This is Happening This Week- The End of the Constitution - Page 8
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 85

Thread: This is Happening This Week- The End of the Constitution

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,668
    Quote Originally Posted by wjh2657 View Post
    All of this not new. This is simply an attempt to extend the "Insurrection Act" privileges that GW Bush used to arrest American Citizens with U.S. Military on American soil. Download and read the paper at "An Insurrection Act for the 21st Century" by Thaddeus Hoffmeister for further enlightenment. In 2005 an amendment was written into the Defense appropriation Act to include terrorism in the Insurrection Act. This amendment was repealed in 2008. This is just another attempt to put it back in. Under 10 USC 333, the President already has the authority to use U.S. troops to arrest American Citizens within state borders. Posse Commitatus (which actually applies to state and local governments using Federal troops to arrest, seize and search) is over ridden by the Insurrection act and has been since 1807. This isn't a move by OBama to become a dictator, he already is one by law as was George W. Bush and every other President since the "Great Dictator" Abraham Lincoln. There is no real change here, we all already do and have since 1861 live and die as Washington, DC wills. The Bill of Rights has to do with making laws, not with enforcing them. Sorry, but Americans need to find out what their real status is within their own country. I love my country, I have served my country and I support my country. But that country is not what most of you seem to think it is, totally free and ruled by the populace. We are a republic and we are ruled by an elite group of people, as is every other country on Earth. We are just very lucky that, as regular citizens, we do have a really good life.

    Our country isn't perfect, but it is way better than most others out there. I don't intend to move any time soon, but I am not surprised when the federal government craps all over me and gets away with it either.
    It isn't new but it does need removed. Same as certain Gov't agencies need to go back to what they are supposed to be for and stop acting on US soil.

  2.   
  3. #72
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,668

  4. #73
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    153
    This is nothing less than Treason by the ones who voted yes to this bill!
    "Democracy... is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
    Liberty ... is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."-- Benjamin Franklin

  5. #74
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    TN, the patron state of shootin stuff
    Posts
    1,399
    Quote Originally Posted by S&W645 View Post
    Would not surprise me if we get a false flag from this. It seems that when the government needs a convenient enemy one magically appears. Guilty until proven innocent. Oh wait were going to hold you indefinitely so I guess you must be guilty and the media will play along.
    Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress;
    but I repeat myself.
    Mark Twain

  6. I just tried to open and read this link for this bill ,, but it was deleted! need a new link to view

  7. #76
    This is Section 1032 of the bill that passed according to the thomas.loc website. This section refers to section 1031 but I could not find a section 1031 in the bill. I maybe overlooked it. Please notice paragraph (b) of this section. Someone help me out here.

    SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

    (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
    (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
    (2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--
    (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
    (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
    (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.
    (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.
    (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
    (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
    (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

  8. #77
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,668
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    This is Section 1032 of the bill that passed according to the thomas.loc website. This section refers to section 1031 but I could not find a section 1031 in the bill. I maybe overlooked it. Please notice paragraph (b) of this section. Someone help me out here.
    1031 is there. I've read it and posted it as copied from the GPO. As for (B), it says that there is no requirement that the military has to keep a US citizen in military custody. But unless you put it in writing that they can not, they can.

  9. #78
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    FLORIDA / JACKSONVILLE
    Posts
    213
    Im active Air Force. If this passes everyone on this forum is screwed! :-) lol

  10. #79

    Senator Jeff Merkley explains

    Don't know if anyone posted this already... but this may explain the tricky legalese a little better.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dKhjw7ZT7pU

  11. #80
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    St. Louis County, MO
    Posts
    3,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Hurtley View Post
    You seem convinced to berate me any time I post, so would removing that label make any difference? I put the label out there to remind people that there *ARE* gun-rights-friendly liberals/progressives/Democrats out there.

    I know Communism doesn't work - that's why I'm not a Communist.

    If you don't like political parties, fine. ....
    Although I somewhat disagree with you on some points, I respect your opinions and your reason for choosing the way you choose. And believe me there are a lot of us here who is not politically glued to one party. I know I am not...I am just glad you are not anti-guns nor anti-2nd.
    "Don't let the door hit ya where the dawg shudda bit ya!"
    G'day and Glock
    GATEWAY SWIFT WING ST. LOUIS

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast