It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should Gen. McChrystal Arrest Obama For Violation Of USA Constitution.

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   
yes OMG yes!

arrest the whole cabal while he's at it!

/end sarcasm

EDIT: hahaha wow... i hope i don't catch flack for that


[edit on 6/22/2010 by ugie1028]




posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   
I think people have either missed or ignored my earlier post on page 2, so I'll post it again, since no one has answered:

Could someone please do two things for me?

1) Enumerate the violations of the Constitution Obama had committed.

and

2) Point to the part of the Constitution that allows a military coup d'etat in favor of the minority rather than the process of trial and impeachment?



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 


Alright so you're mad that there are laws here in the United Kingdom that you have to abide by if you want to live next to me here in Chelsea, and somehow this means there is martial law in the United States.

Then you are upset that military bases are under the control of the military, and somehow this means that there is martial law in the entire United States since there is on military bases.

What?

Alright let's go through this point by point:

First: No, the Associated Press would publish stories about martial law in the United States should it ever happen because they are journalists not because of any law that requires them to.

Second: I have absolutely no idea how the number of laws means that the military is somehow in control of law creation and enforcement, this is simply not the case. What are you trying to say with that, it doesn't make any sense.

Third: The definition I am going off of for martial law is the standard one, that the military controls law and the enforcement thereof, you posted exactly that definition yourself earlier in this thread.

Fourth: Airports are not under martial law, in the United States, but they are under controlled access which is fully legal.

Sixth: The fact that the military controls bases does not mean that military control extends to the rest of the United States. It does not.

Seventh: It is according to the United States Constitution, judicial ruling and the state of reality that Congress makes federal law. State legislative bodies make state law and local governing bodies make local law. That is how things work in the United States, period.

Eighth: To live here in London you would have to abide by the laws of the United Kingdom, including common law, and a number of European Union laws. I do not see how this equates to the United States at all but here in the UK we also have civilian law, not martial law.

Note: It seems to me that you are confusing martial law with your desire for a more Libertarian society. Mislabeling the current system in your country does not however make your argument stronger. You do not like the sheer number of laws you live under and would rather have military rule. I think you are gravely wrong in this as it would take away many of the freedoms you currently enjoy, but at least make a coherent and logical argument about it please.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Ok, Ill give you the right wing nutcase version of failed logic.



1) Enumerate the violations of the Constitution Obama had committed.


He's a Democrat, which means, he is a liberal commie hell bent on destroying America and turning us all into socialist slaves before we are all sent off to the FEMA camps to die!


2) Point to the part of the Constitution that allows a military coup d'etat in favor of the minority rather than the process of trial and impeachment?


The unwritten part that states because he is a Democrat and therefore a liberal commie hell bent on the destruction of America and turning us all into socialist slaves before we are all sent off ot the FEMA camps to die, the military must intervene on our behalf because the majority of Americans were wrong to vote for a Democrat and so because the American people cannot be trusted to vote for the most Right wing fascist they can find. It's the only sane alternative to having a Democrat in the white house.




posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 02:17 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 





Should Gen. McChrystal Arrest Obama For Violation Of USA Constitution.


Of course he should along with 434 congressmen ( except Ron Paul) and all the supreme court justices!

Will it happen? Highly unlikely!



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 

... but at least make a coherent and logical argument about it please.


i did not make a coherent and logical arguement?

i'm not sure how to respond in a receptive manner.

how many expectations do you require of me in order to consider any arguement i make "coherent and logical"?

how many expectations must i abide by in order to conform to in order for you to consider any statement i make "logical and coherent"?

logically, coherently, can you provide me with a number, please?

thanks, & star for the post and making me think,
ET

[edit on 23-6-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
I think people have either missed or ignored my earlier post on page 2, so I'll post it again, since no one has answered:
Could someone please do two things for me?
1) Enumerate the violations of the Constitution Obama had committed.
and
2) Point to the part of the Constitution that allows a military coup d'etat in favor of the minority rather than the process of trial and impeachment?




We're ignoring you like the little yapping dog next door.


no, we are not ignoring VneZonyDostupa, just the OP author is.....

hello, it is your thread
your show, your head
a Q & A, havn't you read?

he isn't ignoring you VneZonyDostupa.
he cannot supply an answer, so it is just easier to blow you off and cut you down.

thoughts, things & stuff,
ET



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 


It's been answered dozens of times on dozens of threads here so there is no blowing off. Try reading the Constitution and you will find there are only twelve enumerated powers delegated mostly to congress and a few to the president and judiciary. Anything done outside of those powers is in violation of the constitution and grounds for defending it against the "domestic enemy" who violated it.

Congress and the President work almost entirely outside the scope of those delegated powers so take your pick! Arresting a domestic enemy to the constitution is not a coup!

[edit on 23-6-2010 by hawkiye]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 03:04 AM
link   
a few thoughts...


Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 


Alright so you're mad that there are laws here ...


there is no word for the emotion i feel, suffice it to say "mad" is not a satisfactory label.



Then you are upset that military bases are under the control of the military, and somehow this means that there is martial law in the entire United States since there is on military bases.


absolute control over information is a part of martial law tactics.
does the military control information? if your answer is "no". then i am not capable of making a coherent and logical arguement against your opinion.



First: No, the Associated Press would publish stories about martial law in the United States ...


Really? the same main stream press that spends hours daily reporting on who put who's what in who's what ...



First: No, the Associated Press would publish stories about martial law in the United States ...


really? you can't think of any United States Military Member who is in any trouble for talking to the press right now?

thoughts things & stuff,
ET



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 

... Anything done outside of those powers is in violation of the constitution and grounds for defending it against the "domestic enemy" who violated it.


violations of the constitution are a daily routine for all americans.



Arresting a domestic enemy to the constitution is not a coup!


according to whom? the laws? if you can not tell me how many laws there are, do not expect me to believe you when you tell me you are accounting for them all and providing us a perspective of knowing them all.

sounds logical to me,
ET



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 


The constitution does not apply to Americans it only applies to government. It is the law by which the federal government must abide, Obama is not abiding it.

Read the Oath of office given "by law" to the general and every federal officer. It says to "defended the constitution against enemies foreign and "domestic". What part of that do you not understand?

[edit on 23-6-2010 by hawkiye]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 04:38 AM
link   
This seems to be just another thread where all hope of effective change is placed upon yet another "leader" who would come and "save" us all from tyranny. Oh crap! This current "leader" hasn't saved us from tyranny, he's just like the last "leader", who was just like the last "leader", who was just like the last "leader"...I know! Let's hang them all!

As long as we the people continue to look to "leaders" to save us from tyranny, we will continue to have "leaders" who are similar in so many ways to the last "leader". As long as we keep looking to politicians to "represent" us, we will continue to have politicians "represent" power. Consider this, the 18th Amendment was not repealed because the American people found a "leader" to save them from that tyranny, it was repealed because the public said go to hell to the "leaders". Congress passed the 18th Amendment, the Executive branch enforced it, and the SCOTUS upheld that odious Amendment as Constitutional, but the people said go to hell, and drank anyway.

Even so, we the people then turned around after that repeal of prohibition and in a large part wholly supported the so called "war on drugs". We did this by willingly convicting those who were brought up on charges of either selling or using "illegal" drugs. We did that because judges and prosecutors instructed us that is what the "law" said we should do. And we steadily marched towards becoming a prison nation that imprisons more people than any other industrialized nation on the planet, including China today, and more than the Soviet Union did at the height of their dictatorship.

We went into agreement with administrative agencies such as the DMV who at some point, not in the beginning of DMV's, but somewhere along the line, told us that "driving is a privilege not a right", and we all nodded our heads in agreement and said; "So true, so very true", never questioning who it was that decided this was the case, or how it was an administrative agency found the authority to tell we the people what is a right, and what is not a right, we just said; "So true, so very true".

We did this partially because we went into agreement with "civil rights", and even patted ourselves on the back, many sitting in bars and saloons years later telling the younger set not to get smug with us because we marched on Washington with the Reverend Martin Luther King, and we did our share for "civil rights". We gladly enrolled our children in public schools so they could be taught how important these "civil rights" were, and eventually, somewhere along the line, when people began telling us there is no such thing as natural rights, or inalienable rights, we nodded our heads in agreement and said; "So true, so very true".

We have our 14th Amendment rights dammit! Who needs inalienable rights when we have "civil rights", and many of us became card carrying members to the ACLU, while others protested and became lifetime members of NRA, proud that the NRA advocated a gentler form of gun control. After all, it was really about "hunters rights", and militia's? We don't need no stinking militias! We got the National Guard!! And when we watched "the most trusted man in America" openly weep on television as he reported the death of JFK, we sadly mourned and paid our price of admission to go see Camelot, and wistfully remember those glorious days of that man who would be king.

We watched on television the atrocities of a war not declared by Congress but fought by young American boys anyway, and we were aghast at the losses, and we pat ourselves on the back while we proudly marched and protested again, so that we could sit on bar stools and tell the younger generation that we collectively, "single-handedly" brought an end to that war. Some of us spit on the returning soldiers and called them baby killers so that we could express our moral outrage of an invasion of another country caught up in its own civil war, while others quietly shook their heads and wondered what had happened to this once great nation.

We applauded JFK's successor for his glorious vision of "The Great Society", and most of us agreed, and nodded our heads, when we were told that certain social programs were necessary for a benevolent nation and said; "So true, so very true". While some of us instead seethed in a "Silent Majority", we seized the day when we saw our opportunity for a real "leader" and elected that "Tricky Dick" to office and when good ol' Nixon assured us he would get tough on crime and step up the so called "war on drugs" so that we could get our revenge on those "long haired hippie freaks from the goddamned counter culture", we nodded our heads and said; "So true, so very true".

Then, when our "leader" stumbled and wallowed in self pity while telling us that his mother was a saint, and that he was not a crook, we wondered what happened to this once great nation, and decided to elect as a "leader" a kinder gentler man to some how restore the throne and Camelot to its former glory. But, the rest of the world was going through its own changes too, and suddenly Palestinians were getting attention not because of their cause, but because of their tactics, which was terrorism, and we justified this terror and began questioning Zionist agendas, and all the while Iran took notice, not so happy we propped up a Shah, and then took care of this Shah upon his exile, and taking a page from the Palestinians, they decided their cause was best noticed through terrorism, and when American's were taken hostage, suddenly that kinder gentler "leader" wasn't such a good idea after all.

So then we turned to an actor for "leadership", who read his lines well, and again looking to be restored to that once glorious nation, we believed not so much in "conservatism" as we believed in "conservative" rhetoric. It did not so much matter if conservatism was about conserving the Constitution as much as it was about being tough on crime, and believing a conservative leader who promised smaller government would honor this promise, then pretended he did while he expanded government. After all, Regan was the man who defeated communism and told that Gorbachev guy to tear down that wall, and when East Berlin did tear down that wall, and Reganites took the credit, we nodded our heads in agreement and said; "So true, so very true".

So, when the old actor guy retired, we elected his Vice President, not really paying much attention to his past as a CIA spook, because he was for smaller government, and a part of the regime that defeated communism, and was just as tough on crime in our now perpetual "war on drugs", and as we were told this "war on drugs" was winning, we nodded our heads and said; "So true, so very true". But, as economies do, especially economies based upon fiat money, recessions will happen, and that ex-CIA spook suddenly seemed out of touch with what Americans really needed, and so another Southern good ol' boy came along and reminded us that it "was the economy stupid", and we elected a "Slick Willie" as our "leader" to fix our beleaguered economy, because after all, this is what kings do, they fix economies, or so we were told, as we nodded our heads and said; "So true, so very true."

By this time, we had become so comfortable in our apathy and ignorance, so proud of our "civil rights" and being the "freest country in the world", with the "most powerful man in the world" being our king, who was "the leader of the free world", we paid little attention to what was happening while we continued to convict drug users and dealers, and adamantly agreed we needed more prisons to store them, because after all, as we were told, we were winning this "war on drugs", and we nodded our heads and said; "So true, so very true."

But "Slick Willy" liked his dalliances, and while most of us were pretty damn uncomfortable with events like Ruby Ridge and Waco, we kept our mouths shut, except for those "Ditto Heads", and accepted this brute show of force, because, after all, it was important to be tough on crime, and suddenly we had "homegrown terrorists" who began rebelling against this tyranny, and we shook our heads and wondered what had happened to this once great nation, while we kept on convicting drug users and dealers, demanding more legislation and telling those criminals "three strikes and your out buddy!" Yet, we paid no attention to the in house dissent from spurned Attorney Generals like that woman named Reno who decided to swing on a Starr and take her revenge on that "Slick Willie" and investigate his ass.

Now a nation clearly divided, some all a twitter with glee that a POTUS was being impeached, while the other half all ready began re-writing history so that no one would ever believe he was really impeached. After all, as we were told, he wasn't removed from office, and we nodded our heads and said; "So true, so very true". Even so, it was time to elect a new "leader" and "Slick Willies" wooden VP didn't quite seem up to the task, so we chose a prince instead, and put the former kings son on the throne. Then, 9-11 happened, and a good portion of us listened as the media told us how many would gladly give up some of their "civil liberties" to be safe and secure, and we nodded our heads and said; "So true, so very true."

Of course, when those "civil rights" actually began to visibly erode, as if we couldn't see the erosion all along, we were aghast, and even though we overwhelmingly re-elected our king for another term, we were pretty much in agreement that disgust was proper, so we looked to a new leader, a visionary who had the "audacity of hope", and we said; "Look a leader". Now here we are, demanding a new "leader" take out the semi-new "leader" and restore our once great nation and Constitution, while most of us still willingly convict drug users and dealers.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


That is pure bull
.

Just because you imagine some threat, (conveniently given to you by right wing propaganda.) doesn't mean one actually exists.


Certainly doesn't give the military the right to overthrow a constitutionally elected government. Shesh oh Pete. I swear, you people that are so hell bent on wanting to live in a military dictatorship need to move to Libya. Tell Gaddafi hi for me.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 





As if the military is some ultra pure God-like organization?


I sincerely hope the US military is NOT an imitation of god...it seems to slaughter anyone and everything it doesn't like.

Nothing pure about genocide in my view, quite the opposite in fact.

Edit to clarify, that 'god' is the 'it' that does the slaughtering if it get's it's metaphoric nose put out of joint...although now i think about it..there are some parallels.

[edit on 23/6/2010 by spikey]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by hawkiye
 


That is pure bull
.

Just because you imagine some threat, (conveniently given to you by right wing propaganda.) doesn't mean one actually exists.


Certainly doesn't give the military the right to overthrow a constitutionally elected government. Shesh oh Pete. I swear, you people that are so hell bent on wanting to live in a military dictatorship need to move to Libya. Tell Gaddafi hi for me.



That's right Wukky, you tell him! "America, love it or leave it!" Hey...wait a minute...isn't that right wing propaganda? Don't Jethro's and hillbillies with trucks have their bumper stickers saying the same thing? Hmmmmm, a hillbillie from Michigan?



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




That's right Wukky, you tell him! "America, love it or leave it!" Hey...wait a minute...isn't that right wing propaganda? Don't Jethro's and hillbillies with trucks have their bumper stickers saying the same thing? Hmmmmm, a hillbillie from Michigan?


Well, just for those that think that a revolution or a military coup is in order. Overall, I am kinda of an enigma. Watch it or ill pull out a chalkboard and fake cry too!



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I had to stop and think about the chalkboard/crying threat, because I don't watch much television, and my first thought was Jaws???? Then I figured it had to be a Glen Beck reference because I get a lot of my new here at ATS, and I have learned about interesting quirks about this strange man Glen Beck.

I say just get elected and do what you can to bring us that one page tax code, even if I am for eliminating income tax, I guess baby steps are in order.

I say if we are to hang the tyrants we can start by hanging ourselves, as we have all spat on the Constitution just a little too much, as we willingly convict people for victimless crimes. Anything you can do upon election to take this nation in baby steps closer to a saner criminal justice system would be nice. Not that I am looking for a "leader" here, just hoping that we the people are finally ready to lead, and that those in office will follow that lead.



[edit on 23-6-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


A one page tax code? INSANITY! I pledge if I am elected that I will create a tax code so complex and indecipherable that only doctorate level mathematicians will be able to untangle it. MU HU HA HA HA HA HA! (Just kidding of course.)

And decriminalizing drugs? Now, is this for all drugs or just Marry Jane? Because some drugs are very harmful, and contribute to violence and other crimes, (crack being a perfect example.) so we might not be on the same page as far as decriminalization/legalization.

The only thing I can do is pledge that I will be honest, you might not like what I have to say, but I will say the truth.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 





And decriminalizing drugs? Now, is this for all drugs or just Marry Jane? Because some drugs are very harmful, and contribute to violence and other crimes, (crack being a perfect example.) so we might not be on the same page as far as decriminalization/legalization.


Well hell Wuk, don't stop with crack, poverty demonstrably contributes to crime, why not legislate law criminalizing poor people while you're at it? Marriage has a tendency to lead to violence for many why not criminalize it? Public schools seem to produce their fair share of playground bullies, and their violence, why not criminalize public schools? Of course, this might come as a surprise to you but war definitely leads to violence. Police offers are prone to violence, and some of them commit other crimes as well, why not criminalize the military and police officers?




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join