Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention. Merry Christmas, US Senate

page: 4
155
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


screw the recall. It is time for all of the states to succeed from the union.




posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by TheLastStand
 


Ya know... I can not really argue a case against such a thing. I can honestly say that if my State suggested secession, I would support it 100%.

At some point something has just got to give.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


They should vote for Newt.
Lock up the Judges too immediately if they decide contra to the national norm.
There must be a lot of guilty people in the state.
Wonder why all the rest are so blase.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Way to go Montana!

It's time for ALL of us to vote out politicians who are enemies of our (somewhat still) Free Republic. Let's vote in true champions of freedom, not just those who promise the moon and give us jack.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


I hope the people start recalling Sen John McCain too.
After all he voted for the NDAA.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   
When is Obama supposed to sign the NDAA bill into effect? All I see is the Senate passed it but it's awaiting Obama's signature...



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Adyta
 


He has already signed it. Here is a link from Politico.

Obama Signs NDAA

Now please remember, he said he would veto the bill, then he signed it. What was his response to the change of heart?

"Despite my strong objection to these provisions, which my Administration has consistently opposed, I have signed this Act because of the importance of authorizing appropriations for, among other things, our military activities in 2011.

"Nevertheless, my Administration will work with the Congress to seek repeal of these restrictions, will seek to mitigate their effects, and will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future."


So do you believe him? I sure don't.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


According to the comments on that article, that's last years NDAA, not the 2012 version.

Look's like he hasn't signed it yet.
edit on 12/28/2011 by Adyta because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Adyta
 


Odd.. perhaps I clicked the wrong link in my search, or I did not notice the date. I did however find another source saying Obama did sign the NDAA into law on Dec 23, 2011 for the fiscal year of 2012.

Obama signs NDAA

There are also plenty of links I came across that say he has not signed it yet. So at this point I am a bit confused.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
all roads seem to lead back to dailykos.com - i will keep digging; however, there were several members from montana who are totally in the dark about this - something doesn't feel right - this story could be some kind of gauge to see how american's react to this NDAA passing - stinks to high heaven -



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Sadly no one thinks to use such laws to their advantage. Say against a radical body of members that have repeatedly violated their mandate and limitations to the Constitution....

Heck, I think if a duly elected officer was to follow the new law he could secure the Capitol Building and everyone in it, legally, indefinitely.

The old "Live by the sword, die by the sword." or poisoned pen in this case.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


Exactly what I was thinking. Say, a duly elected official (like the president) could use his new power to
round up as many treasonous traitors to the constitution as he could find. The executive branch has been
gathering excessive power to itself for quite some time now. Might as well use this "king-like" power
for some good instead of evil.

Only thing is, I just can't side with indefinite detention without some sort of a fair trial. But that is my
weakness, I am not as evil as most of our government has become.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
I think they should also be arrested



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by OpusMarkII
 

I'm sorry, I don't understand. What crime should they be arrested for? And "really screwing up" isn't a crime. (Thankfully, or I'd be looking at 25 to life.)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Well, i've checked all the local papers, and the papers for the larger cities in my area, including Bozeman, Helena, and Billings. I've found nothing. So I don't think this is happening


Wanted to add, I checked on Christmas, and every day since. Nada.

In case anyone is curious, my "area" is sw of Bozeman.
edit on 30-12-2011 by JJRichey because: addddddddddddddddddddddddddddd



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


That's political doublespeak for I actually support this but I'm a coward and don't want to take the blame. I do think the Democrats are realizing they have been taken over by the same Progressives who have infested the Right also. They are everywhere and their goal is the elimination of our Constitution by making it irrelevant through the Courts.

Obama's agenda is more government, more government control and more government intrusions into everyone's lives.

Truly odd that article came from the Daily Koss? The Daily Koss is probably the most Progressive, most anti-Constitution site on the entire Internet. The games we play, eh?

As to Obama he's made no secret he thinks the Constitution should be scrapped. Sadly nobody pays attention.

SSDD - This passed easily, so the Montana Recall will never happen. It does send a message though.

It must be a tough time for Partisan Democrats who are realizing they don't like their own President. Why they did not run another candidate against him boggles the mind. Carter all over again.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:19 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by redhorse
 


I do agree with you, redhorse, on the issues that came up in '09, but I feel differently about this one. Here in Butte, I've heard people talking about this as soon as the provisions of the NDAA became public knowledge.

I just posted the link a few minutes ago for the online petition, and I truly hope that we are just the beginning of things here.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Three, look at the grounds for recall:

(3) Physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense enumerated in Title 45 are the only grounds for recall.
None of those are "They made a really bad decision and we hate them."


I understand what you are saying here, friend...but this does have a legal leg to stand on. Voting for the NDAA, as it stands, is a violation of their oath of office, to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Since the NDAA violates provisions as stated in the Constitution, then a vote for it is in direct violation of that oath.





new topics

top topics



 
155
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join