Homeland Security Update: Chertoff Says New Laws Needed

This isnt about the Patriot Act, or what rights you think the government may or may not have taken, its not about sheep, or 'you people' or anything else, its about what was said in the original posters link, period. Thats all I'm commenting about and for the purposes of this thread, all I'm interested in.

If you guys want to hijack the thread and take it in a different direction, have at it, but dont jump in my butt for replying to the originial posters comments and links.

If bigunit and griff wish to discuss the OPs link, I'll gladly counterbalance your knee-jerk paranoid reactions with an analysis of what was said. If you guys want to go on a rant about other stuff I'll let you two revel in your mutual admiration society.

Perhaps if the US population is stirred up enough to react to this, then Bush could declare Martial law, cancel elections and stay where he is. Maybe it would be better to stay cool and let him fade away.

[edit on 7/5/08 by Myrdyn]

reply to post by Coshy


Coshy we are debating what the guy is saying. I understand what you are saying and I dont understand why you cant understand what I am saying. You are saying that chertoff says if WE make laws then WE should not second guess them that is what you are saying he is saying correct? So I am responding I dont make the laws the people who I voted to represent me makes them but they dont read the bills and they do back room sneaky deals so I feel they do not represent me and the government will not let US vote on these issues. Aside from that even if WE DID vote on a law we should still second guess it for even WE can make mistakes in which I pointed out a few in another thread if you would of read on like rounding up japs during www, slavery, the fed and many other laws that were dumb and needed and need second guessing.

reply to post by Griff


You'll like your Libertarianism when a crack house moves in right next door. What do you want? If it's true Libertarianism we will have to take down all the traffic lights and stop signs, close all public schools, privatise the freeway system etc... it's ludacrus when you think about a civilization without some form of regulation. I do like the free up Pot smoking stance however, and getting out from under the federal reserve scam.

We're all in it together.

reply to post by skyshow


You make it sound like Libertarianism is equivalent to anarchy. Reach back and pull your head out...

reply to post by mybigunit


I said nothing of second guessing, I said if we give the govt the authority to do a thing, we should not be overly critical when they do indeed do that thing we gave them permission to do.

Thats it.

Nor did I say anything about oversight to make sure the govt is indeed obeying the boundaries we set upon it, as it relates to the authority to do a thing.

Consider it like this, if when you were a teen, your parents said it was ok for you to smoke, do you think it would have been right for them to criticize you when you did the thing they said you could do? Or would you consider them to be hypocrites?

Isn't it a bit hypocritical for We the People to be overly critical when the govt does what we allow it to do, without stepping over the boundaries we set?

I'm not denying the govt oversteps, I'm not denying the govt flat-out breaks some rules, wether they do or not isnt the issue. It doesnt pertain to the portion of the link being discussed. What is pertinent is the publics reaction to the govt when the govt does what we allow it to do.

In my opinion, we should not be overly critical when the govt (be it local, state or federal) does what we allow it to do, so long as it does it within the bounds we set.

People are not overly critical when a police officer issues a speeding ticket, because he is usually doing it within the boundaries we set. When the speeding ticket is issued outside the boundaries we set, THEN, and only then should we be outraged and critical. There is no need to be outraged and critical when the govt does as we instruct it to, it accomplishes nothing and muddies the waters when something worth being outraged about happens. In this example, write tickets for breaking the speed limit.

Thats my point, from post 1 to now.

I do see what you are saying and do agree. If the govt does a thing without the public granting the authority to do that, then we should indeed be outraged and critical. If the govt oversteps the bounds on authority we give it, then we should indeed be outraged and critical.

Concerning your perception of being misrepresented by your elected officials, that is another subject. Related yes, but if we start introducing related topics into the discussion at hand, it will quickly snowball into too many issues and too little bandwidth, if you see what I mean.

Thats why I tried to remind you and Griff that the subject was the OPs link (or parts thereof) and to try to constrain ourselves to just that topic.

If in another thread you would like to delve into misrepresentation and the problems associated with it, I'd be happy to discuss them with you (and others of course), but thats another thread, for another time.



[edit on 7-5-2008 by Coshy]

Let's look at it this way. If Chertoff (and others here) feel that no one should second guess laws that the US citizens have voted into place, then they should HAVE to admit that the law of people being able to smoke, grow or sell medical marijuanna in California should NOT be second guessed by the Federal Government. And those people should be set free from jail. What say you? What say you all?

[edit on 5/7/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Coshy
reply to post by mybigunit

 

I said nothing of second guessing, I said if we give the govt the authority to do a thing, we should not be overly critical when they do indeed do that thing we gave them permission to do.


[edit on 7-5-2008 by Coshy]

Once laws are written, the public should not second-guess government actions

I am staying on subject Coshy you say I said nothing about second guessing that we shouldnt be over critical and I say No he is saying we are not to second guess those are his words not mine.

If you want to use the smoking analogy that is cool. If you mother tells you that you can smoke and you start smoking but then sees you get sick from smoking then I think the mother has a right to second guess her decision to prevent something bad from happening dont you think?

Same applies here. If we give the government the permission to round up Japanese during WW2 and then realize you know what maybe this is against everything we stand for as Americans I think we need to have that ability to make changes. Or if we give our government the power to raid houses, records, boats, whatever without some sort of checks and balances I think we as Americans have not only the right but the obligation to second guess.

I mean that aside if something BIG like a patriot act type law needs to be passed I feel the people should vote directly on it and not through a bunch of corrupt politicians because if Im going to be screwed Id like to do it myself.



[edit on 7-5-2008 by mybigunit]

reply to post by Griff



No fair. If the rules apply to everyone equally that would mean that their power over us is as illusory as their superiority.

The entire notion of citizens 'having to accept' laws is tyrannical. Such power as is granted to the government must, by definition, be derived by a mandate from the masses (not some farcical aquatic ceremony! )

The people are in charge NOT Herr Chertoff! He WORKS for us, and as long as the politico's are going to maintain that illusion I, for one, intend to cry it to the heavens at every opportunity!

Hey, Mr President, your appointee and hot tub buddy Chertoff is an EMPLOYEE of the United States of America - JUST LIKE YOU! As an appointee and duly sworn public servant you both are accountable for your utterances in a public forum - SOME DAY SOME HOW you WILL account for your manipulation of the public trust as well as your other 'actions.' My deepest wish is to be present for that moment in time.

Originally posted by Griff
Let's look at it this way. If Chertoff (and others here) feel that no one should second guess laws that the US citizens have voted into place, then they should HAVE to admit that the law of people being able to smoke, grow or sell medical marijuanna in California should NOT be second guessed by the Federal Government. And those people should be set free from jail. What say you? What say you all?

[edit on 5/7/2008 by Griff]

Im confused did people vote that law to where you can grow and sell it? If they did then yeah the federal government needs to respect that. Oh wait the states have no sovereignty anymore....

Originally posted by Griff
Let's look at it this way. If Chertoff (and others here) feel that no one should second guess laws that the US citizens have voted into place, then they should HAVE to admit that the law of people being able to smoke, grow or sell medical marijuanna in California should NOT be second guessed by the Federal Government. And those people should be set free from jail. What say you? What say you all?

[edit on 5/7/2008 by Griff]

Thats not secound guessing, thats reviewing a law and re-evaluating its effect and wether it is worth continuing to enforce.

What is happening here is the federal govt taking a right of self-determination away from the state.

However, this has nothing to do with the portion of the OPs post in question. But, for the sake of interesting debate lets put the medical marijuana question into the same context.

Should the people who dont smoke pot be outraged and critical when the government (State of California in this case) allows its residents who meet the requirements set forth by the people to smoke pot?

No. The law was voted on (I'm guessing here, I'm not a californian), and passed in due process according to California law. The people who dont smoke pot were the minority in a majority-rule state. They can work to change the law, have the law overturned, and thats about it. Whats the point of criticizing the govt for doing what we the people told it to do? in this case legalizing medical pot.

Criticizing accomplishes nothing, working within the system, while harder and without the immediate gratification of criticizing, will, in the end, resolve the problem. Either by telling the medical pot people to stubb it out, or telling the anti-medical pot people "you dont have the right to tell another person how to live their life".

But America has become a nation of whiners and victims, few are willing to do the work it takes to make things right, they would rather rant and cry on internet bulliten boards and blogs.

Note: The last sentence is not directed at Griff or bigunit, just a general belief I have. So dont construe that as a personal attack, it is simply an opinion I happen to have. I actually am enjoying this bit of debate.

Originally posted by mybigunit
I mean that aside if something BIG like a patriot act type law needs to be passed I feel the people should vote directly on it and not through a bunch of corrupt politicians because if Im going to be screwed Id like to do it myself.

Or at least by your mate of choice.

Star. Exactly the sentiment. It is our obligation to guess and second guess our "elected" officials.

Originally posted by mybigunit
Im confused did people vote that law to where you can grow and sell it? If they did then yeah the federal government needs to respect that. Oh wait the states have no sovereignty anymore....

Proposition 215 was a proposition in the state of California on the November 5, 1996 ballot. It passed with 5,382,915 (55.6%) votes in favor and 4,301,960 (44.4%) against.

Also known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, the proposition was a state-wide voter initiative authored by Dennis Peron, Anna Boyce [RN], Valerie Corral (wamm.org...), Dale Gieringer, William Panzer, Scott Imler, [1], and psychiatrist Tod H. Mikuriya, and approved by California voters. It allows patients with a valid doctor's recommendation, and the patient's designated Primary Caregivers, to possess and cultivate marijuana for personal medical use, and has since been expanded to protect a growing system of collective and cooperative distribution. The Act added Section 11362.5 to the California Health and Safety Code. This law has caused much conflict in the United States between states' rights advocates and those who support a stronger federal presence.

en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, they did. So much for people having the say eh?

[edit on 5/7/2008 by Griff]

reply to post by mybigunit


Your quite correct in stating 1913 for the FED. However this rabbit hole is much deeper than that. The actual last true Congress that was seated was in 1818. After that everything went down hill fast. The 37th, 38th and 39th Congress were acting totally outside of the Constitution and with authority that they did not have. Not to mention 1913, 1929 and 1933.

While people debate the remarks put forth by Chertoff as a shocking turn of events, the deed has already been done and the ink dried over 100 years ago.

If you think that you can use the Constitution in court against these people you will find that you can not. We have NO Constitutional courts in the US. All courts come under the UCC or Maritime Law.

With the Federal Courts declaring that an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution will no longer be determined by the Courts to have been adopted in accordance to the U.S. Constitution as required by the Act of Congress of April 20th, 1818 and by 1 USC 106b, the people of the United States of America are now left without recourse.

Now with the Federal Courts not looking anymore at the Amendments, which one are you going to use to state your case? You have no recourse!!! If you want to fight them you have to do so within the existing system and the deck is stacked in their favor. All you can say is: dirty deeds done cheap by greedy men.

reply to post by Griff



Ahhhh I never realized this...wow I mean I heard the debate on TV but never really followed it much. I personally dont partake (maybe once a year or whatever) so I never really concerned myself with issues like this but in a bigger picture maybe I should because there is a bigger picture to this. You know if you dig into history Thomas Jefferson was big into states rights and since then pretty much all the states rights are now gone (which is one of the primary reasons for the civil war) I mean our state guards are now federal property also I mean wtf...

reply to post by pstrron


I didnt say it started in 1913 I just said we started going downhill at a fast pace I mean before that you at least had battles over peoples rights I mean Andrew Jackson has a Fed bank thrown at him and it almost cost him his life but he didnt take it on. Lincoln too when he enacted it to pay for the civil war then got rid of it and got shot I mean there was at least a battle for good and evil....after 1913 though the battles just seem to disappear I think that is my point. I mean Im of the view that the Fed is the root to a lot of our issues because the bankers are making the rules and yes the bankers like to stack things in their favor. I mean look at everything that has passed since the FED....you have the IRS, Social Security Act, the executive order where the government can take all your gold in case of emergency, patriot act, eminent domain, and on and on and on

[edit on 7-5-2008 by mybigunit]

reply to post by RabbitChaser


I've yet to meet a Libertarian who supports anything regulatory...anything? Perhaps I'm wrong. Enlighten us poor fools with our head so far.... tell us what govn't regulation you support. Can you make a list please?

Originally posted by skyshow
reply to post by RabbitChaser

 

I've yet to meet a Libertarian who supports anything regulatory...anything? Perhaps I'm wrong. Enlighten us poor fools with our head so far.... tell us what govn't regulation you support. Can you make a list please?

Its funny you say that because isnt it the "conservatives" who always talk about getting rid of regulations. Thats all I hear the spewing is get rid of regulations and business would boom. Oh wait I just answered my questions dont regulate big business but regulate and police the people...nevermind

Originally posted by Griff


......


Yes, they did. So much for people having the say eh?

[edit on 5/7/2008 by Griff]

Dont give up hope just yet. There is still a chance that the Fed won't be allowed to simply beat the State into submission.

(if you'll pardon the segue)

Ron Paul introduces Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act

If this bill makes it to law the Fed may have to do some 're-thinking' about just how far the States will let it go.

We'll see who stands to be counted in this one.

reply to post by Maxmars

Dont give up hope just yet. There is still a chance that the Fed won't be allowed to simply beat the State into submission.

(if you'll pardon the segue)

Ron Paul introduces Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act

If this bill makes it to law the Fed may have to do some 're-thinking' about just how far the States will let it go.

We'll see who stands to be counted in this one.

Not that I have given up hope, it is just that it requires a combined effort on the part of the people to take back that which has already been lost (stolen) from us.

Ron Paul, I would venture, has the people at heart but even if the "Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act" should get approved. Someone will find a way to turn it to their advantage.

reply to post by mybigunit

I mean look at everything that has passed since the FED....you have the IRS, Social Security Act, the executive order where the government can take all your gold in case of emergency, patriot act, eminent domain, and on and on and on

Very true and these are only the parts that we know of. I am sure there are many others, hidden, tacked on or other slipped in laws and or edicts that we have no clue about.

We all can see the hand writing on the wall if we continue to leave it unchecked.