Your Constitution.

[Hobbit]

Ok, I have given you dozens of everyday examples of people who have their Constitutional rights revoked by due process of law, all under the authority of the federal government. What would quantify proof for you. Should I hold a seance and channel all the founding fathers to talk to you? Maybe I can bring in a team of law school teachers to explain it to you. Please tell me what would qualify as proof.

The "due process" clause is built into nearly every ammendment. There's also the fact that sometimes there are conflicting rights, and the court must decide whose is more important.

Freedom of religion - If your religion calls for human sacrifice, whose rights are more important? The sacrificer, who claims freedom of religion, or the sacrifice, who just wants to live out his/her life?

Freedom of the press - Which is more important, the freedom of a newspaper to discuss classified information or the freedom of the U.S. military to launch covert operations to save soldiers' lives?

Freedom of speech - Which is more important, the freedom of somebody to say 'kill him' or the freedom of 'him' to live?

Freedom of assembly - Which is more important, the rights of people to assemble, or the right of a property owner to control the occupation of his property?

Freedom to petition - Which is more important, the rights of people to petition, or the right for somebody to be allowed peace in their own homes without being harassed by petitioners?

Right to bear arms - Which is more important, the right of a convicted murderer to own a gun, or the rights of the people he will live near when he is parolled.

Protection against quartering - Which is more important, the rights of property owners to keep the government out of their house, or the rights of soldiers during times of war to not freeze to death? The end ever says "...but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Protection from search and seziures - What do you think warrents are for?

Ammendment 5 - "...without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Under this ammendment falls liberty, which it clearly states as revokable through due process. Constitutional rights all fall under liberty.

Need I continue, or is this enough?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Hobbit
Ok, I have given you dozens of everyday examples of people who have their Constitutional rights revoked by due process of law, all under the authority of the federal government. What would quantify proof for you. Should I hold a seance and channel all the founding fathers to talk to you? Maybe I can bring in a team of law school teachers to explain it to you. Please tell me what would qualify as proof.

For the 3rd time, Constitutional reference to how the Constitution its self may be superceeded or countered.

Anything else is illegal. Therefore, every example is a clear example of illegal practice and all who follow that illegal practice need to be jailed.

All who promote it such as judges, should be, according to our Constitution, impeached.

-Not my rules, this is the highest law in the land you are arguing with.

 

[Hobbit]

Look at my post above, especially the part about the fifth ammendment having a clause about denying people life, liberty, and property as long as there is due process. If this wasn't the case, the Constitution would protect criminals from going to jail, since freedom is a basic, human right. Are you honestly saying that you'd feel comfortable with felons owning guns, reporters giving away secrets involving national security, and wacky cults sacrificing innocent people? Probably not, and neither did our founding fathers, thus the fifth ammendment.

 

[NewGuy]

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, 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; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Look at the first part. It refers to when a person is answering for their crimes: in other words, time of trial and punishment. Let us look at the one before it.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This refers to police activity BEFORE an arrest or trial.

Now that we have a sequence of 4 being before, and 5 being during, lets see if there is instruction for AFTER trial.

Amendment VI

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, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Notice the sequence....6 and 8 talk about up until sentencing. There is a chronological sequence. They spell it all out. The depriving of life and liberty ONLY refer to the sentencing of an individual from time of arrest through jail time. There is NO REFERENCE to anything after. In fact take a look at the next one:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Which kind of slaps your hand for making the claim you just did.

 

[kcmcdonald]

First off the Prohabition ban in the constitution banned some peoples right to happiness. It was revoked but still applied. The constitutionnis a right given to citizens of the US. If you have no citizen ship you have no rights. A fellon loses citizen ship so he has no rights, ie the right to bear arms and the right to vote. Also the court sytem, wich was putin the constitution to "INTERPERT" the constitution has said that certain circumstances wave a citizens right to the constitution. As stated above 1st amendement exemptions. you can't harm others with your speach, and you cant threaten violence with your speach. exemptions, these forms of speach are not protected by the constitution. You may not think this is right but the "Supreum court"
Article 3, section 2
The judical power shall extend to all cases in law and equality, arising under this constitution, the laws of the united states

The supreum court decides wether a law or a act is constitutional. That is there job, so if the right to incite viloence on others was rulled unconstitutional by the "supreum court" it is unconstitutional!!!!

The constitution is a living document, it is up to iterpitations and applications to new and old law. These interpitations are done by the courts, that is the main reason why htey are there.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by kcmcdonald
First off the Prohabition ban in the constitution banned some peoples right to happiness. It was revoked but still applied. The constitutionnis a right given to citizens of the US. If you have no citizen ship you have no rights.

WAAYYYY wrong answer. It is the document by which all others are subservient, not a right.

A fellon loses citizen ship so he has no rights, ie the right to bear arms and the right to vote.

By the Constitutions own admission, already quoted above (article 9) and other references, that is a physical impossibility.

Also the court sytem, wich was putin the constitution to "INTERPERT" the constitution

FALSE. They are there to dtermine wether a law follows the Constitution, not the other way around. -Juries determine wether the law should be applied to people based on guilt/innocence, and wether or not the law should be revoked. Don't guess at what the intent is, know for a fact.

has said that certain circumstances wave a citizens right to the constitution.

If it isn't square with the Constitution, I don't care WHAT they said. They need to be impeached.

As stated above 1st amendement exemptions. you can't harm others with your speach, and you cant threaten violence with your speach. exemptions, these forms of speach are not protected by the constitution. You may not think this is right but the "Supreum court"
Article 3, section 2
The judical power shall extend to all cases in law and equality, arising under this constitution, the laws of the united states

Since the court then is acting unConstitutional, I refer you here:

Article 2:
Section. 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Where you can clearly see these judges need to be removed.

The supreum court decides wether a law or a act is constitutional. That is there job, so if the right to incite viloence on others was rulled unconstitutional by the "supreum court" it is unconstitutional!!!!

Wrong, see above.

The constitution is a living document, it is up to iterpitations and applications to new and old law. These interpitations are done by the courts, that is the main reason why htey are there. [/B]

Wrong. The only thing "living" is that ammendments may be added. The document CLEARLY states anything unConstitutional is to be ignored and repealed. Interpreting it, or countering it calling it a living doc, is counter to that exact point.

 

[BobbyO]

Originally posted by BONDI BOY
Oh realy. The K.K.K. have also killed many Americans, yet they are still able to exercise there constitutional rights. They continue to spurt out ignorant and harmfull propaganda.
Or is there rubish o.k.

Because Iraqi are not protected by the US Constitution.

 

[kcmcdonald]

OK, so you say that the letter of the constitution is the letter of the Law. There is no Grey, what the document says is what is legal. Great but it isn't like that. Mabey for you Constittuionalists it's agreat plan, it's easier to pass a law and determine it's constitutionality than to amend the constittuion.

The Judges determine wehter a Law is a violation of the constitution or wether the law is legal under the constitution. Read the paper man, jes. Roe v Wade, legal under the constitution. Brown v Board, illegal under the constitution. The judges interpet the law.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by kcmcdonald
OK, so you say that the letter of the constitution is the letter of the Law. There is no Grey, what the document says is what is legal. Great but it isn't like that.

I think you mean that it is true and accurate but that isn't the way people tend to do things.

That doesn't change the law. They are in violation.

Mabey for you Constittuionalists it's agreat plan, it's easier to pass a law and determine it's constitutionality than to amend the constittuion.

Correct. If the law is unConstitutional, it should be repealed.

The Judges determine wehter a Law is a violation of the constitution or wether the law is legal under the constitution. Read the paper man, jes. Roe v Wade, legal under the constitution. Brown v Board, illegal under the constitution. The judges interpet the law.

As stated before, they should then be impeached.

 

[spillmind]

One of the great rights of the U.S. constitution is your freedom of speach clause. So if the main purpose of the ocupation is to bring about a free and democratic society in Iraq then why has the U.S. banned the al-Hawza newspaper, isnt this aplying double standards and setting a bad example of democracy for the people of Iraq.

censorship is alive and well in the USA! not only can we not see the bodies coming home, but damned clinton deregulated the media industry and now CLEAR CHANNEL controls virtually all of the media we hear! you want news, you gotta go overseas to their news channels to find it!

after those horrid attacks on the contractors last week, i looked up and down on cnn, yahoo, and HAHAHAH faux news. i even checked jim's fav BIPARTISAN websites, newsmax and drudgereport it wasn't until it was old news to the rest of the world were these images made public on the virgin eyes of the ignorant american masses. this is type of news coverage is PLANNED, and no accident. and it's to keep the americans stupid and in fear, and to keep support for the war going.

while i'll be the first to say that our current system, however flawed is STILL THE BEST IN THE WORLD!

... but it is incredibly flawed. the fact that those two paid off corrupt puppets are running for pres. off of millions 'donated' to their campaigns, so that the donors can get 'kickbacks' for their money while their puppet is in office. rest assured, these 'favors' are not retuned in the interest of the common american. but they'll take our tax dollars to make it happen!!! just talking about this makes me sick.

we can go into our global capitalism model that embraces keeping third world countries in poverty while cutting deals with their militaries (that SLAUGHTER their own people too!) (ALGERIA, ANYONE???!!!) so that we can EXTORT the natural resources there. democracy??!! maybe once upon a time! not sure what we call our system these days. rememeber our last election? what a mockery of our 'democracy' that was!!!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
after those horrid attacks on the contractors last week, i looked up and down on cnn, yahoo, and HAHAHAH faux news. i even checked jim's fav BIPARTISAN websites, newsmax and drudgereport it wasn't until it was old news to the rest of the world were these images made public on the virgin eyes of the ignorant american masses.

Wrong!

I found the pictures on Drudgereport just a few short hours after they were released. And guess where the pictures were actually linked to from Drudge? That's right, yahoo!

Graphic pictures were on the covers of many newspapers around the country the very next day, including 2 in my homes state of NY.

Just because the US media has a bit of decency doesn't mean the entire matter was under censorship. The pictures were EASILY accessible to US citizens that really had a desire to see them. There's absolutely nothing to benefit from plastering them all over the TV sets.

Maybe you're confused because they weren't on moveon.org or conspiracy-theories.net?

 

[BONDI BOY]

Originally posted by OCA
There is no freedom of speech in a combat zone period! End of story

What combat zone, the war is over G.W. Bush told me while he was in his fancy dress on a pleasure cruise.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by BONDI BOY
What combat zone, the war is over G.W. Bush told me while he was in his fancy dress on a pleasure cruise.

Do you know what a 'battle zone' is, knucklehead? There are people dying almost daily from all sides in Iraq. Nonetheless, the US constitution doesn't apply to foreign lands anyway.

 

[William Joyce]

http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2004-04/03/article09.shtml

No free speech when it comes to Jews. Who are the ones who sent us to Iraq in the first place, if anyone's keeping score.

 

[BONDI BOY]

Originally posted by BobbyO
Because Iraqi are not protected by the US Constitution.

I know! but the purpose of the occupation is to install a democracy [based around the U.S. system, the best in the world] not a dictatorship.


CAN SOMEONE SHOW ME AN EXAMPLE OF al-Hawza's EXACT REFERENCE TO KILL AMERICANS.
THE OCCUUPATIONAL FORCES PRESS RELEASE ONLY STATED THAT THIS PAPER WAS INCITING TROUBLE. THIS WAS ONLY THERE INTERPRITATION. THE ACTION OF GAGGING THE PAPER HAS CAUSED FAR MORE TROUBLE THAN THE PAPER EVER COULD HAVE WHILE STILL IN CIRCULATION.

 

[BONDI BOY]

Originally posted by spillmind
censorship is alive and well in the USA! not only can we not see the bodies coming home, but damned clinton deregulated the media industry and now CLEAR CHANNEL controls virtually all of the media we hear! you want news, you gotta go overseas to their news channels to find it!

DEAR AMERICA.
Sorry about giving you RUPERT MURDOCK he probably represents the most unreliable media you have.
LOVE FROM AUSTRALIA.

 

[BONDI BOY]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Do you know what a 'battle zone' is, knucklehead?
Hi jim hows the weather in nyc.

Exactly! 'battle zone' these are part of a war are they not. If so some one should tell G.W.its not over.


P.S. Funny you should mention knucklehead I have a t-shirt and on the front is a clenched fist with a face painted on it with the caption under it reading KNUCKLEHEAD! Maybe your right about me. Iwill wear it for you before I log on.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by BONDI BOY
What combat zone, the war is over G.W. Bush told me while he was in his fancy dress on a pleasure cruise.

Post a link on an exact quote of the President declaring "the war is over".

 

[preemptingyou03]

I believe Bush said major combat operations were over. And they are.

And also believe he stated, right after that, "now we're involved in reconstructing their country." And he stated it wouldn't be easy.

Pleasure cruise? You mean the USS Lincoln, the longest deployment in American history? (Afghanistan and Iraq). Bush landing on that aircraft will go down as one of the best "presidential moments," right there with him flying into Baghdad on Thanksgiving and him at Ground Zero giving the bullhorn speech.

 

[BONDI BOY]

Originally posted by preemptingyou03
I believe Bush said major combat operations were over. And they are.

And also believe he stated, right after that, "now we're involved in reconstructing their country." And he stated it wouldn't be easy.

Pleasure cruise? You mean the USS Lincoln, the longest deployment in American history? (Afghanistan and Iraq). Bush landing on that aircraft will go down as one of the best "presidential moments," right there with him flying into Baghdad on Thanksgiving and him at Ground Zero giving the bullhorn speech.

Why do Americans either adore or despise there politicians?
In all other democratic societies we respect the ones that earn it and get rid of the ones that don't. But they are all taken with a 'grain of salt' because lets face it there politicians.