RunRyder RC
 4  Topic Subscribe
WATCH
 2 pages [ <<    <    ( 1 )     2     NEXT    >> ] 1110 views
HelicopterOff Topics News & Politics › Obama is unconstitutional?
01-22-2013 04:09 PM  4 years agoPost 1
fflier9

rrApprentice

Wauwatosa, WI USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Guys, I'm apolitical but lately I've just been wondering: it seems to me that one of the most unconstitutional bills ever enacted was the Patriot Act by Bush. I'm not saying anything, I just think its important to maintain perspective

Compass 6HV vbar, Compass 600E 12s, MSH Protos 500 BeastX

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-22-2013 04:11 PM  4 years agoPost 2
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Guys, I'm apolitical but lately I've just been wondering: it seems to me that one of the most unconstitutional bills ever enacted was the Patriot Act by Bush. I'm not saying anything, I just think its important to maintain perspective
Don't forgot to mention.

That bill was written by Joe Biden.

Thats the rest of the perspective.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-22-2013 04:13 PM  4 years agoPost 3
Solmanbandit

rrElite Veteran

Tucson , AZ

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

To strengthen U.S. measures to prevent, detect and prosecute international money laundering and financing of terrorism;

To subject to special scrutiny foreign jurisdictions, foreign financial institutions, and classes of international transactions or types of accounts that are susceptible to criminal abuse;

To require all appropriate elements of the financial services industry to report potential money laundering;

To strengthen measures to prevent use of the U.S. financial system for personal gain by corrupt foreign officials and facilitate repatriation of stolen assets to the citizens of countries to whom such assets belong.
How do you figure these activities unconstitutional?

Trex 700E / Trex 500 ESP - Ikon/ HD 500 - Ikon 2/ Goblin 500 Ikon 2

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-22-2013 04:25 PM  4 years agoPost 4
fflier9

rrApprentice

Wauwatosa, WI USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Goals and methods are two completely different things.
How do you figure these activities unconstitutional?
First of all it allows search and seizure to be completed without a warrant or due process of the law.
U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."
[2007]

Electronic activity and communications are logged and backed up without due process of the law.

It eliminates checks and balances and is a very good first step towards a police state, which we are entering if not already at.

Compass 6HV vbar, Compass 600E 12s, MSH Protos 500 BeastX

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-22-2013 04:28 PM  4 years agoPost 5
fflier9

rrApprentice

Wauwatosa, WI USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

My point is not "whodunnit" because frankly that is an irrelevant conversation for people concerned with meaningless specifics and not the larger picture. My point is that this country no longer operates according to the constitution, so condemning a politician for not operating in compliance of said document is rather stupid.

Compass 6HV vbar, Compass 600E 12s, MSH Protos 500 BeastX

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-22-2013 04:31 PM  4 years agoPost 6
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

First of all it allows search and seizure to be completed without a warrant or due process of the law.
You must have forgotten. We are at war. We will be for many years into the future.

Because of that, they are not going to come and take your neighbor lady and her puppy dog into custody.

Besides, since the patriot has been in force, approx 6 or 7 years, name one instance where anything remotely resembling the above has occurred.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-22-2013 04:34 PM  4 years agoPost 7
fflier9

rrApprentice

Wauwatosa, WI USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Welp, that's justification enough for me for widespread government surveillance. We're at war, everyone.

Because the underlying function of the activity is really national security.

Compass 6HV vbar, Compass 600E 12s, MSH Protos 500 BeastX

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-22-2013 04:35 PM  4 years agoPost 8
PsychoZ

rrApprentice

Northern, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

My point is that this country no longer operates according to the constitution
It has been that way for years before Obama was even born.

Tea Parties are for little girls with imaginary friends

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-22-2013 04:37 PM  4 years agoPost 9
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

It has been that way for years before Obama was even born.
Thats somewhat true, but debatable, of course.

The Obummer put it in hyper drive times a factor of 10.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-22-2013 04:44 PM  4 years agoPost 10
koppter

rrApprentice

Virginia

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

here's the bottom line...it is not for us, or any politician for that matter to decide or opine on the meaning of the consitution. the founding fathers foresaw the problems of doing so, and created a tricameral system of government. so unless the federals courts says its unconstitutional, it ain't.

all this nonsense about attacks on the 2nd amendment and whether or not the acts are coonsitutional...blah blah blah. put on a skirt, get some pom poms and jump up and down - that's the end product of all the rants.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-22-2013 05:54 PM  4 years agoPost 11
GREYEAGLE

rrElite Veteran

Flat Land's

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The 2@mend : Gitting Them: OFF THE PROPERTY in a nut shell



it is not for us, or any politician for that matter to decide or opine on the meaning of the consitution

Watch at YouTube

greyeagle

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-22-2013 07:32 PM  4 years agoPost 12
fflier9

rrApprentice

Wauwatosa, WI USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

here's the bottom line...it is not for us, or any politician for that matter to decide or opine on the meaning of the consitution.
oh really? Then how are laws made, and in the context of what?

I think that kind of naive, almost zealot-like dogma is what the founding fathers were trying to avoid by making the const. amendable, no?

At the end of the day someone, somewhere has to interpret the meaning and intent of the document. do you understand?

Compass 6HV vbar, Compass 600E 12s, MSH Protos 500 BeastX

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-22-2013 07:58 PM  4 years agoPost 13
JitsuGuy

rrKey Veteran

Tulsa, Oklahoma

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

"Shall not be infringed" specifically means, "shall be infringed." You just need Constitutional scholars in order to make that determination.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
01-22-2013 07:58 PM  4 years agoPost 14
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

At the end of the day someone, somewhere has to interpret the meaning and intent of the document. do you understand?
If it goes that far, it's usually up to the Supreme Court. They are the final arbiter of law in the US.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-22-2013 08:04 PM  4 years agoPost 15
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

"Shall not be infringed" specifically means, "shall be infringed." You just need Constitutional scholars in order to make that determination.
Constitutional scholars do not make final determination of law. All they do is flap their lips.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-23-2013 12:45 AM  4 years agoPost 16
koppter

rrApprentice

Virginia

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

FF - the one who apparently doesn't understand is you. as I have taken constitutional law at the law school level i think i have a pretty good fix on how the constitutionality of legislation is challenged and determined. if the issue it makes it to the Supreme Court, it is the law of the land once the opinion is rendered. If it makes it to the District level, but it is not petitioned to or rejected by the Supreme Court, it is the federal opinion of that District. Districts do differ in their interpretations, and one of the reasons that the Supreme Court steps in is when there is a difference of social importance, Roe v. Wade being a pretty good example. Either way, it ain't the politicians, and it ain't a bunch of internet blowhards or even the pundits. How many consitutional know it alls said Obamacare would never be upheld by a conservative majority?

any ratified amendment is still subject to review by the federal courts - they can't change the language, but they do get to decide what the language ultimately means - not the folks that wrote it. I believe that among the three branches, the Court really is the ultimate power in creating or directing social policy as their opinions are not reviewable, except by a later Court.

but heck, maybe you are right and I am a naive zealot.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-23-2013 01:17 AM  4 years agoPost 17
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Constitutional scholars do not make final determination of law. All they do is flap their lips.
FF - the one who apparently doesn't understand is you. as I have taken constitutional law at the law school level i think i have a pretty good fix on how the constitutionality of legislation is challenged and determined. if the issue it makes it to the Supreme Court, it is the law of the land once the opinion is rendered. If it makes it to the District level, but it is not petitioned to or rejected by the Supreme Court, it is the federal opinion of that District. Districts do differ in their interpretations, and one of the reasons that the Supreme Court steps in is when there is a difference of social importance, Roe v. Wade being a pretty good example. Either way, it ain't the politicians, and it ain't a bunch of internet blowhards or even the pundits. How many consitutional know it alls said Obamacare would never be upheld by a conservative majority?

any ratified amendment is still subject to review by the federal courts - they can't change the language, but they do get to decide what the language ultimately means - not the folks that wrote it. I believe that among the three branches, the Court really is the ultimate power in creating or directing social policy as their opinions are not reviewable, except by a later Court.

but heck, maybe you are right and I am a naive zealot.
You basically said just what I just said. Only you got technical about it.

So, instead of flapping your lips, you were banging on your keyboard.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-23-2013 01:40 AM  4 years agoPost 18
R Hudson

rrKey Veteran

Denver, CO

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

C'mon now, Dennis. You of all people shouldn't be critical of others for "banging on their keyboard"

Signature

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
01-23-2013 01:51 AM  4 years agoPost 19
GREYEAGLE

rrElite Veteran

Flat Land's

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

If you claim to have taken Consitutional LAW at HARVARD it is PLAINLEY Evident

That you have Absolutely NO common Knowledge of the Foundational Principal's of the Constitution you claim to have own-ship.

for they are: "man's law's" - but those are LAW's Fabricated upon: THE LAW"S OF GIVEN : BY THE GIVER
It is a Un- Conditional - and NOT a Conditional

Do NOT Like it - Too Bad - GO elsewhere and re- create Liberty Freedom and Justice: Grind hard on them and Learn Where THEY CAME FROM -----

Read YOUR Harvard CONSTITUTIONAL Principal. You cheated your self - Utterly FAILED and did not grasp the construct.
A Embarrassment - to the institution : Glad you purchased it and did not Earn It The True Cost and Price of the Founder's -They did EARN IT - for US of A.

Further you fail and reject at Every Opportunity the Rock of Foundation or the Cornerstone for which it BUILT Upon : BOTH HARVARD and the Constitution. It is REAL : and not a Cosmic Battery Charger - IT is LIVING

Back too Draconian Home work too see what you failed to take the handle of::: -It's a cultural precept their is only ONE link too. The Missing Link - For which you could not purchase -and Yet fail to understand but feel are entitled.

You DO NOT - It cannot be purchased / stolen / modified / inherited.
THE GIFT ---

The US. Government is NOt required to provide success to a culture that doe's not contribute, nor- allow nor -take ownership of the soil they stand. : It is NOT a Entitlement - It must be EARNED

(IT) is The BOND of { WE THE PEOPLE }

- Pull the strap's until you can't, Grab both handles, Heel's to the back until you feel it in your knee's, be prepared to break some thing on the way out, one deep breath, squeeze -tuck the chin and pull Both handle's with a Death Grip.

" If you DO It Correctly you WILL: { WAKE UP }

greyeagle

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-23-2013 02:05 AM  4 years agoPost 20
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

C'mon now, Dennis. You of all people shouldn't be critical of others for "banging on their keyboard"
What ??

Who me ???

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 2 pages [ <<    <    ( 1 )     2     NEXT    >> ] 1110 views
HelicopterOff Topics News & Politics › Obama is unconstitutional?
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 4  Topic Subscribe

Thursday, December 14 - 6:13 am - Copyright © 2000-2017 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online