions, the judge can simply pre-judge and throw out the lawsuit before even allowing the party to conduct any discovery to prove their claims (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/12/is-america-still-a-nation-of-laws.html). This guts 220 years of Constitutional law, and makes it extremely difficult to challenge harmful government action in court.
America has a “dual justice system … one for ordinary people and then one for people with money and enormous wealth and power (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/04/america-is-a-failed-state-with-a-dual-justice-system-one-for-ordinary-people-and-then-one-for-people-with-money-and-enormous-wealth-and-power.html)”.
Indeed, most Americans have less access to justice than Botswanans (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/11/americans-have-less-access-to-justice-than-botswanans-and-are-more-abused-by-police-than-kazakhstanis.html)… and are more abused by police than Kazakhstanis (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/11/americans-have-less-access-to-justice-than-botswanans-and-are-more-abused-by-police-than-kazakhstanis.html).

revelarts

07-22-2013, 04:27 PM

Judge explains the law on who has Constitutional rights.

citizens, non-citizens?
"enemy combatant"?

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5HUpsCspy3I?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>