Republican Congressman from S. Carolina rips into DHS official over no-fly no-buy list.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Gryphon66

Unlawful detention for one. As in indefinite, no charges filed and no court date. Implying unwarranted search and or seizure, for 'suspicious activity', completely determined not by law, but by the arresting agency.

Not for American citizens ... isn't the usual argument on the Right that the Constitution doesn't apply to internationals?

Their reasoning. The reason America is (was) the shining example is (supposed to be) because we treat others the way we expect to be treated…

All are equal in the eyes of the law, constitutional law has free trade and good relations with every nation, entangling alliances with none.

Precisely because entangling alliances lead to a loss of sovereignty and self determination. The reasons it was formed, because the King of England wouldn't stop meddling in the colonies affairs. Applies to both microcosm and macrocosm.

Sadly, our gubment is so far off the rails these days.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

While I follow you and support your intent...no legal American citizen should be put on any list that takes away their rights without FIRST being given a chance to argue it in court.

The problem here is the speed with which the government can take action when they receive new information.

If an airport camera spots some guy carrying something unusual, and by facial recognition, followed by background check in some database, he becomes suddenly a "new prospect" for possible suspicious activity, but is about to board a plane, they can't wait until the guy has his day in court before putting him on the watchlist and giving the order for no-fly.

So, it makes logical sense, that they would act immediately, for the safety of the public, weighing the risks that they are wrong about a single individual, against the risk that they are right and the public is harmed. So, with my proposal, they can act right away, but then have to justify that action afterwards. In other words, they can't "keep" the guy on the watchlist without providing good justification.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Gryphon66

Unlawful detention for one. As in indefinite, no charges filed and no court date. Implying unwarranted search and or seizure, for 'suspicious activity', completely determined not by law, but by the arresting agency.

Not for American citizens ... isn't the usual argument on the Right that the Constitution doesn't apply to internationals?

Their reasoning. The reason America is (was) the shining example is (supposed to be) because we treat others the way we expect to be treated…

All are equal in the eyes of the law, constitutional law has free trade and good relations with every nation, entangling alliances with none.

Precisely because entangling alliances lead to a loss of sovereignty and self determination. The reasons it was formed, because the King of England wouldn't stop meddling in the colonies affairs. Applies to both microcosm and macrocosm.

Sadly, our gubment is so far off the rails these days.

Nice, great words about the American Dream.

Now, are you claiming hereby that most conservatives don't claim that Congressional protections don't extend to non-citizens? That was what I pointed out in connection with the earlier comment about the Patriot Act (which I will not be defending in any manner here today.)

a reply to: Gryphon66

Now, are you claiming hereby that most conservatives don't claim that Congressional protections don't extend to non-citizens? ]

I don't believe anything the uS gubment tells me through the media anymore.

So you know, i realize its a 'dream' but all I can do is be the change I want to see. I have to represent on my tiny level what it is supposed to stand for. I'll let George do that for me…***Language Warning***

a reply to: intrptr

That's great. I love Carlin too.

I don't trust anyone in Government either. That fact routinely gets lost in my attempts to try to focus on actual facts in these matters, but, anyway.

Yet, that is still not the point. You took exception to a comment that, while I admit was rather generic, any legislation regarding the Terror Watch List (which is not the same as the No Fly List, btw) and due process would be subject to Constitutional review. You cited the noxious PATRIOT act as an example, and all I'm pointing out is that it still stands and has not been challenged (overall, though some activities under it have been) as unconstitutional.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Lots of policies stand that don't fit the constitution. Police-policing-Policy. The Federal reserve, paper money, permanent progressive income tax. US Foreign Policy. The two party 'system'. Elections. Education. Standing Armies. Freedom of the press. I'll stop there, I'm starting to melt.

The patriot act was a more brazen example.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Gryphon66

Lots of policies stand that don't fit the constitution. Police-policing-Policy. The Federal reserve, paper money, permanent progressive income tax. US Foreign Policy. The two party 'system'. Elections. Education. Standing Armies. Freedom of the press. I'll stop there, I'm starting to melt.

The patriot act was a more brazen example.

None of those are unconstitutional. Some are extra-constitutional, certainly. (And I could have sworn there was a mention of Freedom of the Press in that silly First Amendment ... unless, you don't accept the Bill of Rights as Constitutional???)

Here's the point. If there is a vote in the current Senate to make some provision against those on the Terrorism Watch List (not the "No Fly List") that would deprive them of their Second Amendment rights without due process ... what in the world inspires you to believe it will pass??? That's the fundamental concern of the Republican caucus in the regard.

It's not been happening. It's not going to happen. Terrorists will still be able to purchase whatever firearms they wish in the US.

a reply to: intrptr

Hey when thats been tried they hop borders exploit workers and resources for cheap labor and for tax shelters and havens. TPP etc. was supposed to balance not make the corps hop borders to rinse repeat on another culture... if we limited that import to foriegn instead them exploiting and exporting back and encouraged foriegn unions in support of the people? These run away corporational conglmerates would be forced to balance. Right now they control food supply etc. making people slaves and politicans dance.

Of all nations... well not like we couldnt as individuals and communities pick up the slack if we work in community spirit instead of greed and profit.

It seems the second civil war is this people vs. the corporation also illegally called people instead of the entity they are. Making them have no over sight or anyone held accountable... has even worsened the situation. Gun rights to Love who you want rights is a divide of the same bird called rights... fighting for rights should be the agenda in solidarity as their conglomerates fight to take them away conviencing us it was our own idea.

Its psyops plain and simple...

a reply to: Gryphon66

None of those are unconstitutional. Some are extra-constitutional, certainly. (And I could have sworn there was a mention of Freedom of the Press in that silly First Amendment … unless, you don't accept the Bill of Rights as Constitutional???)

You misunderstood, I think. Unless you're being disingenuous.

In practice the uS gubment violates the US constitution all day long. Has since its inception. Thats pretty plain statement. You disagree with that?

I don't think those people that are terrified of guns understand the stage this sets for all constitutional rights the government decides to let us enjoy or not. This guy is the reason we need more republicans in office, he sees the big picture. I'm not a big fan of gay marriage, but being an American, I believe the have the right to pursue happiness even if it goes against my beliefs.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Hey when thats been tried they hop borders exploit workers and resources for cheap labor and for tax shelters and havens. TPP etc. was supposed to balance not make the corps hop borders to rinse repeat on another culture…

Agreed. Should have to pay tax regardless of where they operate. The beatles had to pay 95 % of their earnings to the Crown… earnings they earned in the US.

We have a corporate Oligarchy, the wheels of our elected officials are greased with bribes (PACS) to return favorable legislation so they can operate anywhere with impunity.

a reply to: intrptr

95% sounds like slave labor... no wonder one person bands are popular right? Sign a label good to buy Miss American pie? Drive your Chevy into the levy because freedoms already died... sounds about right yeah?

Well digital age digital divide... being a corporation means being your own whore I suppose, and sponsors say hey I lyke dat ass back it up... and some one goes whut? They say our product and you you say um ok? Sign here please... and now hey you dont portray the image or style we want to convey aka place on a conveyor belt to soylent green your soul reproduced by slave children over sea seas while posioning the ground theyve no future in anyway other than ca chunk ca chunk pull a lever all the live long life.

Thats why people hate capitalism and the wars fought to stabilize countries enough to spread it.

Im someone thats avoided that game, hated for avoiding that game, and yet loved for opening eyes to that game... I dont make a dime off of my open source but others do and thats ok, thats why I put it out there. Im happy and dont need it... doesnt mean im rolling in a material pig pen of wealth saying hey losers look at me... dontcha wanna be a clone a mini me? Um thats the ego thats the pander... "Mikey Likes it!" then later "Be Like Mike" grab that spoon and consume consume consume cause he still eats everything...

Yeah um no... its not sustainable and it's been destroying the entire world.

It's buy it sell it hate it love it leave it right there every day on prime time... the prime time for programming at the end of the day. To wake up and itch and scratch ones personal fix every single day.

Some have said hey dont need it, I can make my own happiness and they do... wholly outside of that whole system. Like that thing called crowd funding for personal projects... if people are smart and approached by mega corp. they will say no. Of course then who comes knocking? Everyone trying to deligitimize what youre doing, hack your stuff, make life hell because you said no... when Mikey is supposed to bite everything he hears and love everything put in his mouth.

Some people have seen this so long in action it becomes laughable yet, the worst thing to really see day in and day out, so much suffering people arent even aware of might as well get a hair cut since that bowl is on peoples heads like a good little soliders helmet fighting for stuff and they likely dont even know why...

Well, we can change that of course... and are. Not picking a team in the hey theres two exact same ones to choose from wink wink go ahead buddy pick a team... and be sure to fight each other like it matters, because it doesnt... at least not to us, hell we rigged the damned thing.

Merry $h!t storm to all and to all a good night... is the saying when its Christmas everyday to some people especially those intended to be kept asleep are just that.

Well... with a long sigh a real one not one of those plastic lol and not even laughing things. I hope all do get good rest and wake up trying for better for ALL and not that small percent hoping you dont.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Gryphon66

None of those are unconstitutional. Some are extra-constitutional, certainly. (And I could have sworn there was a mention of Freedom of the Press in that silly First Amendment … unless, you don't accept the Bill of Rights as Constitutional???)

You misunderstood, I think. Unless you're being disingenuous.

In practice the uS gubment violates the US constitution all day long. Has since its inception. Thats pretty plain statement. You disagree with that?

Yes, I disagree with it. It's an impossibly broad, jingoistic and meaningless statement. It appeals to emotion, surely, and anti-government sentiment, to some degree ... but as a statement of fact? Not so much.

Again, there is no reason to believe at this point in time that any legislation that restricts the purchase of firearms from those on the Terror Watch List will pass the Congress without considerable attention being given to due process, a fact which, given the circumstances, will likely result in more terrorists being able to buy more weapons.

But it is highly likely that no such bill would even see the light of day.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Big, tough, guy.

Perhaps he is trying to demonstrate his dominance. Might be hard up for a date.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Sign a label good to buy Miss American pie? Drive your Chevy into the levy because freedoms already died... sounds about right yeah?

Well digital age digital divide... being a corporation means being your own whore I suppose, and sponsors say hey I lyke dat ass back it up... and some one goes whut? They say our product and you you say um ok? Sign here please… and now hey you don't portray the image or style we want to convey aka place on a conveyor belt to soy lent green your soul reproduced by slave children over sea seas while posioning the ground theyve no future in anyway other than ca chunk ca chunk pull a lever all the live long life.

Nice.

Ever see Metropolis?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes, I disagree with it. It's an impossibly broad, jingoistic and meaningless statement. It appeals to emotion, surely, and anti-government sentiment, to some degree ... but as a statement of fact? Not so much.

Then you don't read history. Even when it was signed into law there were compromises. Those loyal to the crown succeeded in getting life terms for The Justices on the Supreme court, something the separatists abhorred but swapped to get the Bill of rights added on. Not as part of the constitution but a separate 'bill of rights'.

The forces against freedom and liberty were there in the room even then. And if you don't think the establishment of the Federal Reserve goes against the Constitution… sit down and shut up.

a reply to: intrptr

Don't make silly personal comments that you have no basis for because you don't agree with what I have to say.

Compromises to get the Constitution accepted by all the States are not equivalent to "violating the Constitution all day long."

What are "the forces against freedom and liberty"? Another silly vague and nonsensical term.

Sit down and shut up? You first, because you keep making assertions and then reversing them, and trying to squirm out of your blatant and obvious mistakes ... like claiming that the "Freedom of the Press" was an example of the government violating the Constitution.

I already told you earlier that some of the items on your list I would agree were extra-constitutional, but since you want to be a #@$( about it, the Federal Reserve Act was passed under a combination of the Congressional Commerce Power and power to regulate currency, to tax and to borrow money, and further that the establishment of a National Bank was set by the Supreme Court decisions in McCulloch v. Maryland in which the Court ruled 9-0 that the Second Bank of the United States was constitutional. The case was affirmed in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, and the legitimacy of a paper currency was settled in Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph Mortgage Company.

You may verify those on your own if you wish.

a reply to: Informer1958

Never mind the fact the BATF seems to be one of the leading suppliers of illegal weapons that an be bought off the street.
As of yet no one has been thrown in prison for putting thousands of weapons in the hands of cartels and other criminals.
What kind of government can do that and still demand loyalty of the average citizen?

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: Informer1958

Never mind the fact the BATF seems to be one of the leading suppliers of illegal weapons that an be bought off the street.
As of yet no one has been thrown in prison for putting thousands of weapons in the hands of cartels and other criminals.
What kind of government can do that and still demand loyalty of the average citizen?

Haven't we established that it's not guns that are dangerous?

Guns are just tools, right?

Right?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Don't make silly personal comments that you have no basis for because you don't agree with what I have to say.

Thats a "silly personal comment" , substituting personal attack for argument.

Compromises to get the Constitution accepted by all the States are not equivalent to "violating the Constitution all day long."

Thats not what I meant. The forces of centralized control are always knocking at the door. Just because lawmakers are subject to corporate oligarchs and not the people doesn't mean the laws they pass are "constitutional".

Edit:

the Federal Reserve Act was passed under a combination of the Congressional Commerce Power and power to regulate currency, to tax and to borrow money, and further that the establishment of a National Bank was set by the Supreme Court decisions in McCulloch v. Maryland in which the Court ruled 9-0 that the Second Bank of the United States was constitutional. The case was affirmed in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, and the legitimacy of a paper currency was settled in Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph Mortgage Company.

Turning the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof over to a private industry (banks) is unconstitutional , let alone introducing fiat currency, inflation, progressive income tax and usury , look where we are today as a result. This is precisely what the fonding fathers wares us against. Our elected representatives are supposed to protect us from encroachment into the government by just such money grubbing private interests, not invite the in and give over the supreme power of the land.

They call them selves public interests, they even name their 'private company', the "Federal Reserve". A bald face misrepresentation, right in plain view, to fool we the people into thinking its the Federal government.

You say, its constitutional because they all agreed to it. Yah they, not we the people. Thats the conspiracy and if you support it you're just a minion of the state, too.