RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

mnottertail -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (3/1/2013 8:36:53 AM)

Yeah, Jeff, I would like to see an example of that.  I haven't seen that, and I am a pretty sharp kid, don't miss many tricks.




JeffBC -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (3/1/2013 8:51:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Yeah, Jeff, I would like to see an example of that.  I haven't seen that, and I am a pretty sharp kid, don't miss many tricks.

Really? Try to remember that I am a "US citizen living abroad"

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. . . .

The Obama administration has adopted the same stance. If a U.S. citizen joins al-Qaeda, “it doesn’t really change anything from the standpoint of whether we can target them,” a senior administration official said. “They are then part of the enemy.”
-- Salon.com

So then I take it you have forgotten about Anwar Aulaqi?

Now try to remember that the 2012 NDAA extended this authority to domestic soil... or in the most generous possible interpretation... deliberately clouded that water enabling such actions.



mnottertail -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (3/1/2013 8:57:53 AM)

Well that story puts the cart before the horse.  And only tells half the tale.

AUMF gives the president the right..............its the law, and the rule thereof.



JeffBC -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (3/1/2013 8:59:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Well that story puts the cart before the horse. AUMF gives the president the right..............its the law.

You and I have different interpretations of "law" then. I don't think you can use a lawful process to create fiat and then call it "law". In point of fact, there are a lot of things we collectively have decided you can't use a lawful process to do and call it lawful. Nazi germany gave us many examples of that.



mnottertail -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (3/1/2013 9:02:58 AM)

I have grave misgivings about what transpired originally, and the law as it was crafted.

But it is the law now, and the rule of it........preserve, protect and defend.   It hasn't been sunsetted or found unconstitutional.

The dipshits that made those laws helped get us mired into where we are today, and unfortunately, for better or for worse the Grecians (from whence come the concept) thought better of their legislatures than we do and know to do.



RacerJim -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (3/1/2013 9:14:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well, no they cant inside the US.   Here we got laws, we do not export our benificence to the greater part of the planet however.

AUMF is AUMF.   I dont know what the foolishness of the OP has to do with, clearly it states it aint happening insofar as american citizens are concerned on our soil. 

The Marxist usurper in the White House has already ignored/violated several of our laws...DOMA for just one. We also now know that his co-horts have threatened at least three legacy liberal reporters for calling him out on his lies.



mnottertail -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (3/1/2013 9:21:00 AM)

cohort and its singular, even when there are a multitude (like moose)  and he has certainly not violated any laws, your puerile nonsensicalness notwithstanding.

He violated DOMA?  Did he run out and marry two boys or two girls in Dumbshitsville, TX and it didnt make the news somehow? 



Real0ne -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (3/1/2013 11:27:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well that story puts the cart before the horse.  And only tells half the tale.

AUMF gives the president the right..............its the law, and the rule thereof.



and it violates every fucking element of due process


[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/Judge_Dredd___I_am_the_law_by_XIEZHENSHENG.jpg[/image]



DesideriScuri -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (3/1/2013 2:53:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I have grave misgivings about what transpired originally, and the law as it was crafted.
But it is the law now, and the rule of it........preserve, protect and defend.   It hasn't been sunsetted or found unconstitutional.
The dipshits that made those laws helped get us mired into where we are today, and unfortunately, for better or for worse the Grecians (from whence come the concept) thought better of their legislatures than we do and know to do.


I think what Jim is referring to with DOMA is Obama's DOJ deciding to not defend it in court.

Now, if it's okay to use a rule now that you were against originally simply because it hasn't been sunsetted nor found unConstitutional, what, again, is your support of not defending DOMA? It hasn't been decided by the SCOTUS, thus it may still be determined to be Constitutional.



mnottertail -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (3/1/2013 3:04:04 PM)

You should study the law regarding due process.  You don't have any knowledge of it.

Not only does the phrase only appear in the bill of rights (states thing dont you know),

This proscribes the 5th.
...........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..........

Well, lets waltz to the 14th:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,

Oh, but the fed has no such restriction in that language:
.......and of course congress can:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

That fucking constitution and the rule of law thingie.  

Yeah, it don't always go the way we want.

But Real0ne, you want to jabber on with codswallow about law all the time, maybe you should study it and we can have an intelligent conversation, instead of all this tinfoiling asswipe you get off of feebleminded sites.  



mnottertail -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (3/1/2013 3:16:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I have grave misgivings about what transpired originally, and the law as it was crafted.
But it is the law now, and the rule of it........preserve, protect and defend.   It hasn't been sunsetted or found unconstitutional.
The dipshits that made those laws helped get us mired into where we are today, and unfortunately, for better or for worse the Grecians (from whence come the concept) thought better of their legislatures than we do and know to do.


I think what Jim is referring to with DOMA is Obama's DOJ deciding to not defend it in court.

Now, if it's okay to use a rule now that you were against originally simply because it hasn't been sunsetted nor found unConstitutional, what, again, is your support of not defending DOMA? It hasn't been decided by the SCOTUS, thus it may still be determined to be Constitutional.



What is there to defend?  Marraiges are states rights, don't you know, what did you want him to do, sign one of those do nothing, lazy ass, shiftless, worthless, only for political fodder exec orders (hey, that's what you are telling me) or blowhole meaningless asswipe like Willard?  What is prescribed in that law with section 3 certainly headed for the rhubarb?  Hell he is filing that the fuckin whole shitoree is unconstitutional in his offices to preserve and protect that constitution, and insure that document is not corrupted.  That's a defense of it as well.  Same way he said the torture stops now.

Cuz he goddamn sure can't gallop into the states and start arresting the pansies in love of whatever gender....that would sling up his ass.

I think it is teabagging asswipe blowholing there, to say 'defend' DOMA,  stud.

Which one blows your dress up?



Real0ne -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (3/1/2013 6:47:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

You should study the law regarding due process.  You don't have any knowledge of it.

Not only does the phrase only appear in the bill of rights (states thing dont you know),

This proscribes the 5th.
...........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..........

Well, lets waltz to the 14th:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,

Oh, but the fed has no such restriction in that language:
.......and of course congress can:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

That fucking constitution and the rule of law thingie.  

Yeah, it don't always go the way we want.

But Real0ne, you want to jabber on with codswallow about law all the time, maybe you should study it and we can have an intelligent conversation, instead of all this tinfoiling asswipe you get off of feebleminded sites.  




lol, nothing but tinfoil trash!

what a ridiculously misguided bucket of shit.

So who here is stoopid enough to believe that they can slap the constitution or whatever that tinfoil worthless shit is down in court without their asses leaving a shit streak as they slide out the door.

Hey they can have the fairy god mother put diamonds under their pillow every night too.

Good luck with both in the real world!






DesideriScuri -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (3/1/2013 7:53:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I have grave misgivings about what transpired originally, and the law as it was crafted.
But it is the law now, and the rule of it........preserve, protect and defend.   It hasn't been sunsetted or found unconstitutional.
The dipshits that made those laws helped get us mired into where we are today, and unfortunately, for better or for worse the Grecians (from whence come the concept) thought better of their legislatures than we do and know to do.

I think what Jim is referring to with DOMA is Obama's DOJ deciding to not defend it in court.
Now, if it's okay to use a rule now that you were against originally simply because it hasn't been sunsetted nor found unConstitutional, what, again, is your support of not defending DOMA? It hasn't been decided by the SCOTUS, thus it may still be determined to be Constitutional.

What is there to defend?  Marraiges are states rights, don't you know, what did you want him to do, sign one of those do nothing, lazy ass, shiftless, worthless, only for political fodder exec orders (hey, that's what you are telling me) or blowhole meaningless asswipe like Willard?  What is prescribed in that law with section 3 certainly headed for the rhubarb?  Hell he is filing that the fuckin whole shitoree is unconstitutional in his offices to preserve and protect that constitution, and insure that document is not corrupted.  That's a defense of it as well.  Same way he said the torture stops now.
Cuz he goddamn sure can't gallop into the states and start arresting the pansies in love of whatever gender....that would sling up his ass.
I think it is teabagging asswipe blowholing there, to say 'defend' DOMA,  stud.
Which one blows your dress up?


What is there to defend? Gee, I don't know. How about the law of the land? You are okay with the President using a piece of shit law that hasn't been ruled unConstitutional, sunsetted or repealed, but you don't think he should uphold a piece of shit law that hasn't been ruled unConstitutional, sunsetted or repealed.

All your gobbledygook claptrap isn't going to be able to save you on this one. And, lest you forgot, I believe DOMA to be unConstitutional. The only reason I want the DOJ to defend it is so it gets taken to the SCOTUS, where I do believe it will (and should) get wiped out. Until then, however, it is the law of the land that he took an oath to uphold and defend.



mnottertail -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (3/2/2013 7:13:33 AM)

quote:


You are okay with the President using a piece of shit law that hasn't been ruled unConstitutional, sunsetted or repealed, but you don't think he should uphold a piece of shit law that hasn't been ruled unConstitutional, sunsetted or repealed.


I understand that you dont understand much law, or constitution or anything much of anything.  Gobbletygook claptrap my ass.  Your felching some hysterical bullshit not withstanding, consider:

Preserve
Protect
Defend

Nothing in the constitution, his oath or the law says that he must go to court and argue that shitlickers ignorant laws are constitutional, in fact the very implication is that he can argue against shiteating law.   I believe he was goading the teabaggers into trying him on the War Powers Act, but they were smart enough not to bite.   That fuckin thing is prima facie unconstitutional right fuckin now.

(there are three words there for a reason, and they might have some minimal commerce with each other, but they have meanings, each different, grab up a dictionary, and get back to me when you get above a ignorant slobber) 

What piece of shit law was not ruled unconstitutional, because DOMA sure was, it is prima facie unconstitutional.


Oath of office for Congress: 
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Why aren't we shooting the teabaggers down in the streets, where are your fuckin crocidile tears now, where is your outrage, where is your flouncing around hysterically like a peri-menopausal drag queen over the teabagger felching? 



JeffBC -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (3/2/2013 7:33:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
You should study the law regarding due process.  You don't have any knowledge of it.

You know what? You're right. I don't have a fucking clue what that phrase might mean TO A LAWYER. Then again, I'm not sure I really care what it might mean to a lawyer since we all know that anything means anything to a lawyer. Here in my own little pea-brain though there is some expectation of open transparency... some reason to believe that I do not live or die by just one man's decision done in secret with no review and nobody's knowledge. Here in my own little pea-brain it means we don't do "disappearances" here in the US.

So yes, the supreme court has ruled that he hasn't violated the 5th and 6th amendments. Then again, they've also ruled that he hasn't violated the entire bill of rights which is patently absurd. This is the same court that thinks that wiretapping and recording the entire fucking internet doesn't violate the fourth amendment. I think we lost the government as a whole when we lost the supreme court.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (3/2/2013 7:39:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
quote:


You are okay with the President using a piece of shit law that hasn't been ruled unConstitutional, sunsetted or repealed, but you don't think he should uphold a piece of shit law that hasn't been ruled unConstitutional, sunsetted or repealed.

I understand that you dont understand much law, or constitution or anything much of anything.  Gobbletygook claptrap my ass.  Your felching some hysterical bullshit not withstanding, consider:
Preserve
Protect
Defend
Nothing in the constitution, his oath or the law says that he must go to court and argue that shitlickers ignorant laws are constitutional, in fact the very implication is that he can argue against shiteating law.   I believe he was goading the teabaggers into trying him on the War Powers Act, but they were smart enough not to bite.   That fuckin thing is prima facie unconstitutional right fuckin now.
(there are three words there for a reason, and they might have some minimal commerce with each other, but they have meanings, each different, grab up a dictionary, and get back to me when you get above a ignorant slobber) 
What piece of shit law was not ruled unconstitutional, because DOMA sure was, it is prima facie unconstitutional.
Oath of office for Congress: 
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Why aren't we shooting the teabaggers down in the streets, where are your fuckin crocidile tears now, where is your outrage, where is your flouncing around hysterically like a peri-menopausal drag queen over the teabagger felching? 


Defend doesn't mean defend the Laws of the Land, now?

Who passed DOMA? Is passing unConstitutional legislation illegal?

My point, which you are pretty much ignoring, is that we need to get DOMA off the books. If it isn't taken to the Supreme Robes and ruled unConstitutional, it isn't off the books, is it?



mnottertail -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (3/2/2013 7:41:25 AM)

my pea-brain might just agree with your pea-brain about that.

But there has never been due process for people who war against us.

(and don't shit yourself, if we didn't want nazis like Werner Von Braun and so forth for our own purposes, there wouldn't have been a Nuremburg trial for the others, and I don't think that there was no way the hangings could have went either way)



mnottertail -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (3/2/2013 7:44:16 AM)

quote:


Defend doesn't mean defend the Laws of the Land, now?


Not in the convoluted but simpletonian way you are trying to shoehorn in here. 


quote:


Who passed DOMA? Is passing unConstitutional legislation illegal?


Teabaggers, lets kill them. Clearly treason. That's defending the constitution, hah?



DesideriScuri -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (3/2/2013 7:48:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
quote:


Defend doesn't mean defend the Laws of the Land, now?

Not in the convoluted but simpletonian way you are trying to shoehorn in here. 
quote:

Who passed DOMA? Is passing unConstitutional legislation illegal?

Teabaggers, lets kill them. Clearly treason. That's defending the constitution, hah?


William Jefferson Clinton was a teabagger?!?



JeffBC -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (3/2/2013 7:52:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
But there has never been due process for people who war against us.

Sure... so the cool move nowadays is to declare a war on an idea and then make the entire globe into potential enemy combatants. In the olden days nobody would have thought I was "at war against the US" because.. you know.. the best weapon I own is some steak knives and the last time I've been to DC was 20 years ago for business. In any sane mindset I am not at war with anyone.

Nowadays, supporting occupy makes you a "low level terrorist".



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875