are we all enemy combatants now?

[martin]

you've never seen anyone on here talk about they will take the advice of the 'experts' (read as judges) over a civilians opinion on what the Constitution means?

"Experts" are not necessarily judges; judges are the people along with Constitutional scholars and other lawyers best qualified on the whole to know what the Constitution means, and they are all "civilians" if not in the military.
Most of the non experts I've seen at this place are in a category of knowing the least about what the Constitution means.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

"Experts" are not necessarily judges; judges are the people along with Constitutional scholars and other lawyers best qualified on the whole to know what the Constitution means, and they are all "civilians" if not in the military.
Most of the non experts I've seen at this place are in a category of knowing the least about what the Constitution means.

and how do you come to that conclusion? WHY do you consider judges, lawyers, or 'scholars' best qualified? what material do THEY have, that we 'non experts' do not?

 

[martin]

and how do you come to that conclusion? WHY do you consider judges, lawyers, or 'scholars' best qualified? what material do THEY have, that we 'non experts' do not?

You all have access to the same material. The difference is they are familiar with it. Their source materials are not political rags or nothing at all, but quality books.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You all have access to the same material. The difference is they are familiar with it. Their source materials are not political rags or nothing at all, but quality books.

what could be better source material than the Constitution? or the federalist/anti federalist papers? or the convention debate minutes? are you saying that civilians will only look at politically biased rags, but government officials only get the quality books????

 

[PostmodernProphet]

of all the threads to resurrect why a post of katsung?.......he only posted every two weeks, like clockwork......but with slightly less intelligence than most clockworks........

 

[Nordberg]

what could be better source material than the Constitution? or the federalist/anti federalist papers? or the convention debate minutes? are you saying that civilians will only look at politically biased rags, but government officials only get the quality books????

Because the law is their job. They work in it every day. They went to school and spent years studying it. They are far above the American people in knowing the law. Judges are more so. Supreme Court justices are far more knowledgeable about the Constitution than the people are. Experience and training do matter.
The Constitution was written in 1775. There is no way they could foresee all that was to come. That is why we have to adapt it to today's society. It needs interpretation and molding to answer our present problems;.

 

[Taichiliberal]

S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday

The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.

The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.

In support of this harmful bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”

Seems like an elaboration of the Patriot Act, in conjunction with the creation of the DHS....all heartedly endorsed and promoted by the neocon/teabagger GOP and the like minded sycophants in the general public.

Now the aforementioned are shitting the proverbial brick because this Act will put the target squarely on the backs of yahoos like the ones that attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6th. All those white supremacist and racist groups that have been braying that the "deep state" or whatever is coming for them may be coming to fruition.

Like the old saying goes, "be careful what you wish for". The quasi-fascist government that all you yahoos cheered under Trump is now something you fear. Classic!

 

[RB 60]

Because the law is their job. They work in it every day. They went to school and spent years studying it. They are far above the American people in knowing the law. Judges are more so. Supreme Court justices are far more knowledgeable about the Constitution than the people are. Experience and training do matter.
The Constitution was written in 1775. There is no way they could foresee all that was to come. That is why we have to adapt it to today's society. It needs interpretation and molding to answer our present problems;.

Unless his experience was sitting on the 2nd. highest court in the country. You know, the guy who likes beer (that you chastised)? Oh, and Uncle Tom?

Why change what has worked up until now? The core beliefs and pride in this country? The constitution did not create these problems. Changing it won't fix them.
Putting concerned parents on federal watch lists and allowing the teaching little kids they can pick their sex is not adapting to society. Not mine, anyway.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Because the law is their job. They work in it every day. They went to school and spent years studying it. They are far above the American people in knowing the law. Judges are more so. Supreme Court justices are far more knowledgeable about the Constitution than the people are. Experience and training do matter.

The founders intended that the people would NEVER trust their government. That is why they created it with limits and restrictions on their power. The government does not have the power or authority to define it's own limits. If YOU need government to tell you what YOUR Constitution means, then you have failed as an American.

The Constitution was written in 1775. There is no way they could foresee all that was to come. That is why we have to adapt it to today's society. It needs interpretation and molding to answer our present problems;.

Article V of the Constitution provides two ways to propose amendments to the document. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress, through a joint resolution passed by a two-thirds vote, or by a convention called by Congress in response to applications from two-thirds of the state legislatures. NOT through the courts or the executive branch's lawyers.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Seems like an elaboration of the Patriot Act, in conjunction with the creation of the DHS....all heartedly endorsed and promoted by the neocon/teabagger GOP and the like minded sycophants in the general public.

Now the aforementioned are shitting the proverbial brick because this Act will put the target squarely on the backs of yahoos like the ones that attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6th. All those white supremacist and racist groups that have been braying that the "deep state" or whatever is coming for them may be coming to fruition.

Like the old saying goes, "be careful what you wish for". The quasi-fascist government that all you yahoos cheered under Trump is now something you fear. Classic!

So you're either afflicted with memory issues or you're just shit stupid. Take note of the day I posted this.......also, be reminded that I have criticized both the Patriot Act and the NDAA from it's inception...........not that this will matter to you but the chronography of my posts prove it.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Even this totally fucked up, shit-for-brains SCOTUS would probably shit on that law in the unlikely event it were passed.

 

[Nordberg]

The founders intended that the people would NEVER trust their government. That is why they created it with limits and restrictions on their power. The government does not have the power or authority to define it's own limits. If YOU need government to tell you what YOUR Constitution means, then you have failed as an American.


Article V of the Constitution provides two ways to propose amendments to the document. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress, through a joint resolution passed by a two-thirds vote, or by a convention called by Congress in response to applications from two-thirds of the state legislatures. NOT through the courts or the executive branch's lawyers.

It does not need an amendment when the tension is caused by understanding differences and interpretations. The Supremes tell what they think the Constitution says because it is often not clear and does not apply to modern times. They explain it. They do not change it.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Seems like an elaboration of the Patriot Act, in conjunction with the creation of the DHS....all heartedly endorsed and promoted by the neocon/teabagger GOP and the like minded sycophants in the general public.

Now the aforementioned are shitting the proverbial brick because this Act will put the target squarely on the backs of yahoos like the ones that attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6th. All those white supremacist and racist groups that have been braying that the "deep state" or whatever is coming for them may be coming to fruition.

Like the old saying goes, "be careful what you wish for". The quasi-fascist government that all you yahoos cheered under Trump is now something you fear. Classic!

So you're either afflicted with memory issues or you're just shit stupid. Take note of the day I posted this.......also, be reminded that I have criticized both the Patriot Act and the NDAA from it's inception...........not that this will matter to you but the chronography of my posts prove it.

Puh-leeze! You deny your years of being a die hard Oather, Threeper, deny your former MinuteMan Icon, deny your history of veiled threats, deny your staunch right wing wonk support of any and all things Bush & Trump (save the Shrub's stance on the border situation). You deny taking a powder right after Jan. 6th, deny throwing your former ideological compadres under the bus, deny changing your icon and description (what the hell does that T-shirt say anyway?). You're just a liar, as anyone who's been on this site for more than 2 years will testify to.

You're no "rebel", just an armchair MAGA troll. Within just a few months upon your return, you're right back to your bluff and bluster self. Only this time, you're having a hissy fit over the FACT that your heroes are going to jail. No one here did that, my friend. The FBI and local cops Intelligence are doing their jobs (for once)...protecting the country from enemies foreign & domestic. Question is, why are you so upset about insurrectionist going to jail? YOU weren't at DC on Jan. 6th, and beyond lip service, you don't even show up on the radar of the FBI or DHS. So spare us all your intellectually impotent and dishonest clap trap. Didn't fly when you were an Oather, won't fly now.

 

[Into the Night]

"Experts" are not necessarily judges; judges are the people along with Constitutional scholars and other lawyers best qualified on the whole to know what the Constitution means, and they are all "civilians" if not in the military.
Most of the non experts I've seen at this place are in a category of knowing the least about what the Constitution means.

No court has authority to change or interpret the Constitution. No 'expert' has authority to change or interpret the Constitution. No lawyer has authority to interpret or change the Constitution. No military has authority to change or interpret the Constitution.

The ONLY authoritative reference of the Constitution is the Constitution itself.

 

[Into the Night]

You all have access to the same material. The difference is they are familiar with it. Their source materials are not political rags or nothing at all, but quality books.

Clearly you have never read the Constitution of the United States. You probably have never read the constitution of your State either.

 

[Into the Night]

Because the law is their job. They work in it every day. They went to school and spent years studying it. They are far above the American people in knowing the law. Judges are more so. Supreme Court justices are far more knowledgeable about the Constitution than the people are. Experience and training do matter.
The Constitution was written in 1775. There is no way they could foresee all that was to come. That is why we have to adapt it to today's society. It needs interpretation and molding to answer our present problems;.

'Expert' worship. No 'expert' has authority to interpret or change the Constitution. No court has authority to change or interpret the Constitution. None of your multiple personalities has authority to change the Constitution.
You just deny and discard the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

Unless his experience was sitting on the 2nd. highest court in the country. You know, the guy who likes beer (that you chastised)? Oh, and Uncle Tom?

Why change what has worked up until now? The core beliefs and pride in this country? The constitution did not create these problems. Changing it won't fix them.
Putting concerned parents on federal watch lists and allowing the teaching little kids they can pick their sex is not adapting to society. Not mine, anyway.

It is not adapting to society. It is destroying it. It is the usual sexual perversions from the Democrats. They are sick, twisted people.

 

[Into the Night]

The founders intended that the people would NEVER trust their government. That is why they created it with limits and restrictions on their power. The government does not have the power or authority to define it's own limits. If YOU need government to tell you what YOUR Constitution means, then you have failed as an American.


Article V of the Constitution provides two ways to propose amendments to the document. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress, through a joint resolution passed by a two-thirds vote, or by a convention called by Congress in response to applications from two-thirds of the state legislatures. NOT through the courts or the executive branch's lawyers.

Further, only the States have authority to change the Constitution. Regardless of whether an amendment proposal comes from Congress or a Convention, the States must still approve it before it becomes part of the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

So you're either afflicted with memory issues or you're just shit stupid. Take note of the day I posted this.......also, be reminded that I have criticized both the Patriot Act and the NDAA from it's inception...........not that this will matter to you but the chronography of my posts prove it.

Much of the Patriot Act and the NDAA is unconstitutional.

 

[Into the Night]

It does not need an amendment when the tension is caused by understanding differences and interpretations. The Supremes tell what they think the Constitution says because it is often not clear and does not apply to modern times. They explain it. They do not change it.

The only way to change the Constitution is by amendment, dumbass. Only the States have authority to change the Constitution. The Supreme court has NO authority to interpret or change the Constitution. The Constitution does apply to modern times.