John Kerry Must Go

[Jet]

Do you have a link to a credible source on the Patriot Act? Because I was under the impression that they didn't read it because they didn't really care as long as the administration expected them to blindly vote for it.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Jet, If you're talking about executive orders, then as has been said on this forum at least once, there are two different bodies that can overrule executive orders, namely Congress and the Supreme Court.

Did you know that there has been a continuous state of emergency since 1933? You did not answer my previous question.

What don't you understand about the State of Emergency?

If you haven't investigated I suggest you start right here:
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?tit...y&printable=yes
An excerpt: "When Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution..."

One of the best researchers on this topic is Dr. Eugene Schroder
Except quote from: http://buffalo-creek-press.com/war4.htm

"Dr. Eugene Schroder is a founder of the American Agriculture Movement, best remembered for its tractorcade to Washington D.C. As a doctor of veterinary medicine and farmer in Campo, Colorado, he questioned why he and other farmers had to ask government agencies what they could plant, how much they could plant, and what they would be paid for their products. Each year farmers went deeper into debt until finally many lost their farms.

Five years ago he and other researchers uncovered the use of emergency powers as a way to set aside the constitution. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, a curse to farmers for so many years, was a key piece of legislation in these emergency powers, for it took the power to coin and regulate money away from congress (as provided in the Constitution) and gave it to the president.

The results of his extensive research are contained in the books Constitution: Fact or Fiction (1995), War, Central Planning and Emergencies, (just released), and the upcoming Free Our Children.

Dr. Schroder graduated from Colorado State University in 1971 with a doctorate in veterinary medicine."

This question has many ramifications, not the least of which is the legitimacy of the government in Washington, DC.

If the Constitution, arguably the basis for government rule over the people, is rendered inoperative, what is left? Men with guns, taking your money!

[Jet]

What don't you understand about the State of Emergency?

You know, it's a little hard to ask what I *don't* understand...

Some of the New Deal's programs were ruled as unconstitutional. Others were not. It doesn't make the constitution inoperative; it makes its interpretation different from prior to the Wall Street Crash.

[VXerick]

Originally posted by roxdog,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (roxdog,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Congress wasn't even allowed to READ the patriot act before they were intimidated into voting for it. They are WAY out of the loop at this point.[/b]

Congress never reads the bills brought up for vote. That's why they have such big office staffs. The help reads the bills and writes a synopsis for the congressman to give him a rough idea what it's all about. And I'm sure there are a lot of bills some congressman never read anything about. There office staff says this one sounds up your alley, so he goes in and gives his yes vote or vice versa. Congressmen are notoriously ignorant. They think their job is to act like the bigshot and stay electable, so they can continue to fool most of the people, all of the time. I know there are exceptions. Even though he plagarized in his time, Joe Biden is one of my favorite Senators to listen to in an interview. He's sharp and knows his answers. There are others just as lucid. But on the other hand. there are the Robert Byrds and Ted Kennedys. :)
<!--QuoteBegin-Cadre,
And go read The Franklin Coverup. You will learn that politicians are usually COMPLETELY partisan, marginalized and eventually "discredited" or they are blackmailed or compromised in such a way that they are powerless to make changes or influence government.[/quote] I don't remember reading about the Franklin coverup. But I already know that politicians are usually partisan, even the so-called Independents. The problem with politicans who want to remain truthful and beholden to their constituents, is that once they are elected, they find out that the only power comes with committee posts and that if they don't follow the rules of conduct according to congress, their chances of getting a decent post is about nil. And those posts are where the pork comes from to help finance the continual running for office that politicans are bound to.

[VXerick]

Originally posted by Jet, If you're talking about executive orders, then as has been said on this forum at least once, there are two different bodies that can overrule executive orders, namely Congress and the Supreme Court.

Congress and the Supreme Court..... politicians. Depending upon the makeup of Congress and/or the Court, an EO can be quite effective. How many of Clinton's 11th hour EO's were overturned? Bush has used them to get some of his stalled judical nominees into courts. I suppose he could pardon Moussoui or anyone else he wants to set loose on us, at his 11th hour.

[Jet]

How many of Clinton's 11th hour EO's were overturned?

Bush overturned almost all; Clinton in fact made them so that Bush would overturn them and look like an asshole to liberals.

I suppose he could pardon Moussoui or anyone else he wants to set loose on us, at his 11th hour.

This power is clearly spelled in the constitution.

Congress and the Supreme Court..... politicians.

So what's the difference between a law and an EO?

[dotcoma]

Originally posted by Jet, Do you have a link to a credible source on the Patriot Act? Because I was under the impression that they didn't read it because they didn't really care as long as the administration expected them to blindly vote for it.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...29/185914.shtml
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include...&storyid=143236

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by roxdog,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (roxdog,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Jet, Do you have a link to a credible source on the Patriot Act? Because I was under the impression that they didn't read it because they didn't really care as long as the administration expected them to blindly vote for it.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...29/185914.shtml
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include...&storyid=143236[/b][/quote]
On the "PATRIOT Act", from the Insight article:[quote] If the United States is at war against terrorism to preserve freedom, a new coalition of conservatives and liberals is asking, why is it doing so by wholesale abrogation of civil liberties?
snip
Critics both left and right are saying it not only strips Americans of fundamental rights but does little or nothing to secure the nation from terrorist attacks.


Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, one of only three Republican lawmakers to buck the House leadership and the Bush administration to vote against this legislation, is outraged not only by what is contained in the antiterrorism bill but also by the effort to stigmatize opponents. Paul tells Insight, "The insult is to call this a 'patriot bill' and suggest I'm not patriotic because I insisted upon finding out what is in it and voting no. I thought it was undermining the Constitution, so I didn't vote for it — and therefore I'm somehow not a patriot. That's insulting."

Paul confirms rumors circulating in Washington that this sweeping new law, with serious implications for each and every American, was not made available to members of Congress for review before the vote. "It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote — at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote.
snip
Paul agrees: "This legislation wouldn't have made any difference in stopping the Sept. 11 attacks," he says. "Therefore, giving up our freedoms to get more security when they can't prove it will do so makes no sense. I seriously believe this is a violation of our liberties. After all, a lot of this stuff in the bill has to do with finances, search warrants and arrests."

For the most part, continues Paul, "our rights have been eroded as much by our courts as they have been by Congress. Whether it's Congress being willing to give up its prerogatives on just about everything to deliver them to an administration that develops new and bigger agencies, or whether it's the courts, there's not enough wariness of the slippery slope and insufficient respect and love of liberty."

What does Paul believe the nation's Founding Fathers would think of this law? "Our forefathers would think it's time for a revolution. This is why they revolted in the first place." Says Paul with a laugh, "They revolted against much more mild oppression."

Anybody still think PATRIOT is OK?

[Jet]

Anybody still think PATRIOT is OK?

I started hating it the second I read about it, which was shortly after it was passed... but that's no excuse for believing anything I read about it.

[dotcoma]

Not "anything", the FACTS.

[Jet]

Which is why I ask for credible sources. Capisce?

[dotcoma]

The direct quotes from the parties involved aren't credible? What is?