Does US Senate Commit Treason with NDAA Bill?

[truthreality]

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 constitution is a man made document. Any man made document should be up for revision on a continuous basis especially one that is 250 years old. There is nothing wrong in questioning the constitution and it's laws. If Obama chooses to adding a new amendment for the redistribution of wealth he is completely justified in his opinion. What exactly is your measure of entitlement to money?

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?

Except immigration is not stealing nor is it unjust. What is unjust is putting a copyright on land that was stolen from others.

[grandpa]

The constitution is a man made document.
Any man made document should be up for revision on
a continuous basis especially one that is 250 years old.

Some hate the mere idea that it's a man made document:
"...And do blind patriots know what it truly means to
faithfully abide by the spirit of such a manmade constitution? To uphold and defend the constitution and its Bill of Rights is to defend principles that
are the governing principles of the kingdom of Satan. Any law that is
antithetical to the TEN COMMANDMENTS is always satanic."
http://www.tencommandments.org/cannot.html

Interesting piece.

Grandpa h.

[truthreality]

Some hate the mere idea that it's a man made document:
"...And do blind patriots know what it truly means to
faithfully abide by the spirit of such a manmade constitution? To uphold and defend the constitution and its Bill of Rights is to defend principles that
are the governing principles of the kingdom of Satan. Any law that is
antithetical to the TEN COMMANDMENTS is always satanic."
http://www.tencommandments.org/cannot.html

Interesting piece.

Grandpa h.

Yes I was referring to this when I said the constitution is a "man made document". I know there are some Christian nation advocates who view the constitution as the word of God.

[grandpa]

Yes I was referring to this when I said the
constitution is a "man made document".
I know there are some Christian nation advocates who view
the constitution as the word of God.

I know the Bible well enough to know it doesn't mention the Constitution. If they were so closely related, you'd think they'd mention each other, and often. Anyway, the idea that we should do everything "For God, Race, and Nation" have a blatantly limited view of the world. They're practically insulting their own intelligence by what they demand.

Grandpa h.

[ironeagle]

I see so would you prefer an alien made document then? Also once again the document is amendable with majority consensus of the people of the country yet I notice no one is actually amending it, because the majority of the country DOESN'T want these bull crap socialist laws, and instead just blatanlty violate the Constitution and pay off Supreme Court Justices.

[grandpa]

I see so would you prefer an alien made document
then?
Also once again the document is amendable with majority consensus
of the people of the country yet I notice no
one is actually amending it, because the majority of the
country DOESN'T want these bull crap socialist laws, and instead
just blatanlty violate the Constitution and pay off Supreme Court
Justices.

What you call "bull crap socialist laws" often merely involve an assessment that money could be
better spent elsewhere. I wouldn't say the government uses its power wisely by any means, but let's not call everything you dislike "socialist." That's actually a very broad word.

As I find myself explaining far too often, there are actually limited government socialists, and even socialists who advocate the abolition of state power altogether. I'll keep repeating that until people finally get it. It's not something I'm spontaneously making up. In fact, even for Marx a socialist society was a stateless society (I'm not a Marxist myself, but even non-Marxists should know that).

Grandpa h.

[BlackSheep]

This is a load of rubbish. the constitution is a bad idea - there should only be laws. If someone was to overwrite the constitution, what would it matter? If this bill of rights were already to have been sivved through and made into the humanitarian law, isn;t that better than this wordy thing you call a constitution? This only complicates matters.

The constitution is very important to protect us from those who think they know what is right for us.

If the military needs to do these things to make sure that nobody gets through the 'pet door', that everybody is safe, then they will. Who says what price lives come at? Who proposes that these other normal human beings are going to do that anyway? They don't have to do these things to people, they just do them when they, as perfectly sane people, see fit.

And who says what price freedom comes at?
If we simply let the military or the government stomp on peoples rights then who knows what will happen? You can never simply depend on someone in power being a good guy. History has taught us that if nothing else.

And, then there is internal affairs. they will never let a word of this badness get out, so it won't happen unlawfully.

What?

[grandpa]

The constitution is very important to protect us from those
who think they know what is right for us.
And who says what price freedom comes at?

The problem is, a government needs to be bolstered, and it needs laws
passed to bolster it. They will grow because that's what they're there for.

Grandpa h.

[BlackSheep]

The problem is, a government needs to be bolstered, and it needs laws
passed to bolster it. They will grow because that's what they're there for.

Grandpa h.

Not sure what you mean by bolster here. I assume you mean support, but how. Or do you mean a cushion? Could you give a few examples possibly?

[grandpa]

Not sure what you mean by bolster here.
I assume you mean support, but how.

There are various means of support, but essentially it boils down to a population willing to tolerate its rulers.
It was by far not intended to mean all governments are popular. Plenty of people are ruled by fear, including the fear of "chaos" from not having the rulers around.

If you want to learn some of their basic methods, a good way is to join a political mailing list. If that's too much after a while, you can usually just tell them, "Hey, stop e-mailing me."

Grandpa h.

[BlackSheep]

There are various means of support, but essentially it boils down to a population willing to tolerate its rulers.
It was by far not intended to mean all governments are popular. Plenty of people are ruled by fear, including the fear of "chaos" from not having the rulers around.

If you want to learn some of their basic methods, a good way is to join a political mailing list. If that's too much after a while, you can usually just tell them, "Hey, stop e-mailing me."

Grandpa h.

I expect you to support your claims to some degree, not send me on spam quest.

[grandpa]

I expect you to support your claims to some degree,
not send me on spam quest.

Do you need me to explain the entire political process, or what? Maybe it wasn't intentional, but your suggestion that I can't back up my "claims to some degree" is simply ridiculous. It's just common knowledge what supporting a government can mean, and what it usually entails.

The so-called "spam quest" would be a valid way to find out what political parties are up to. Or you could pick up a newspaper. What I said can cast a large net, really. It was avery general claim, and easily observable.

Grandpa h.