Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Question for those who say they are losing rights in the US

page: 33
23
<< 30  31  32    34 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra



See answrer above. Secondly the Federal Constitution states anything not specifically spelled out for the federal government, is reserved to the states. The law you ar referring to is a state law. How exactly then was your right violated since the consitution was followed?



Medical marijuana in California. Not mentioned in the constitution so left up to the states, California said it was legal, but the feds still come in and make arrests and shut people down.




posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grambler
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


Al Awaki lost his 6th amendment right. American citizen executed with no trial.



Not really since his actions were clearly established under immigration laws about his citizenship. Secondly, if we stick with your argument and his citizenship, a person who points a gun at someone can be shot and killed, regardless if that perosn pulls the trigger first.

Self defense is valid in both civilian and military law, and both view it the same way. Pre-emptive action can be taken to end a threat.

If you want to argue its a 6th amendment violation thats cool with me, but all law and case law to date doesnt support that position.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I think that you just said that.
All law and case law to date doesn't support that stance.
I don't really believe you know that to be true.
edit on 25-10-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Not really since his actions were clearly established under immigration laws about his citizenship. Secondly, if we stick with your argument and his citizenship, a person who points a gun at someone can be shot and killed, regardless if that perosn pulls the trigger first.

Self defense is valid in both civilian and military law, and both view it the same way. Pre-emptive action can be taken to end a threat.

If you want to argue its a 6th amendment violation thats cool with me, but all law and case law to date doesnt support that position.


Not sure what you mean about the immigration thing.

On your second point though, where was he pointing a gun at someone? I never saw that. In fact, I never saw him ever use any amount of violence on anyone. Did you?

Was anyone's life in immediate threat had we captured him and given him a fair trial as opposed to executing him on the spot? I've not even heard the government claim that.

I don't even think (perhaps I'm wrong here) that our government accused him of enacting any kind of violence. I believe he was accused of recruiting people to be violent and murderous.

However, I've yet to see any proof. How can we be sure what the government claims is actually true if they are no longer required to provide proof in an objective court?

So theres your answer. It is now justifiable for a citizen to be executed as long as the US government assures the rest of us hes a bad guy, no proof required.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Grambler
 


He was killed with a drone strike right?
It wasn't about him being dangerous it was about how it looks to have an American on their side. And it doesn't justify killing him without a trial.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Since referencing illegal drugs is a T and C violation, we are talking about vegitation, and I changed the terms in your part of the post to reflect that.


Originally posted by Grambler

Originally posted by Xcathdra



See answrer above. Secondly the Federal Constitution states anything not specifically spelled out for the federal government, is reserved to the states. The law you ar referring to is a state law. How exactly then was your right violated since the consitution was followed?



Vegitation in California. Not mentioned in the constitution so left up to the states, California said it was legal, but the feds still come in and make arrests and shut people down.


Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 - Commerce Clause
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 - Neccisary and Proper clause
Article 1, Section 10 - Limits on the states
Article VI, Clause 2 - Supremacy clause

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.


The controlled substances Act is the basis for the Feds actions in California, and most likely the other states whose citizens voted to allow vegitation. The Federal governments argument is they are responsible for establishing the narcotics system to which all states are to abide by so the narcotics / drugs / what have you are all consistent from one state to the next.

Its reinforced by the commerce clause / elastic clause because the items cross state lines in order to be made, as well as distributed. Its also a matter of public safety both in medical fields, as well as outside the medical field, to have a set system in place to diagnose and treat that is consistent state to state, in addition to setting criteria for restricted medical use of some illegal substances (nose candy for example).

People dont agree with that and thats fine, but it doesnt negate the fact that a State law allowing, and a federal law disallowing, falls under the supremacy clause, making Federal law supreme by trumping state law. Also the enforcement is by Federal officers, not state law enforcement, so the only enforcement is from the federal side.

People need to find an argument that challeneges the governments ability to establish the legality of vegitation, making the argument the government doesnt need to regulate it to get their argument to be taken seriously to the extent of underming the federal position.

So we both dont get banned, lets move into an area we can discuss without using code words and what not.

A few examples to consider -
Just because its legal in one state, doesnt mean a person can take that item into another state and assume they are immune from that states laws.

A person can travel into Mexico and obtain narcotics that are onaly available in the US by prescrption. The moment that person crosses back into the US, they are in violation of US Federal, as well as State law.

If you counterfeit money, you are in violation of state and federal law, and can be charged by either one.

Not only are you subject to the laws of the state you reside in, you are subject to the laws of the country. REssentially, for lack of a better term, you have dual citizenship. You are a citizen of the state you reside in, as well as that of the United states. We know this because you get to vote in both levels of the elections, and you can only obtain a passport from the federal government, and can only obtain a dirvers license from the state government.

Being familiar with both levels of government is essential, up to the point of understand how double jeopardy works, and how it doesnt work when your charged at 2 different levels.

edit on 25-10-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-10-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Grambler
 


He was killed with a drone strike right?
It wasn't about him being dangerous it was about how it looks to have an American on their side. And it doesn't justify killing him without a trial.


If thats what you chose to beleive, thats certainly your right. The view I take is his actions to date, the immigration laws that cover those actions as a US citizen, and his affiliation and participation in the foriegn group, which by the way the US is technically and legally at war with.

As I stated before, under domestic law no person has to wait to be shot at before defending themselves. Its not a violation of their consittutional rights in that scenario, and its not a violation of those in this scenario (and thats giving him the benefiet of the doubt that he retains his US citizenship, where as I view him as violating that specific law, thereby renouncing his citizenship). Well, that and the fact he also has Yemeni citizenship along with a yemeni passport, but why look at specifics when it doesnt support one side fo the argument?



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Side note. Isn't it absolutely retarded that we can't reference drugs on this site even if it is for education and understanding.

I get it with people condoning drug use even though I wouldn't consider this a kid's site really (there was a page with video's of a guy jamming stuff into gadaffi's ass for god's sake.), but in conversations like this there should be no problem.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Side note. Isn't it absolutely retarded that we can't reference drugs on this site even if it is for education and understanding.

I get it with people condoning drug use even though I wouldn't consider this a kid's site really (there was a page with video's of a guy jamming stuff into gadaffi's ass for god's sake.), but in conversations like this there should be no problem.


I completely agree 100 percent. Even to the point of having it over modded to ensure the topic remains on track.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra



People dont agree with that and thats fine, but it doesnt negate the fact that a State law allowing, and a federal law disallowing, falls under the supremacy clause, making Federal law supreme by trumping state law. Also the enforcement is by Federal officers, not state law enforcement, so the only enforcement is from the federal side.





I understand the arguments you have made hear and have heard them before.

I was referencing your original comment you had made that said a poster had a problem with a state law not a federal law, because all things not enumerated in the constitution are left up to the states.

I feel that this example clearly illustrates the current federal governments draconian interpretation of the Constitution.

Your own post illustrates that even in the Constitution rights are not so easily identified. Under your interpretation here, any right of the people not expressedly mentioned in the Constitution can be revoked using the Interstate Commerce Clause, etc.

Say tomorrow the federal government wants to ban grapes. Grapes are sold between states so they have the right to make them illegal, despite the fact its not mentioned in the Constitution and my state constitution explicitly states they are to be legal.

So in other words, under your interpretation, the federal government may make anything you do that affects commerce illegal, and because an argument could be made that anything you do could affect commerce, you have no rights.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Grambler
 


Actually my position is the federal government needs to get out of our personal lives and worry about what they are responsible for - defense, relations with other countries, and promtoing the general welfare by asssiting in the creation of a peaceful world where trade is fair and employment in the US is complete.

What I have been trying to get across is that in order to acheive that, people must particiapte in government, stand up and be heard, even when they think it doesnt matter. Apathy and inaction is our enemy, because it allows the government to do what they want unopposed.

My responses are to specific questions people ask. Whether I agree with them or not, it demonstrates how a counter argument can be made, and be effective when it can be argued, referenced and sourced.

absent the particulars, it comes across as an opinion that appears to be not supported by law, when clearly it is. In order to get the changes we need, people must be able to make the arguments, to be able to recognize when a counter argument is a bluff, and to be able to pick apart the reason why the government wnats to restrict this or that.

Wihtout that knowledge, the government will be able to "make their case" with no opposition, as they have been doing for decades now.

If my approach in this threads pisses people off, im ok with that if it means just 1 or 2 people walk away and begin researching and participating in government. Sometimes all that is needed is a small snow ball tossed off a hill to get thigns going.
edit on 25-10-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


By no means did I think you were giving me your personal opinions on the matters, I was assuming (and am glad to hear) that you were just giving what you thought would be the answer given by the government or a sympathetic party had they been asked those questions.

I was just merely trying to think of examples that fit your criteria, and those were the first to that came to mind. Though your point is well taken that it is harder than one would think to come up with specific incidents.

Lastly, I do think exercises such as these are important to be able to understand how the people that seek to control you think, and how to best confront those people on as many fronts as possible, both within and without of the system.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Grambler
 





So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss. If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose. If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.
Sun-Tzu -


My point is not to embarrass anyone or act like im superior. I just get tired of seeing people comment that the government takes something from them, then when asked about specifics, they bumble through, eventually making an argument that supports the reason it was taken away.

As I said if someone whats to argue that being able to buy and eat mustard is a right - good for them. They need to be able to argue their point in a logical manner that is based on a solid foundation and in such a manner that their argument is logical and on point.

We all know how laws can be interpreted. The interpretations on those laws are done by judges who are faced with the question. They are swayed not only by case law / established law, but also by the arguments they hear from each side.

A lot of times, its that argument that makes the difference.

** As a side note I ahve a bad habit of playing devils advocate without actually stating that so my appologies.
edit on 25-10-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-10-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   
The government has taken my right to believe and trust in it from me. The government clearly believes it has a right to lie to me. To conceal its activities from me. To kill those whom it deems a threat, without a public trial. That it has a right to use its unlimited resources to fight me. That at best I own nothing free and clear, and through the power of taxation it can take any and everything I own away from me, at it's discretion.

The government understands the power of dividing and conquering, and does all in its power to nourish the stratification of its people. It actively fosters an us and them mentality.
edit on 26-10-2011 by Dav1d because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 


I would venture to say that trust is not a right. Trust is earned and should never be demanded. The government must trust its people, while at the same time the people should be wary of trusting government.

Aside from that I think I get your point.

What would need to be done to fix the issue?



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You say in your post,



My point is not to embarrass anyone or act like im superior. I just get tired of seeing people comment that the government takes something from them, then when asked about specifics, they bumble through, eventually making an argument that supports the reason it was taken away.

I will give you another example. How about Our rights as American citizens to have the money spent by the Govt.
spent in an honest way for a change and not on multiple secret and unauthorized programs that are illegal and unconstitutional?
Lastly, I have a question for you. Do you think you have lost any of your rights?
I don't need anything but a straight answer. Maybe today
edit on 26-10-2011 by CherubBaby because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by CherubBaby
I will give you another example. How about Our rights as American citizens to have the money spent by the Govt.
spent in an honest way for a change and not on multiple secret and unauthorized programs that are illegal and unconstitutional?

Agreed, and like ive been saying its up to the people to stand up and be heard. So long as we complain but do nothing to make change, we will have multi billion dollar boonedoggles. The peopl must get involved in politics at all levels, must hold our reps accountible, and must vote those out of office who fail to represent the American people.


Originally posted by CherubBaby
Lastly, I have a question for you. Do you think you have lost any of your rights?
I don't need anything but a straight answer. Maybe today
edit on 26-10-2011 by CherubBaby because: (no reason given)

As a private citizen and as a police officer yes, I feel we have lost rights. However, I take a more optomisitc approach on the subject and view the loss / erosion as temporary. We the people can fix the problem, but its going to involve people getting involved at all levels, active participation, etc etc etc.

Example - We see time and again in these forums people going on and on about what the problems are and how those problems could be fixed. However, these forums is usually where that thought process ends. It takes an extra 20 seconds to copy and paste your post here into an email to send to your reps.
edit on 26-10-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Thanks for your response. I will tell you what active participation it's going to take. 1,000,000 people in front of the White House and Capitol saying we aren't going to put up with it anymore. I know all about LEO and Have an honorable ( USMC ) ...But then you probably know that.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


One of the largest "right's grabs" was conducted recently.

Nice little paper for you to read... www.nyclu.org...

We haven't lost our rights, we're losing our rights.

The constitution and the bill of rights says simply...


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


According to that text I should be able to roll around in my Tundra with a M242 25 mm chain gun if I like. Not just a .22 target pistol.

Now read what's been done to this right and keep in mind I live in TX a pretty weapon friendly state.

en.wikipedia.org...

Pay special attention to the "Late 20th Century Commentary" and the "Meaning of" parts.

In the 1800s an American citizen could ride around on a horse towing a cannon no problem, no questions asked other than "Hey, nice cannon, where'd ya get that?" Today if I rolled around in my Tundra towing a 155mm long tom (The closest modern equivalent, minus the crusader, paladin, nlos canon, mlrs, himars, etc.) I'd be pulled over and thrown in jail in 45 out of the 50 states. In most states I have to unload my .45 acp Beretta and place the magazine X feet away or even in a completely different container and God forbid I take that weapon across certain state lines.

Now this is one I love...

www.koco.com...

First Amendment and Fourth Amendment intrusions over a sign? Gimme a break.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Thanks for your response. I will tell you what active participation it's going to take. 1,000,000 people in front of the White House and Capitol saying we aren't going to put up with it anymore. I know all about LEO and Have an honorable ( USMC ) ...But then you probably know that.


Your welcome..


More the merrier, so long as its peaceful / non violent. We have seen marches that have gathered large numbers, so its not impossible. If we can get 24 million people to vote for American Idol, we can scrounge some up to play Government Idol.

What its going to take though is simple - The American people deciding they want their government, and country, back.









 
23
<< 30  31  32    34 >>

log in

join