Bachmann: Senate Tax Bill Unconstitutional...

[LibocalypseNow]

Interesting clip on Bachmann's take on the recent Tax Bill...

Breitbart.tv Bachmann: Senate Tax Bill Unconstitutional

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I like Bachmann. She makes some very valid points. Good to see a politician who actually still cares about our Constitution.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Article 1 Section 7 states "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

If Bachmann feels the Constitution is being violated then she should bring a legal challenge if the bill gets passed.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Article 1 Section 7 states "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

If Bachmann feels the Constitution is being violated then she should bring a legal challenge if the bill gets passed.

Interesting. Would she take it that far? Hmm?

 

[QUENTIN]

Bachmann supports teaching religious doctrine in public schools and opposes equal protection under the law for same-sex couples as well as opposing the right to due process and trial by jury for the hundreds of people detained by the government based on suspicion of terrorism. In other words she has little actual concern for or perhaps even understanding of the Constitution.

She may have a valid point here and good for her I suppose, but posing as though she's against any bills or laws that are unconstitutional is just that: posing.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Bachmann supports teaching religious doctrine in public schools and opposes equal protection under the law for same-sex couples as well as opposing the right to due process and trial by jury for the hundreds of people detained by the government based on suspicion of terrorism. In other words she has little actual concern for or perhaps even understanding of the Constitution.

She may have a valid point here and good for her I suppose, but posing as though she's against any bills or laws that are unconstitutional is just that: posing.

Hey i just think it's refreshing to see a politician who still actually discusses the Constitution. I'll take what i can get at this point.

 

[Stephanie]

well well, you mean to tell us the Democrats-Progressives-Commies tried to pull a fast one on the American people.

tsk tsk

 

[LibocalypseNow]

well well, you mean to tell us the Democrats-Progressives-Commies tried to pull a fast one on the American people.

tsk tsk

They've made a habit out of doing things like this. So i'm not surprised. The Democrats have truly earned their all-tme low 13% Approval Rating.

 

[code1211]

Bachmann supports teaching religious doctrine in public schools and opposes equal protection under the law for same-sex couples as well as opposing the right to due process and trial by jury for the hundreds of people detained by the government based on suspicion of terrorism. In other words she has little actual concern for or perhaps even understanding of the Constitution.

She may have a valid point here and good for her I suppose, but posing as though she's against any bills or laws that are unconstitutional is just that: posing.

Due process for non-citizen enemies of the state? Where is that guarentee in the Constitution? Is it also a Constitutional Guarentee that people that have never been to the USA and have no interest in ever coming to the USA who are in a legal process in a different country working under the laws of a different country and with the legal system of that country that they be accorded due process in the courts of the USA?

If that's the case, we have some invading to do.

Can you provide links to the actual quotes that say EXACTLY what you claim she has said?

 

[Common Sense]

Bachmann supports teaching religious doctrine in public schools and opposes equal protection under the law for same-sex couples as well as opposing the right to due process and trial by jury for the hundreds of people detained by the government based on suspicion of terrorism. In other words she has little actual concern for or perhaps even understanding of the Constitution.

She may have a valid point here and good for her I suppose, but posing as though she's against any bills or laws that are unconstitutional is just that: posing.

Due process for non-citizen enemies of the state? Where is that guarentee in the Constitution? Is it also a Constitutional Guarentee that people that have never been to the USA and have no interest in ever coming to the USA who are in a legal process in a different country working under the laws of a different country and with the legal system of that country that they be accorded due process in the courts of the USA?

If that's the case, we have some invading to do.

Can you provide links to the actual quotes that say EXACTLY what you claim she has said?

i believe it came down to a moral and human rights issue. many of our allies across the world were condemning the fact that we werent affording these people a trial or any legal rights. now whether you agree with that or not is definitely open to debate.

but America has alway be one to try and take the high road, and after many of the bush policies (ie water boarding, invading iraq), that alienated us from many of our international allies, Obama wanted to make a change and bring many of them back to the table.

its one of those, we shouldnt stoop to their level kinda things.

 

[jillian]

Bachmann supports teaching religious doctrine in public schools and opposes equal protection under the law for same-sex couples as well as opposing the right to due process and trial by jury for the hundreds of people detained by the government based on suspicion of terrorism. In other words she has little actual concern for or perhaps even understanding of the Constitution.

She may have a valid point here and good for her I suppose, but posing as though she's against any bills or laws that are unconstitutional is just that: posing.

Hey i just think it's refreshing to see a politician who still actually discusses the Constitution. I'll take what i can get at this point.

there's nothing 'refreshing' about someone who lies about the constitution while supporting it's violation persistently.

it's really easy to use buzz words like "its unconstitutional" or "the constitution say/requires". What's difficult is having an understanding about what it says.

 

[QUENTIN]

Bachmann supports teaching religious doctrine in public schools and opposes equal protection under the law for same-sex couples as well as opposing the right to due process and trial by jury for the hundreds of people detained by the government based on suspicion of terrorism. In other words she has little actual concern for or perhaps even understanding of the Constitution.

She may have a valid point here and good for her I suppose, but posing as though she's against any bills or laws that are unconstitutional is just that: posing.

Due process for non-citizen enemies of the state? Where is that guarentee in the Constitution? Is it also a Constitutional Guarentee that people that have never been to the USA and have no interest in ever coming to the USA who are in a legal process in a different country working under the laws of a different country and with the legal system of that country that they be accorded due process in the courts of the USA?

If that's the case, we have some invading to do.

Can you provide links to the actual quotes that say EXACTLY what you claim she has said?

Detainees the government claims to be terrorists are afforded Constitutional rights when the U.S. government takes them into custody, whether this is practiced or not, it's what the Constitution explicitly demands. The Constitution does not only apply to citizens, and it's a retardmeme that that's the case.

To see how false this notion is that the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens, one need do nothing more than read the Bill of Rights. It says nothing about "citizens." To the contrary, many of the provisions are simply restrictions on what the Government is permitted to do ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . or abridging the freedom of speech"; "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner"). And where rights are expressly vested, they are pointedly not vested in "citizens," but rather in "persons" or "the accused" ("No person shall . . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"; "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . . and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense").

The only way to argue that these rights apply only to Americans is to argue that only Americans, but not foreigners, are "persons." Once one makes that claim, then one is in Dred Scott territory. If foreigners are not "persons," then what are they: sub-persons? Non-persons? Untermenschen?

There are, of course, certain Constitutional rights that are clearly reserved only for citizens -- such as the right to vote or to hold elective office -- but when that is the case, the Constitution explicitly states that to be so ("The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States . . . ."). Indeed, the Fourteenth Amendment, in the very same clause, demonstrates the distinction between "citizens" (which only includes "Americans") and "persons" (which includes everyone), and proves that the former is merely a specific subset of the latter:

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, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Article II, Section 1 -- in defining eligibility to be President -- makes the same distinction:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;

"Persons" and "citizens" have entirely different meanings in the Constitution. There are a handful of instances in which the Constitution applies only to American citizens. When that is the case, the Constitution explicitly uses the word "citizens." In all other instances, it simply restricts what the Government is permitted to do generally or uses the much broader term "persons" to describe who holds the rights it guarantees. That's the obvious point the Yick Wo Court made in 1886 in holding "these provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction," and it ought to prevent the most minimally honest individuals among us from claiming otherwise.

The standard rhetorical formulation being used -- "extending rights to foreign Terrorists which the Constitution reserves for U.S. citizens" -- suggests that Constitutional rights are for American citizens only. That is blatantly false, and anyone making that claim is either extremely ignorant or extremely dishonest.

If they are being tried in a foreign country by a foreign government then that country's laws apply and not ours, as is the case the world over and as applies to American citizens tried in foreign courts, but that's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about people in US custody, in Gitmo, Whitehorse detainment facility, Bagram internment facility, U.S. federal prisons and other American facilities under American jurisdiction.

Once any person comes under U.S. custody, U.S. Constitutional rights are necessarily afforded to them, the Constitution makes that explicit.

If the government wants to make the claim that these non-state actors without uniform or military are soldiers, and successfully makes that claim (it has failed to in the courts), then the detainees must be held as POWs and afforded military trials and the application of the rights of the Geneva Convention.

There is no third option for detainees in US custody getting no rights and no trials, not a Constitutional and legal one anyway.

This is especially true of people who commit crimes on U.S. soil such as the alleged 9/11 conspirators who were to be tried in federal court that Bachman railed against:

Michele Bachmann Weighs In on 9/11 Trials | The Washington Independent

“The decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City and give him all the benefits and perks reserved for American citizens is a slap in the face of the 9/11 victim’s families, the American people, and the men and women who risk their lives to defend our liberties each and every day,” said Bachmann in a statement released after the press conference.

Curiously, many of those protesting the accused terrorists’ trial in federal court repeatedly refer to a federal court trial and its attendant due process rights as being “reserved for U.S. citizens.” At a rally last weekend in New York City, for example, protesters and speakers repeatedly objected that the 9/11 defendants were being given “the same rights as U.S. citizens.”

In fact, the “right” to be prosecuted in a U.S. federal court has never been “reserved” for U.S. citizens at all. It’s historically been a “right” accorded to anyone who commits a crime on U.S. soil. Thus everyone from a U.S.-born citizen to an illegal alien who commits a federal crime in the United States gets tried in federal court. Although the government has just recently created special military commissions to try some crimes against U.S. military targets abroad, we don’t normally create new courts or legal systems to try non-citizens who commit mass murder, mail fraud, or any other crimes that might land them in federal court.

“If President Obama admits that we are a nation at war, then we should act like one,” continued Bachmann in her statement. “Justice for the 9/11 attackers should be swift and conclusive, something that won’t be done when KSM exploits the abundant appeals and legal loopholes he has been inexplicably awarded as a foreign combatant,” said Bachmann.

This isn't some esoteric, unknown fact. There are 195 cases of foreign nationals accused of terrorism-related charges tried in US Courts just since September 11, 2001. 91% of them have been found guilty, and of the remaining 9%, many were found guilty of other charges in subsequent trials and sent to prison. Those convicted of charges tied to terrorism go to Florence ADX, a supermaximum security prison from which no one has ever escaped.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pdf/...-09-update.pdf

So yes, the Constitution affords due process to non-citizen non-soldier enemies of the state held by the U.S. and Bachman has vocally opposed that, in effect opposing the mandates of the Constitution itself.