Will Hillary or Obama have right to imprison you?

Yellowjacket · #41 (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dab11999

The Constitution gives us the right to a system of checks and balances. The Homeland Security Act takes away those checks and balances. I would say that makes The Homeland Security Act un-Constitutional. The question is, who put this Act into legislation? Those who do not believe in a democracy of checks and balances? A President who has no faith in our judicial system? Why then was he re-elected? Why did those who put the Act into legislation voted for? Does anyone remember? Or are they too busy watching Survivor to take notice? That would be the real problem in America today.

"Checks and Balances" is not a right, it is a method of government which, in theory, prevents dictatorship or abuse of power. All it takes to circumvent it is for all 3 branches of government to be corrupt and work in concert to the detriment of the people. The Homeland Security Act was passed by 1 branch (the legislative) and approved by a 2nd branch (the executive). The final "check" is for the judicial branch, the court system, to uphold it. Thus far, "checks and balances" are still in existence by constitutional standards. If, when challenged, the supreme court allows the violation of our rights to stand, all in the name of expedience, then it is clear that all 3 branches have been corrupted.

RAIDER56 · #42 (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 08:28 PM

good observation.I have been wondering where in the constitution is
the fedaral government given the ability to create so many, or any
for that matter regulatory commissions.Such as the highways and
transportation bodies.The federal government is only there to protect
our borders( which they are not doing well) and regulatory bodies
and rules are to be run by state.In the hands of the federal government
these agencies become about profit and coruption

Dom1 · #43 (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAIDER56

good observation.I have been wondering where in the constitution is
the fedaral government given the ability to create so many, or any
for that matter regulatory commissions.Such as the highways and
transportation bodies.The federal government is only there to protect
our borders( which they are not doing well) and regulatory bodies
and rules are to be run by state.In the hands of the federal government
these agencies become about profit and coruption

Maybe the "necessary and proper" clause, but not sure.

wvpeach · #44 (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dab11999

The Constitution gives us the right to a system of checks and balances. The Homeland Security Act takes away those checks and balances. I would say that makes The Homeland Security Act un-Constitutional. The question is, who put this Act into legislation? Those who do not believe in a democracy of checks and balances? A President who has no faith in our judicial system? Why then was he re-elected? Why did those who put the Act into legislation voted for? Does anyone remember? Or are they too busy watching Survivor to take notice? That would be the real problem in America today.

Your right dab. But unfortunately the people who elected Bush twice are a majority in this country. They have us headed off a cliff , nothing anybody can do about it.

Except get ready to take care of your own people when SHTF.

Dom1 · #45 (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvpeach

Your right dab. But unfortunately the people who elected Bush twice are a majority in this country. They have us headed off a cliff , nothing anybody can do about it.

Except get ready to take care of your own people when SHTF.

Umm . . . . once again totally uninformed Billy.

Did the following people have constituents who voted for Bush twice?

Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards (does he regret this vote too?)
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Johnson
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson
Nelson
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wyden

Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett
Berkley
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Capps
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clement
Condit
Cramer
Crowley
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Delahunt
Deutsch
Dicks
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Etheridge
Ford
Frost
Gordon
Green (TX)
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hill
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Hooley
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
John
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Langevin
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Mascara
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McIntyre
Millender-McDonald
Moore
Ortiz
Pascrell
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Rush
Sanchez
Sandlin
Schiff
Shows
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Spratt
Stenholm
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thurman
Turner
Udall (CO)
Wexler
Wu

wvpeach · #46 (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncensored2008

Lying again, Peach?

mean, you want to do what Jesus would do, so you lie, right? You're not just lying because you have no integrity, you lie to serve Jesus. Jesus would lie for Obama.

Congradulations you just made it to my ignore list. I have yet to see you say anything that even remotely qualifies as intelligent conversation. I don't have time for idiots like you.

AWE is the first forum I have ever put people on ignore at. Such is the lovely nature of a unmoderated forum. Its nice to not have mods hanging over our every word. But on the other hand we get the low life scum of the earth crawling out of sewers like uncensored.

Well , join the rest of your low slimy scum peers uncensored.

My ignore list.

Dom1
Oedipus Rex
ONEWHITEDUCK Still Dizzy
Uncensored2008

All scum from the swamps of society , not worth my time to look at their crap. And besides folks you'd be surprised at how nicely it clears up the threads when you don't have to look at all those long nonsense posts of Dom's.

Granted it doesn't help much with the rest as far as cleaning up threads goes. The rest are just too stupid to post more than a sentence or two. But it does stop you from having to read their potty mouths.

wvpeach · #47 (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAIDER56

good observation.I have been wondering where in the constitution is
the fedaral government given the ability to create so many, or any
for that matter regulatory commissions.Such as the highways and
transportation bodies.The federal government is only there to protect
our borders( which they are not doing well) and regulatory bodies
and rules are to be run by state.In the hands of the federal government
these agencies become about profit and coruption

bravo!

well said.

Now how do we get everybody else to think like you and I?

Dom1 · #48 (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvpeach

Congradulations you just made it to my ignore list. I have yet to see you say anything that even remotely qualifies as intelligent conversation. I don't have time for idiots like you.

AWE is the first forum I have ever put people on ignore at. Such is the lovely nature of a unmoderated forum. Its nice to not have mods hanging over our every word. But on the other hand we get the low life scum of the earth crawling out of sewers like uncensored.

Well , join the rest of your low slimy scum peers uncensored.

My ignore list.

Dom1
Oedipus Rex
ONEWHITEDUCK Still Dizzy
Uncensored2008

All scum from the swamps of society , not worth my time to look at their crap. And besides folks you'd be surprised at how nicely it clears up the threads when you don't have to look at all those long nonsense posts of Dom's.

Granted it doesn't help much with the rest as far as cleaning up threads goes. The rest are just too stupid to post more than a sentence or two. But it does stop you from having to read their potty mouths.

Telling people you are ignoring them . . . . ad nauseum, isn't really ignoring anything.

Face it, you quit responding because you kept looking more and more stupid - and for you to look even dumber than what you are is quite a feat!

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvpeach

bravo!

well said.

Now how do we get everybody else to think like you and I?

Aren't you the person who wants the goernment to take over our health care?

George O Well · #49 (**permalink**) 04-09-2008, 12:55 PM

Quote:

I would think if Obama or Clinton were President and had a Republican Congress that was trying to prevent the FBI/CIA from gathering intelligence to prevent a terror attack, their supporters would want them to have these powers.

>>>You think wrong. No American I know wants the president to be able to make you 'disappear' in order to possibly acquire some intelligence. That's a Brazil/fascist thang.

wow · #50 (**permalink**) 04-09-2008, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George O Well

>>>You think wrong. No American I know wants the president to be able to make you 'disappear' in order to possibly acquire some intelligence. That's a Brazil/fascist thang.

I did not hear Democrats cry about Jimmy Carter and the Democrat Congress creating this:

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 is a U.S. federal law prescribing procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" (which may include American citizens and permanent residents engaged in espionage and violating U.S. law: §1801(b)(2)(B)) on territory under United States control.

FISA regulates the surveillance and collection for foreign intelligence domestically. Notably, FISA does not control extra-territorial intelligence operations, but has been held to apply whenever foreign communications flow through United States telecommunication providers. Courts, including the District Court for the Southern District of New York, have adopted a "foreign intelligence exception" to ordinary requirements for warrants, but this exception has not yet been recognized by the Supreme Court.

Democrats play partisan politics with national security.