Originally posted by Xcathdra
As far as the constitution goes, are you stating that you feel the NDAA and some of this other police-state legislation that has gone through recently supersedes the Constitution without Amendment in a legal sense?
Please point out in the Constitution where the NDAA and other "police state legislation" have violated it. It being the Constitution / amendments etc etc etc etc.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The notice-and-termination procedure of Section 103(a) runs afoul of the “prior restraint” doctrine, because it delegates to a private party the power to suppress speech without prior notice and a judicial hearing. This provision of the bill would give complaining parties the power to stop online advertisers and credit card processors from doing business with a website, merely by filing a unilateral notice accusing the site of being “dedicated to theft of U.S. property” – even if no court has actually found any infringement. The immunity provisions in the bill create an overwhelming incentive for advertisers and payment processors to comply with such a request immediately upon receipt. The Supreme Court has made clear that “only a judicial determination in an adversary proceeding ensures the necessary sensitivity to freedom of expression [and] only a procedure requiring a judicial determination suffices to impose a valid final restraint.” Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 58 (1965). “[P]rior restraints on speec hand publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.” Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976).
To compound the problem, SOPA provides that a complaining party can file a noticealleging that it is harmed by the activities occurring on the site “or portion thereof .”Conceivably, an entire website containing tens of thousands of pages could be targeted if only a single page were accused of infringement. Such an approach would create severe practical problems for sites with substantial user-generated content, such as Facebook, Twitter, andYouTube, and for blogs that allow users to post videos, photos, and other materials.
2. Various police actions and local court orders against the "Occupy" protests:
Categorically violates peaceable assembly as well as has ORDERED police officers from coast to coast to BE REQUIRED to become domestic terrorists as defined by the USA Patriot Act and Article I.5 of the Convention On The Prohibition Of The Development, Production, Stockpiling And Use Of Chemical Weapons and On Their Destruction. See Below:
107th Congress. 2001. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001. Session 1, H.R. 3162. Defines an "Act of Terror" as an attempt to do any one of the following:
to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.
to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;
to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, etc.
involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state
occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
The CWC Treaty, Article 1.5 specifically declares riot-control agents such as, but not limited to, tear gas and pepper spray to be chemical weapons and they are banned even in open warfare.
1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never under any circumstances:
(a) To develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to anyone;
(b) To use chemical weapons;
(c) To engage in any military preparations to use chemical weapons;
(d) To assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.
2. Each State Party undertakes to destroy chemical weapons it owns or possesses, or that are located in any place under its jurisdiction or control, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention. 3. Each State Party undertakes to destroy all chemical weapons it abandoned on the territory of another State Party, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.
4. Each State Party undertakes to destroy any chemical weapons production facilities it owns or possesses, or that are located in any place under its jurisdiction or control, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.
5. Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.
...oops. Out of room on the 1st amndmt alone