Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Remote Possiblility Of Reasoning Behind Attaching Anti-Meth Rider To Patriot Act?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   
O.K Well, I have a couple of probably off the wall speculations that have come from no where that I know of, other than my own thick head. So, if you find them to be ridiculous, well, that's O.K. go ahead and say so.......

Well, one thing I had been thinking about, mostly because threre is currently a thread on the subject here, and it is being discussed all over the place - on and off line. That is the question of why in the world have they (Diane Feinstein D-CA and Mr. Talent) attached their Anti-Meth, Sudafed Restrictive Law as a rider on the unpatriotic patriot act, when the two seem to have absolutely nothing to do with one another. I also was wondering the same thing, thinking that it was wrong and stupid to lump two totally separate problems together on one bill.

Foir some reason, it occurred to me that (remember this is strictly my own rambling thought) perhaps it wasn't done so haphazard as it appears on the surface.

I had at one time had the entire first (unpatriotic) patriot act downloaded to my hard drive. Why? I guess I thought I was going to read it. But, it was so ridiculously long, that I never got through the table of contents. Then, I ended up having to reformat the hard drive anyway. What I'm trying to get at, is that I have never read the first one in it's entirety, and have not read the new one, with the rider(s) attached. So, I can only go by what I have read and heard from others concerning it's contents.

From what I gather, the most appalling and intrusive part of the patriot act is the part that apparently violates our fourth amendment rights as far as "search and seizure", and being able to be wire-tapped without our knowledge on any whim by one of the "elite" that we may have been seeing saying hello in passing to someone they are watching as a suspedted terrorist - something like that.

Well, if that's the case, or close to it, well then perhaps they did know what they were doing when they attached that anti-meth rider, because and like I said, I have not read it, but it sounds like by attaching that particular rider to the patriot act, it could broaden their rights to wire tap and enter peoples homes at will, not only due to the remote possibility that you might be or know a terrorist, but also on the premise that you might be a meth maker or user, and that it could be used in court. While under regular law, they couldn't just enter at will and arrest a person for drugs without going through proper channels and only after having sufficient evidence to do so.

Just a wild idea I had.


Anyone agree or disagree? Just curious.

(The other, I will write in a different post, because I have to go now.)

Cy




posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I think Congress has a habit of attaching totally unrelated rides that don't have a snowball's chance of passing alone.
I'm pretty sure this is a common practice, as is passing some dubious bills at 3am.

I don't think there is any conspiracy here.
In fact, I can see where it could be helpful (to them anyway) to get some of these bills passed faster by attaching them as riders to big popular/notorious bills.



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 05:45 PM
link   
This is true. A bill that is sure to get the presidents signature will often be laden with pork and private bonus' by congress because the president does not have the line item veto. the president can either sign it into law, veto the bill or do nothing and it passes into law in 15 days without his signature.

The President is hollering for the line item veto so he can cut all the riders off the bills being sent to him. I hope he does not get it. That would place WAY too much power in one mans hands. Every congressman and senator would have to kis his behind to get their private pork approved. Thats the last thing we need.

Wupy


df1

posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
I think Congress has a habit of attaching totally unrelated rides that don't have a snowball's chance of passing alone.

Are you saying that sneaking legislation in the back door is a good idea? It seems to me that legislation that cannot stand alone is likely bad legislation that should not be passed.


Originally posted by mrwupy
Every congressman and senator would have to kis his behind to get their private pork approved. Thats the last thing we need.

This sounds like an argument in favor of "pork barrel" legislation which I find absurd. Continuing the "pork" is the last thing we need and the line item veto is step in the right direction.

Passing legislation in this manner is surely a conspiracy, just not a new conspiracy. The reaction to this on ATS has confirmed to me that if you screw the public long enough that they will just bend over and take it willingly, sort of like how victims of "Stockholm Syndrome" exhibit compassion for their abuser.

[edit on 12-3-2006 by df1]



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Geez, df1, don't shot the messenger

In no way shape or form do I think that attaching/sneaking all these riders is a good thing.
All this pork is certainly contributing to our tax burden.
No, don't get me sidetracked on "pork" here :shk:

And, yeah, the line item veto puts a lot of power in one man's hands, but something needs to change.


df1

posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Geez, df1, don't shot the messenger

Im having a Network moment, just this morning I threw open my windows and started yelling, "Im madder than hell and Im not going to take it any more".



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   
I believe that what you guys mentioned is all very true. I know that this sneaky way of passing legislation by attaching them to large bills has been going on for who knows how long, and also that they probably would not have a chance of passing on their own and that is just sometimes easier and faster for congress to do things this way rather than actually have to work to hard, etc......

But, knowing all that, it still got me thinking.....do they just stick any rider onto just any large bill? Or do they actually put some thought behind which big bill they will attach which rider, that will enhance their rider? Or do they just do it haphazardly - when they want to pass some little piece of legislation for whateve reason, do they just tack it onto whatever big bill happens to be going in front of the president at the time? Maybe I was giving them too much credit for having thought out the scenerio I mentioned in my original post?



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Personally, I think the whole "anti-meth" movement is run by the coffee manufacturers and Starbucks. Did you know the Declaration of Independence was written on meth paper? It's true! And it only took 3 minutes to write!

Meth is a natural substance, created by God with a little help from that dude in the trailer. Leave it to the government and the lobbyists to ruin something as harmless as meth.






top topics



 
0

log in

join