Violations of the Constitution

page: 3
136
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jrod
 


the thing is the coast gaurd isn't funded by the department of defence. They are funded by the department of transportion so it by passes the whole military part not arresting the citizens.




posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
A DUI checkpoint is not an unreasonable search.


However you make many other valuable points.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by DaRAGE
 


Any assumption of guilt can be considered illegal search and siezure.

Including assuming you are drunk and being forced into breathalizer. where it sticky is driving is a privledge. I have heard of several cases won on DUI check points.

Please understand, I personally agree with keeping our roadways safe, I also would like to add I carry a commercial license, I am subject to random drug tests on demand by any peace officer at any time. The kicker is if refused I will lose my "PRIVLEDGE" to earn a living.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Maybe I didnt do a good enough job of conveying this. The extensive pat downs are wrong and to be honest disgusting, the Court gives great deference to the government when it claims "National Security". I think anyone who was search should have expressly said "i give you consent to search me except for my private bits", if the TSA exceeded that consent they the traveler should insist on file a police report for illegal sexual contact or what ever the jurisdictions they are in allows for. I would love to see TSA agents as registered sex offenders. But wanting to fly is a privilege and not a right, so some level of security is expected. After all the airline is liable when someone blows up their plane, so they have an interest in some security. They have just taken it too far.

Acts of Congress are considered to be constitutional until the Supreme Court decides otherwise. The private lands that I refer to are the planes and not the airports them selfs. The airlines actually agree to allow the TSA to do what they do, maybe not freely, but through contracts that they have to agree to to be able to land.

I am a bit biased on this whole point because I dont really believe "terrorism" is that great of a threat to our country, its like an elephant being afraid of a mouse. "Al Queda wants to destroy our country because they hate our freedom" - bullsh*t, Bin Ladin has said it was because of our interference in their affairs. Our government done more to destroy the principals that this country is based on than any terrorist ever could. Additionally I have even seen any evidence that foreign terrorists were behind 9/11.

Sorry to go off on a rant.

And by the way when I have girls come over to my place I usually insist on frisking them.....repeatedly.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
]I believe that Ron Paul and Herman Cain are our best hopes for saving what is left of the Constitution; perhaps even restoring some of our lost rights. Unfortunately the vast majority of voters do not actually use conscious thought and an examination of each candidates position and ideas, they determine who to vote for based on emotion. We are probably hosed for I fear that very few politicians have a deep concern for or a desire to adhere to the Constitution.

I am in my 60s and as I look back it is very shocking and depressing to realize how intrusive the government has become since I 'became an adult'.
edit on 2-10-2011 by willyclem because: syntax correction



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
This has been a slow, deliberate process that has been going on since the 1800's. There is the constitution OF the United States and the constitution FOR the United States.

One replaced the other in the late 1800's, behind closed doors, making the US a "Corporate" entity, with Great Britain and the Vatican. The President is merely the CEO of that corporation.

That being said, here is what the Patriot Act did for us:
Patriot Act the the Constitution



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrod
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.

No, there is nothing about that in the Constitution. The Constitution actually provides for "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union," so it is explicit that at least the militia has a law enforcement function. It is silent on whether other components of the military can enforce the law, but there is a lot of legislation saying they can. For the Coast Guard, that would be 14 USC 2:


The Coast Guard shall enforce or assist in the enforcement of all applicable Federal laws on, under, and over the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; shall engage in maritime air surveillance or interdiction to enforce or assist in the enforcement of the laws of the United States; shall administer laws and promulgate and enforce regulations for the promotion of safety of life and property on and under the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States covering all matters not specifically delegated by law to some other executive department.


You might be thinking of the Posse Comitatus Act, which only applies to the Army and Air Force, and only when there is no other Constitutional or legislative authority for a law enforcement mission.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by adamc3
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


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.


So this makes it OK



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


Like the Patriot Act.



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


Agreed



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by adamc3
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.


I disagree. Holmes was using that example to illustrate a "clear and present danger" in defining the limits of free speech. It falls into a different category than free-speech zones.
Free-speech zones have to be justified by the govt. based upon their effects on the area and can't be based upon what the people want to say. But instead the govt. has implemented standard free-speech zones wherever there might be a large group assembling.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Government supplied public education is a power not given to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution.
www2.ed.gov...

Corporate welfare(subsidy), Citizen welfare(subsidy) is a power not given to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution.



"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

gopcapitalist.tripod.com...

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is unconstitional.

Anytime a President declares war against a nation without Congressional approval,. except for clear outlined reasons, then this is unconstitional.
edit on 2-10-2011 by LuxFestinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
I'll add one - Obamacare - the mandate part of that law is a massive violation of the US constitution. The only places on this earth where I can think of where someone might be forced to purchase a good or service from a company are countries with harsh dictatorial governments, not supposedly "free" countries like the US. If this huge pile of horse dung that congress passed and Obama signed into law is allowed to stand, consider that a gigantic nail in the coffin of constitutionally granted freedoms.

It is pretty clear that our rights are gradually being eroded more and more.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by seachange
 


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

Obama is a "constitutional scholar". Never one time... never once has Democrat Obama ever said: "Prohibition required an amendment in the early 1900's, and today we still have that requirement, therefore I order the DEA to comply with the constitution and only prohibit substances specified by the constitution. Any agent prohibiting any other substance will be fired immediately." That is something that I could imagine Republican Ron Paul saying if he becomes president.

In 2009 the Democrats controlled the house. In 2009 the Democrats controlled the senate. In 2009 the Democrats controlled the executive office.

In 2009 HR2943 was a bill for decriminalisation. There were 11 co-sponsors. 2 of them were Republicans. One of them was Ron Paul. HR2943 failed despite all of the control they had. Name someone Obama has pardoned in the drug war. Republican Ron Paul has said clearly he plans pardon people found guilty of a variety of things related to the drug war. If you show one thing Obama has done to end the drug war then I'll change my position that he is for it. Actions speak much louder than words. For example, Obama's words said that he would bring home the troops within 16 months of his obtaining of the office, but his actions showed he loved war every bit as much as McCain would have.


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.
One crime syndicate pointing to an even worse one doesn't make it any less dishonest or criminal. Not that I think the Republicans are any worse of a crime syndicate, rather its just your bias for one side giving you rose-colored glasses.


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.
I'm not sure what a "time of war" is exactly. Congress shouldn't declare a time of war. Instead they should declare who they're going to fight a war with. They should declare a war on an enemy and then can shoot to kill IF NECESSARY. I never said that a declaration of war must be limited by borders, so that is a bad assumption on your part. As for WW II, I could not have either won or lost WWII because I was not alive during those years. During WW II I'd have a very intelligent strategy... stay the hell out of it because the USA government should not be rewarded for purposely provoking a war with Japan.
edit on 2-10-2011 by seachange because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


What is the penalty for violating constitutional rights?



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by timmhaines
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


What is the penalty for violating constitutional rights?


According to history...re-election.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by seachange

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by seachange
 



If you show one thing Obama has done to end the drug war then I'll change my position that he is for it. Actions speak much louder than words.



One thing Obama has done to end the drug war? Well, there was Operation Fast and Furious. Obama DID something there. Albeit it was unethical and illegal and accomplished absolutely nothing (except make his administration look like idiots), but he did something!!



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by The Baby Seal Club
 


Your right in the sense that Justice Holmes was taking about content based as opposed to time and place restrictions. However I was just using it as an example that the Government can regulate speech in certain instances so the "no law regarding..." language is not how actually how it has been interpreted.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Schrecken Licht
 


What about car insurance? I have to have car insurance or I can be fined $500.
I dont support Obamacare, but I understand the rational that for any health care system to work everyone has to have it or else it wont work.

I think a better argument against universal health care is that the main reason the American revolution succeeded and the french revolution that happened around the same time failed was because the French focused on ensuring public and private happiness where the American only focused on public happiness. "Public happiness" includes the ability to assemble, participate in government etc. When a state goes to great lengths to make everyone happy in every aspect of their lives it takes away their incentive to seek anything themselves. Hannah Arendt wrote a great book on the topic called On Revolution.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I've got another one to add: The unconstitutional war in Libya. Then there's Obamacare as some mentioned earlier in the thread, as well as the assassination of Awlaki. Three strikes and you're out!
edit on 3-10-2011 by TupacShakur because: to edit my post



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
MSM is`nt always bad. MSNBC seems to know who the real troublemakers are

www.youtube.com...#!

Download video before it gets removed.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by adamc3
 

Car insurance is a State's rights issue under the 10th Amendment while Obama care is Federal mandate. You are comparing apples and oranges.





new topics

top topics



 
136
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join