Patriot Act II

 

I have no comment to this.

Whoa...

:thumbdown

wow

Ummm....

 

:blink:

Patriot Act 9:

All Americans must show full allegiance to Big Brother. Any who don't will be exectued. :plain

If this is true... :plain

 

 

 

 

 

All the more reason to get rid of Bush and his cronies...

hmm.

Even our right wing judges probably wouldn't let this BS stand. The SCOTUS would eat this up.

that is disgusting. it is f***ing disgusting.

 

the idea that i could possibly be executed for typing this is sickening.

Geez, that sounds like something Rush Limbaugh would come up with.

 

No chance that passes though, I doubt even most Republicans would support that....

Draft legislation rarely bears any resemblence to final form as proposed.

 

THEN it goes through a myriad of committees and ammendments that rework it into a form even its own mother wouldn't recognize...

THEN it gets voted on by the house/senate.

 

THEN it goes through a conference committee that works out the inconsistencies between the house and senate versions...

THEN the unified field theiry version gets another vote...

 

ex. The draft "cop killer" bullets bill was disasterous - it would have classified ordinary hollow point bullets as "cop killer" vest penetrators (when in fact they are stopped more readily by vests than FMJ)

575942[/snapback]

 

Yeah, but the fact that anybody could come up with a PROPOSED bill like that in the first place scares the s*** outta me.

 

(I'm a registered Republican, mind you).

The majority of the sanctions listed in the article deny constitutional rights to non-citizens. That's kinda funny, especially since you consider that non-citizens aren't guaranteed full constitutional rights.

 

Quit whining. Just b/c they now can more vigorously pursue illegals doesn't mean that Johnny Law and the hob-nail booted thugs are going to break down your door and deny you your constitutional right to do anything.

 

The rest of the article is ACLU Henny Penny, "sky is falling" op-ed material that wildy speculates upon a bill that is far from it's final form.

Yeah, but the fact that anybody could come up with a PROPOSED bill like that in the first place scares the s*** outta me.

 

(I'm a registered Republican, mind you).

575945[/snapback]

 

Don't read much legislation do you...

 

There's THOUSANDS of actual bills (not "drafts") put forth every year, many containing blatantly unconstitutional terms. The vast majority die in conference never seeing the light of day, or emerge as something vastly different than when they were proposed.

 

You can see anything in a draft. They're often a bunch of cut-past crap out of some idiots wish list. Some of the odious stuff is well intentioned, but ineptly/incompetently thought out as to implication (like the "cop-killer" bullet thing I was very familiar with).

575957[/snapback]

 

Fair enough....

 

And no, I don't read much legislation.... :lol

The majority of the sanctions listed in the article deny constitutional rights to non-citizens. That's kinda funny, especially since you consider that non-citizens aren't guaranteed full constitutional rights.

 

Quit whining. Just b/c they now can more vigorously pursue illegals doesn't mean that Johnny Law and the hob-nail booted thugs are going to break down your door and deny you your constitutional right to do anything.

 

The rest of the article is ACLU Henny Penny, "sky is falling" op-ed material that wildy speculates upon a bill that is far from it's final form.

575947[/snapback]

 

First off, you havent read your Constitution lately have you? Citizens in the Bill of Rights only refers to voting and the privilages and immunity stuff. But the civil liberties stuff all says "person."

 

(See Note 13)

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

5. 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.

 

6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

 

SCOTA has never read that to mean citizens only. Neither political side would ever argue that. Its simply been established.

 

Second, you state pursuing of illegals but it clearly states stripping citizens of their citizenship and deporting non citizens without due process of law which as I underlined and highlighted above, is not isolated to citizens.

 

Third, you cant remove our civil liberties under the guise of "dont worry, they wont actually use it against you!" You actually think this will only be used on the war on terror? How much longer till this extends to general police power? Then what? "They will only use it against criminals..promise!" At which point youve effectivley endorsed ripping the bill of rights in half. Hell, its already been reduced to a crap.

The majority of the sanctions listed in the article deny constitutional rights? to non-citizens. That's kinda funny, especially since you consider that non-citizens aren't guaranteed full constitutional rights.

 

Quit whining. Just b/c they now can more vigorously pursue illegals doesn't mean that Johnny Law and the hob-nail booted thugs are going to break down your door and deny you your constitutional right to do anything.

 

The rest of the article is ACLU Henny Penny, "sky is falling"? op-ed material that wildy speculates upon a bill that is far from it's final form.

575947[/snapback]

 

First off, you havent read your Constitution lately have you? Citizens in the Bill of Rights only refers to voting and the privilages and immunity stuff. But the civil liberties stuff all says "person."

 

(See Note 13)

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

5. 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.

 

6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

 

SCOTA has never read that to mean citizens only. Neither political side would ever argue that. Its simply been established.

 

Second, you state pursuing of illegals but it clearly states stripping citizens of their citizenship and deporting non citizens without due process of law which as I underlined and highlighted above, is not isolated to citizens.

 

Third, you cant remove our civil liberties under the guise of "dont worry, they wont actually use it against you!" You actually think this will only be used on the war on terror? How much longer till this extends to general police power? Then what? "They will only use it against criminals..promise!" At which point youve effectivley endorsed ripping the bill of rights in half. Hell, its already been reduced to a crap.

575980[/snapback]

 

I did a project in 2002 in regards to a proposal for a potential patriot 2, and honestly it was quite frightening whati dug up BUT a lot of this article in particular is hogwash, and exagerrations, notice what books are beign advertised on the margins by the way. Furthermore, F_m you're actually a little off, the constitution is disgustingly vague in terms of wording, and if i had the time i'd dig up some real info and cite resources, not links, but to direct legislature and court decisions. Pretty much civil liberties are guaranteed to citizens and residents of the country, the use of the word people regards to those, and SCOTUS has never said that these protections are also extended to illegal aliens. As it is now our protections are granted to citizens and residents and some to people with visas, as long as they're immigrant viasa, b/c with a nonimmigrant visa you're still supposedly under the protection of your home country

Well I was primarily referring to fishfillet's use of the word non citizen, which encompasses a lot of legal aliens. Im not necessarily defending illegal aliens having the same due process and other rights though. Clearly they dont for if they did, we wouldnt be able to deport them at will. Im not sure what you mean by partial rights though. From what I can tell they get the important ones whcih all refer to people. It would go against stare decisis for the court to say person refers to one group in one set of rights but not another.

I highly doubt any of this is true and i'm shocked by all the people who just hopped on the bandwagon and accepted this load of bull as pure factual information without even second guessing it. But hey, it's about President Bush so it doesn't matter if it's true or not, all that matters is it can be used against him! .

 

How about an article stating this same information from a reliable source rather than an extremely distorted internet blog which claims to be "America's last real newspaper"?

 

Don't believe everything you read, especially from a source such as this.

 

--------

 

Assuming this is true (Which is HIGHLY unlikely), this is the very reason our founding fathers created the second amendment. The second amendment is the fundamental right of all Americans which is the foundation for all of our other rights, including freedom of speech.

The second amendment is the fundamental right of all Americans which is the foundation for all of our other rights, including freedom of speech.

 

Wow......wow. :blink:

The second amendment is the fundamental right of all Americans which is the foundation for all of our other rights, including freedom of speech.

 

Wow......wow. :blink:

576425[/snapback]

 

The second amendment is what protects all of the other amendments, the first step in creating any sort of successful dictatorship is establishing gun control. Even though I know it sounds like it, i'm not trying to come off as some right-wing gun hoarding psycho that lives in a bomb shelter with a lifetime membership to the NRA and a subscription to 'Guns and Ammo' and I am by no means saying America is headed in that direction, there are far too many protocols and systems in place which would prevent America from becoming anything other than a democracy.

 

Back me up Furman :lol

There are a couple more important amendments than the second.

The repealment of alcohol ban was important.

 

Seriously, though... I oppose this bill.

The second amendment is what protects all of the other amendments, the first step in creating any sort of successful dictatorship is establishing gun control.

 

The right to keep and bear arms is about as antiquidated and irrelevent as they get.

 

Your right to keep some rifles and a few hanguns would hardly serve as a deterrent for the most powerful military ever to exist if it all of a sudden decided to turn it's force inward agaisnt the American people.

If they turn against the entire nation, their own people, I doubt they would hesitate to use those weapons out of hurting those same people who are rebelling against them.

This doesn't surprise me, considering how easily the Patriot Act slipped through Congress. I mean, Congress does have a conservative majority in both houses, so it's pretty easy for this administration to pass whatever they want. I guess loyalty oaths aren't the biggest problems we could face...