Does US Senate Commit Treason with NDAA Bill?

[ironeagle]

I suppose if you enjoy involuntary servitude, and having your only purpose being to live to provide luxry for those in power then limitless laws it is. Then again if you enjoy freedom with responsible government, then limitless laws would be a very bad idea. Our ancestors died for "that wordy thing" you call the Constitution. personally your not-so-intelligent argument seems almost intentionally daft. BTW Constitutional amendments and the original Constitution ARE laws, they are not reccomendations or ideas or thoughts, but laws, the Supreme Laws at that.

[Trojan_Ripper]

Wow! Rachel Maddow goes after Obama and his signing the NDAA bill....

:A must watch:

Maybe it's not just the congress who might possibly be treasonous barts. I like the way Rachels video goes back and forth between his speeches that he made on the same day.





Just another broken promise.

NDAA: Obama Signs Law Restricting Transfer of Gitmo Prisoners, Expands Indefinite Detention - YouTube!

[grandpa]

Rachel Maddow goes after Obama and his signing the NDAA
bill....

She'll still side with him, though, being a spineless Democrat on a network for spineless Democrats. Even when they oppose their own party's policies they will support them.

Grandpa h.

[Dan74]

Char, buddy, you're making me cringe here... The Constitution was made specifically to protect us from any unfair laws that the government could cook up in Hell's kitchen. Its wordy and complicated to leave no room for debate about what it means, and it was written hundreds of years ago when we didn't have most of our technologies or moral dilemmas. It definitely needs an upgrade.

Constitutions should not be stone tablets. A constitution should provide a nation with a framework, not a set of laws. This is why the most I can do in response to the "strict constitutionalist" Ron Paul types is laugh.

[grandpa]

Constitutions should not be stone tablets.
A constitution should provide a nation with a framework, not
a set of laws.

I'm interested in tanking any divine, single source of legitimacy. Any one or any thing claiming monopoly on legitimacy should be highly suspect.

At most, I think some legitimacy should be gained based on studies of evidence and naturalistic explanations:
"'It turned out that the model yielded computerized food webs
stunningly
close to the real food webs, all of which were developed from in-depth
field studies,' said Martinez.
What sets the 'niche model' apart from current models of food web
organization, say the researchers, is its ability to accurately predict
a set of 12 characteristics, such as the length of food chains, the
number of omnivores and cannibals, the distribution of specialists and
generalists, and the vulnerability of species within each food web.
The most widely accepted model to date -- the cascade model --
successfully predicts only a few food web properties: top species, such
as predators; intermediate species, such as herbivores; and basal
species, such as plants."
http://www.sfsu.edu/~news/prsrelea/fy99/082.htm

There's no reason such an approach cannot be applied, to some extent, to understanding and addressing human behavior as well. In fact, peopel have been trying to bridge gaps between sciences for years, and quite understandably.

I'm not advocating some divine blueprint by which elite managers can run everything, but saying we should observe evidence and act reasonably based upon it. If we spent more time being reasonable and less time being brainwashed into growing unaccountable state and corporate power, we'd be far smarter and far better off. We'd be less likely to fall for things like the NDAA.

Grandpa h.

[ironeagle]

Dan74: Question: And what good, prey tell, is it to have a frame work to protect the people and a nation, if we do not follow that framework?

Even though you may not agree with it the Constitution is a law is the highest law and there is a very good reason for it. Without limits on governments we cannot ensure the prevention of abuse and crime against the people by it's government or by other people. If you want to be at the mercy of your government no matter what happens to you or your family and without regard to how it will harm or affect you or your family, then so be it, but good luck selling that idea to others who do care.

[grandpa]

Dan74: Question: And what good, prey tell, is it to
have a frame work to protect the people and a
nation, if we do not follow that framework?
Even though you may not agree with it the Constitution
is a law is the highest law and there is
a very good reason for it.

I agree that there should be basic protections for people. The question is, what does that mean? Does it mean, in so many words, "Let's have all evil beings put to the sword!"

The Constitution could limit such things, but imperfectly, and only if people adhere to it.

If we're not careful, we could revert back to rule by priest and king.
In fact, an ideological basis for that is always kicking around.
Example:
"The atheist who does good deeds does so because he
'feels' emotionally or
intellectually that it is the right thing to do. His feelings and thoughts
are the product of his natural tendencies, environment, and training.
However, they are not the outcome of a free-willed decision to do the will
of G-d, regardless of what the person may feel or think. Therefore, his
'good deeds' are no more deserving of reward than any other non-free willed
creation is deserving of reward."
http://www.torah.org/learning/rabbis...5760/reeh.html

In fact, the FCC is in many ways a relic of such "moralistic," religious thinking.
If some FCC moron feels Blanch, Dorothy, Rose, and Sophia are a dire threat to
the American Family, they can technically try to take action and ban those re-runs.

Some are out to make this a politically viable position, in principle; "We've got to protect the children from all things potentially obscene!"

Grandpa h.

[ironeagle]

The Constitution is actually quite detail-less I don't see how it could be any less detailed and still actually say anything. It sounds to me like some of you just want there not to be any Constitution, but for what reason? I can only guess it's because you don't like the limits on socialism, redistribution of wealth, perhaps the limits on illegal aliens the government isn't enforcing? I'm gonna bet that has everything to do with it. The fprefathers knew this government would one day try to steal from it's people and be like all other governments and powers and overreach and destroy that's why it instructs us NOT to abide any laws in contrary to it. Unfortunatley we allow this all the time which is why the country is a complete mess.

[truthreality]

The Constitution is actually quite detail-less I don't see how it could be any less detailed and still actually say anything. It sounds to me like some of you just want there not to be any Constitution, but for what reason? I can only guess it's because you don't like the limits on socialism, redistribution of wealth, perhaps the limits on illegal aliens the government isn't enforcing? I'm gonna bet that has everything to do with it. The fprefathers knew this government would one day try to steal from it's people and be like all other governments and powers and overreach and destroy that's why it instructs us NOT to abide any laws in contrary to it. Unfortunatley we allow this all the time which is why the country is a complete mess.

Both socialism and redistribution of wealth are completely are completely compatible with the constitution. The constitution can be twisted to fit anyone's agenda. In some senses we are a socialistic country. The military, the police, public school and publically maintained roads are all state owned. theI hate to break it to you but the pilgrims who moved from England to American and established the colonies were illegal immigrants. This country is founded by illegal immigrants. I am sure the Native Americans had an immigration policy against foreigners coming to steal their land.

[grandpa]

Both socialism and redistribution of wealth are completely are completely
compatible with the constitution.
The constitution can be twisted to fit anyone's agenda.

As I've pointed out frequently, wealth is constantly "redistributed" under "capitalism" -- from consumers and from workers. The more uneven the distribution, the more it is in the interests of a doomed class system. If you want social chaos, support the status quo. Windows into the future can be viewed through the pane of today.

I can easily prove there is not one agenda that can save us. Just look at the news. No master plan or blueprint will work. History and current events have simply refuted all that centralized planning -- and, to an extent, it's refuted decentralized planning, too.

Grandpa h.

[Hermenutic]

I've understood since the Reagan years that no government can afford to give it's citizens the liberty alluded to in the constitution. The years since Bush have proven this is so.

The rights of the constitution have been show inimical to any state which is seeking total control such as we see the state seeking in the U.S today.

No government can afford to allow it's citizens to be completely free as our constitution specifies. History seems to bear me out on this. When the guns are gone your pen will be next.

Government is the enemy of the constitution. The constitution is the will of the people. Any attempt to modify it is the will of the government. It is interesting to me that high placed officials have been bad mouthing the constitution of late. I find that disquieting.

[ironeagle]

Both socialism and redistribution of wealth are completely are completely compatible with the constitution. The constitution can be twisted to fit anyone's agenda. In some senses we are a socialistic country. The military, the police, public school and publically maintained roads are all state owned. theI hate to break it to you but the pilgrims who moved from England to American and established the colonies were illegal immigrants. This country is founded by illegal immigrants. I am sure the Native Americans had an immigration policy against foreigners coming to steal their land.

Um NO. The Constitution strictly forbids redistribution of wealth period. While there is sometimes that amendments need to be interpreted in certain cases, with certain fact patterns, the majority of the Constitution is clear cut, simple and self-evident. There is no need to interpret every amendment all the time. What's happening now is the socialists are intentionally twisting the Constitution, ignoring it, claiming it says things it absolutley doesn't say or just blatantly violating it anyways to make this country a nanny socialist state full of trespassers. The few things allowed in the Constitution to function the government are the only things in which taxes are allowed to be used. They are NOT allowed to be used for any purpose that socialist see fit. In addition most taxes are illegal excise taxes, the UHC tax is an illegal direct tax, there is no interpretation of this fact, it is clearly written. The acts of our ancestors do not justify the violation of the current laws. I am part Cherokee and so this land belonged to my people once, yet I am also part English so I also stole this land. The argument is old, tired and has no bearring on today. Two wrongs don't make a right. Otherswise why not let me steal money from your wallet whenever I please to do so? If it's ok for you to steal from my paycheck to pay for things I don't want, need, or can't afford, then why can't I come still from your wallet whenever I want to? Maybe I want it to pay for a root canal or buy bread why can't I just come steal it from you. hsould I say you're a selfish perosn for not letting me steal it because "I need the root canal and bread." That's exactly what you are saying and doing when you use illegal taxes to steal money from people's checks and bank accounts. The principle is exactly the same. So say you that it is ok for illegals to steal our jobs, votes, and land, since the English conquered the Indians and took theirs, then I say why am I not justified in stealing from your wallet?