obama's law ruled Americans can be indefinitely detain

[JakeStarkey]

After reading you, Paulitician, here for a while, I am convinced that Big Brother does know best for you and bigrebnc, if not for me and most of the others here.

 

[Liability]

Hey. Bigreb:

Believe it or not, I do see the point you are trying to make.

And while lots of academic types and policy wonks and the always rattled fringe conspiracy theorists agree with your analysis, I still don't buy it.

Nonetheless, there is certainly reason for some concern, ESPECIALLY since it would have been such a simple matter to DRAFT the law so that the SAME explicit exclusion of applicability to Americans that appears in §1032 COULD have been included IN §1031.

I just don't believe that any court of law would end up reading that law (both sections included and both right next to each other) in the manner you are suggesting. That is not how statutes are normally construed by Courts.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hey. Bigreb:

Believe it or not, I do see the point you are trying to make.

And while lots of academic types and policy wonks and the always rattled fringe conspiracy theorists agree with your analysis, I still don't buy it.

Nonetheless, there is certainly reason for some concern, ESPECIALLY since it would have been such a simple matter to DRAFT the law so that the SAME explicit exclusion of applicability to Americans that appears in §1032 COULD have been included IN §1031.

I just don't believe that any court of law would end up reading that law (both sections included and both right next to each other) in the manner you are suggesting. That is not how statutes are normally construed by Courts.

OK we have the suit to stay the indefinite detention of American citizens
We have a signing statement from obama saying he would not use it against American citizens.
Do you trust obama?

 

[Liability]

Hey. Bigreb:

Believe it or not, I do see the point you are trying to make.

And while lots of academic types and policy wonks and the always rattled fringe conspiracy theorists agree with your analysis, I still don't buy it.

Nonetheless, there is certainly reason for some concern, ESPECIALLY since it would have been such a simple matter to DRAFT the law so that the SAME explicit exclusion of applicability to Americans that appears in §1032 COULD have been included IN §1031.

I just don't believe that any court of law would end up reading that law (both sections included and both right next to each other) in the manner you are suggesting. That is not how statutes are normally construed by Courts.

OK we have the suit to stay the indefinite detention of American citizens
We have a signing statement from obama saying he would not use it against American citizens.
Do you trust obama?

I wouldn't trust President Obama with a crayon.

But that's not the point.

If he SAYS one thing but then, someday, chooses to DO another, that only means that HE lacks integrity. Color me unsurprised.

But, the point is, statutory construction by the Courts is not governed by a Presidential signing statement.

 

[paulitician]

Just goes to show you, Big Brother Boot-Lickers come in all shapes & sizes. Both Parties are all-in on that whole Big Brother Goose Stepping thing. The NDAA proves that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I understand you have an opinion. But you don't support it with evidence and documentation that is reputable.

Just goes to show you, Big Brother Boot-Lickers come in all shapes & sizes. Both Parties are all-in on that whole Big Brother Goose Stepping thing. The NDAA proves that.

 

[paulitician]

I understand you have an opinion. But you don't support it with evidence and documentation that is reputable.

Just goes to show you, Big Brother Boot-Lickers come in all shapes & sizes. Both Parties are all-in on that whole Big Brother Goose Stepping thing. The NDAA proves that.

Feel better? Now back to your Goose Stepping. Enjoy.

 

[Liability]

Just goes to show you, Big Brother Boot-Lickers come in all shapes & sizes. Both Parties are all-in on that whole Big Brother Goose Stepping thing. The NDAA proves that.

Disagreeing with your stupid notions is not the same as Big Brother boot-licking.

The NDAA only proves only that some folks with sense recognize that the Constitution is still not a suicide pact.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You don't have anything other than your feelings.

Jeez, go be a liberal then.

I understand you have an opinion. But you don't support it with evidence and documentation that is reputable.

Just goes to show you, Big Brother Boot-Lickers come in all shapes & sizes. Both Parties are all-in on that whole Big Brother Goose Stepping thing. The NDAA proves that.

Feel better? Now back to your Goose Stepping. Enjoy.

 

[paulitician]

Just goes to show you, Big Brother Boot-Lickers come in all shapes & sizes. Both Parties are all-in on that whole Big Brother Goose Stepping thing. The NDAA proves that.

Disagreeing with your stupid notions is not the same as Big Brother boot-licking.

The NDAA only proves only that some folks with sense recognize that the Constitution is still not a suicide pact.

Yeah Yeah, HEIL BIG BROTHER and all that shite. Whatever. Not interested in wasting anymore time on you loyal Boot-Lickers. Most of you can't be helped. You're far too gone.

 

[Liability]

Just goes to show you, Big Brother Boot-Lickers come in all shapes & sizes. Both Parties are all-in on that whole Big Brother Goose Stepping thing. The NDAA proves that.

Disagreeing with your stupid notions is not the same as Big Brother boot-licking.

The NDAA only proves only that some folks with sense recognize that the Constitution is still not a suicide pact.

Yeah Yeah, HEIL BIG BROTHER and all that shite. Whatever. Not interested in wasting anymore time on you loyal Boot-Lickers. Most of you can't be helped. You're far too gone.

Godwin himself laughs at assclown pussies like you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sigh. Libertarians are all about feelings not facts.

Just goes to show you, Big Brother Boot-Lickers come in all shapes & sizes. Both Parties are all-in on that whole Big Brother Goose Stepping thing. The NDAA proves that.

Disagreeing with your stupid notions is not the same as Big Brother boot-licking.

The NDAA only proves only that some folks with sense recognize that the Constitution is still not a suicide pact.

Yeah Yeah, HEIL BIG BROTHER and all that shite. Whatever. Not interested in wasting anymore time on you loyal Boot-Lickers. Most of you can't be helped. You're far too gone.

 

[Liability]

Sigh. Libertarians are all about feelings not facts.

Disagreeing with your stupid notions is not the same as Big Brother boot-licking.

The NDAA only proves only that some folks with sense recognize that the Constitution is still not a suicide pact.

Yeah Yeah, HEIL BIG BROTHER and all that shite. Whatever. Not interested in wasting anymore time on you loyal Boot-Lickers. Most of you can't be helped. You're far too gone.

Not all libertarians. Poorlytishan is just a bad example of Libertarians.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hey. Bigreb:

Believe it or not, I do see the point you are trying to make.

And while lots of academic types and policy wonks and the always rattled fringe conspiracy theorists agree with your analysis, I still don't buy it.

Nonetheless, there is certainly reason for some concern, ESPECIALLY since it would have been such a simple matter to DRAFT the law so that the SAME explicit exclusion of applicability to Americans that appears in §1032 COULD have been included IN §1031.

I just don't believe that any court of law would end up reading that law (both sections included and both right next to each other) in the manner you are suggesting. That is not how statutes are normally construed by Courts.

OK we have the suit to stay the indefinite detention of American citizens
We have a signing statement from obama saying he would not use it against American citizens.
Do you trust obama?

I wouldn't trust President Obama with a crayon.

But that's not the point.

If he SAYS one thing but then, someday, chooses to DO another, that only means that HE lacks integrity. Color me unsurprised.

But, the point is, statutory construction by the Courts is not governed by a Presidential signing statement.

But he did make the signing statement and we do have a court challenge over the indefinite detention of American citizens.