Violations of the Constitution

page: 2
136
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
I agree with all of the assertions made in your OP but I found it just a little odd that you would post a photo of "free speech zones" at the democratic convention, sourced from Wiki, and infer in a round-about way that this was a "democrat" thing.



Freedom of speech zones- At the Democratic National Convention in 2004, freedom of speech zones were set up. Apparently the entire country is not a free speech zone, but there are little areas where we can congregate and speak freely. Here's an image of the 2004 DNC free speech zone:


Did you miss this little tidbit of information sourced from the same article as your photo?

en.wikipedia.org...


The most prominent examples were those created by the United States Secret Service for President George W. Bush and other members of his administration.[3] Free speech zones existed in limited forms prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush; it was during Bush's presidency that their scope has been greatly expanded.[4]


Seems like I remember these zones being utilized by the Bush administration at almost every pre-scheduled photo op during his presidency and at one point, right there on Pennsylvania Avenue. Hell, I think they even had one in Crawford Texas for a while due to the Cindy Sheehan protest.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
There was another one one here recently, In orange county ca, a local bible study group was told they could no longer meet due to city ordinance.

couple ordered to stop holding bible study at home

Since 911 our rights have slowly been stripped in the name of safety, and as a wise man once said we are ending up with neither.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Druid42
 

I think the late great George Carlin said it best:



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I have to agree with with most of what you said. The only part i was questioning the TSA check points. I don't think it should be controled by the fed but a private company owned buy the airports with federal standard just because a plane crosses multiple state lines and its in the companies interst to protect there property from being used as a weapon against anothers property. But I don't wanna get into that mess Its just my belive you have the right to search anyone coming onto your private property but in no way should it be the goverments job.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
While approximately 24 members have provided posts, ATS members have given 55 flags and a constellation of stars to this thread. Truly an example that actions speak louder than words.
Yes, actions, speak for themselves.
November elections will soon be upon us, and Mr. Paul and Mr. Cain, are looking better and better.
edit on 2-10-2011 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Ok...
All sounds like people are looking at this problem. How many can change it? I would say it takes a country... Not just the few.

And not a single mention of how our government bailed out the banks? Is it not a private buisness? Oh yeah...protected by the fed reserve... also not owned by our government or the people?

The devil hides under a different name there... huh?



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
The "Freedom of speech zones" are illusory. During the Toronto G20 summit in 2010, a Free Speech Zone was designated at Queen's Park. It didn't last though and it became a "Total Arrest Zone". You can find YouTube videos of this, I can't stand to watch them. The police said they had to clear the Free Speech Zone because "troublemakers" were hiding there.

Around 1,105 arrests were made, including members of the press, during that weekend. This was the largest mass arrests in Canadian history. It was done under a "Secret Law" passed by the provincial government regarding how police could act during the G20.


It was “illegal” and “likely unconstitutional” for Premier Dalton McGuinty’s government to pass a secret regulation that police used to detain people near Toronto’s G20 summit of world leaders last summer, says Ombudsman Andre Marin.


www.thestar.com...

So they just secretly decided you had no constitutional rights anymore.

A year later, a rally was held at the same Queen's Park to protest the police actions. Here is one of the rally posters showing why some people were arrested:



michaelvipperman.wordpress.com...

I hope it doesn't get this bad in NYC or elsewhere, but I fear precedents have already been set in our "democratic" countries.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


If i could applaude you I would but I gave you stars and flags and this is a awesome piece of work I love it.
I couldn't say any of this any better.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Yeah, our bill of rights amendments have been completely trampled by republican admins, first during the drug wars conducted on U.S. citizens, search and seizure without a warrant, confiscation of property without a trial.

Corporations have been allowed to run roughshod over our rights, and republican admins have cheered them on.

Then we had the Patriot Act created by a repub admin because of its incompetence in protecting our nation.

But as far as RPs claim that Anwar al-Awlaki recently killed in a war zone openly fighting against U.S. troops should have gotten a trial is ridiculous. RP dishonors the U.S. soldiers killed in war. He wants to tie their hands behind their back, and then send them into a war zone. Pure nonsense.

RP really wants us to conduct a trial before we kill an enemy on the field of battle?

And you people think this is proper thinking?



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
As a boat owner I am well aware of the fact the US Coast Guard and state law enforcement agencies(i.e. the FWC(Florida Wildlife Commission)) can come aboard anytime and search your vessel in the name of public safety and environmental protection, even in international waters. You have no forth amendment rights on the water. Also the USCG has been given the power to arrest people, I am no expert on the Constitution but I am pretty sure there is something in there about the military not being given the power to arrest citizens.

What shocks and scares me is so many Americans either don't care about the blatant violations of our Constitution or will make excuses for big brother's actions.

Anyone who still believes the US is free country and the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land is a fool.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b


Yeah, our bill of rights amendments have been completely trampled by republican admins, first during the drug wars conducted on U.S. citizens, search and seizure without a warrant, confiscation of property without a trial.


The most influential supporter of the drug war I know of in existence at the moment is Democrat Barack Obama. You are so wrong to peg the Republicans on that when its very obvious the two-party monstrosity is responsible. Ron Paul has said in an interview he will pardon people who have been convicted of marijuana possession. Ron Paul is a Republican. Cite me a source where a Democrat who has ever run for president in the past 25 years has said that.


Corporations have been allowed to run roughshod over our rights, and republican admins have cheered them on.


Democrats are the ones cheering on corporate regulations. Corporations submit the regulation legislation to the Democrats that benefit them, and then the Democrats pass it for them. I don't see Democrats asking for an end to the Federal Reserve, which is very obviously the most dirty private corporation in existence. The Democrats are best friends of the biggest and most polluting corporation in the history of the planet Earth: The United States of America federal government. Democrat Obama could reduce pollution in such an organisation, but chooses to pollute so he can continue the pattern of endless war. I bring that up because the US military is the most polluting organisation within the US government, and that is something Obama can change upon command as authorised by the US constitution. We all have seen the sci-fi movies where a corporation takes over. Well, that is now on the verge of happening and the Democrats are an equal part of the two-party monstrosity making it happen.

The USA was designed on paper to be points of agreement between all 50 states. The USA now works in practice as the pointing of a gun at all 50 states. The only freedom we have left is the right to complain about it on the internet without getting punished. That right is on the verge of being destroyed. We can't even complain about it on the streets in the USA without get punished such as getting peppersprayed or even much worse in a few cases.


Then we had the Patriot Act created by a repub admin because of its incompetence in protecting our nation.

Democrat Barack Obama voted YES for the patriot act. Democrat Barack Obama *did not* veto its extension when he got into office. In 2001, the Democrat-controlled senate voted yes to pass the patriot act and therefore destroy the US constitution. The Republicans and Democrats are the reason the Patriot Act started, and the Republicans and Democrats are the reason the Patriot Act is still here. Tell me that you can't see that!?



But as far as RPs claim that Anwar al-Awlaki recently killed in a war zone openly fighting against U.S. troops should have gotten a trial is ridiculous. RP dishonors the U.S. soldiers killed in war. He wants to tie their hands behind their back, and then send them into a war zone. Pure nonsense.

RP really wants us to conduct a trial before we kill an enemy on the field of battle?

And you people think this is proper thinking?
It is common knowledge that no USA war zone exists until it has been declared to exist by the USA congress. Was Yemen declared to be a war zone by the USA congress? If not, then your very obviously wrong. But there is more. Even if you actually have a war zone, the troops have to have good reason to believe that any target is aiding the enemy before elimination. What was the good reason provided that al-Awlaki was providing aid beyond internet messages saying "hey, good job al-quaida!"? If you cannot show a good reason, then you have failed on not one count but two counts.

I'll assume you read the ATS thread on the obviously wrongful and obviously illegal killing of al-Awlaki. However, the alternative legal method presented by the OP was not even the only choice. Congress could have been asked to declare war on al-Awlaki thereby giving them the military authority to act on a declared war.

But wait, there's more. Its immoral to assassinate someone without giving them an opportunity to surrender for capture when an obvious chance presents itself. They could have sent in helicopters with troops rather than sending a drone, and they chose not to do that. Obama acted as an immoral illegal vigilante with disregard for his job position on three different counts, two of which are very obvious to a degree where I question whether you're being honest with your self.
edit on 2-10-2011 by seachange because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
So there you have it, Oath Takers. Any of you out there who have sworn an oath to protect our constitution should be fulfilling that right now. If not, you are breaking that oath. At the very least, start getting your fellow Oath Takers on the same page.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duamutef9
reply to post by lonegurkha
 


I always liked the Bill of Privileges That Can Be Revoked at Convenience of the Government, but that's too long and hard to use for dramatic effect.

This has been going on for decades. Just ask the citizens of the U.S.A. who happened to be of Japanese extraction what happened to them during World War two. Internment camps?
edit on 2-10-2011 by Duamutef9 because: typo






Ah yes you make a good point. the japanese americans where treated very shabbily. The constitution is convienient when it supports what they do to us, but not so convient when the shoe is on the other foot.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


1st amendment – The whole “congress shall make NO law respecting….” Is not how the Constitution has been interpreted, nor should it be. Justice Holmes gave the famous example of shouting fire in a crowded theater. The government has the ability to limit speech based on time and place if there is a rational basis for the restriction. An example would be limiting amplifiers after 10 pm in public parks, or setting up certain areas for free speech. The government isn’t restricting the content of the speech only the time and place of the speech. This is completely legal and necessary.

4th amendment – DUI check points.
The Supreme Court has upheld DUI check point on a very limited basis. In Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, there reasoning was that drunk drivers kill 25,000 people and cause 5 billion dollars in damages each year and the average delay was about 25 seconds. DUI check points result in about 1% of drivers being arrested. On the other hand, in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond the Court held that a drug check point was unconstitutional because the purpose of the check point was “indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control”. To sum it up the traffic checkpoints are ok so long as the main purpose is not he prevention of a specific crime.

As far as TSA and NFL pat downs → they are legal since you are entering a privately owned area and the government can use the purpose of preventing terrorism and not crime control. If I wanted to frisk everyone before I let them into my house, I could.

The Supreme Court has done an amazing job of defining and protecting your rights.

I believe the biggest violations are the ones we don’t even know about yet.

www.spokesman.com...



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by GringoViejo
Thank [random deity] that I enjoy football on TV more than the live games.

First they came for the Packers, and I did not speak out because I was not a Packers fan...
edit on 1-10-2011 by GringoViejo because: (no reason given)


Yes, I hear that one. Tis true many who do not like football will not care, but the concept is exactly the same as the airport, only a narrower band of terrain.
At what point will citizens say enough is enough.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by seachange
 


Sorry, but from your post, it looks like you have been dupe by propagandists.

The Obama admin is working on changing the policies of illegal drug usage to dealing with it as a health issue. The repub admins under Reagan, Bush and Bush used drug enforcement as a way to undermine individual rights.

www.usatoday.com...

It is the republican representatives who allowed lobbyists to rewrite the laws in regulations, were they ignored corporate abuse, while cracking down on small businesses. The numbers of lobbyists grew immensely once republicans took over congress.

As, so now the U.S. military needs and act of congress before taking out a known enemy during a time of war. That he is hiding out in another country shouldn't make any difference. If our enemy crosses borders, we must get congress to approve continuing to go after that enemy? Do you think we would have ever won WW II with that type of thinking?

Nonsense.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
I was sort of expecting somebody to be trolling this thread but how can anybody with an ounce of common sense even try to attempt it?

The violations of our constitution is rather disgusting but what is most disgusting are the people that are aware of it but choose to not do anything about it.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by adamc3
 


The advanced pat downs have gone way too far. When was the last time you went to a firend's private home and they touched your boobies to make sure you didn't bring a firearm with you to your dinner party? Please don't be naive about this. You do know the difference between a quick frisk and the enhanced pat down? And what kind of friends do you have who give you permission to fondle their boobies when they enter your home?
The enhanced pat downs are without a doubt a gross invasion of privacy, and a complete disregard for every person who travels on a plane.

Now tell me this, when did the federal government get to tell private property owners they must use enhanced pat downs to let people board airplanes. Your argument that airports are private property does not gel here. In fact, it just may be the opposite. When you go to a federal Court building, generally you think nothing of submitting to at least a metal detector, the wand, and a not-enhanced quick pat if need be(like if you have bobby pins in your hair or metal shirt buttons). You know that guns are not allowed and you've been called to jury duty so you must show up.


Also I just googled Orlando Intl airport and it is a public facility according to my research. And also an emergency landing for the shuttle...not that it matters any more.
edit on 2-10-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-10-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-10-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Nicolas Flamel
 


The list on that post is ridiculous.

They actually got arrested for these things?







top topics
 
136
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join