Sen. Paul Declares Victory for Americans’ Right to Trial by Jury

page: 1
28
<<   2 >>

log in

join
+10 more 
posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
With enough pressure from the liberty movement and concerned Americans, today we get to celebrate a victory, albeit small but significant to our essential rights as Americans.

The NDAA indefinite detention might've lost this time but the fight certainly isn't over. The Obama Administration backed by the military industrial complex and those that wish to strip us of our rights will not stop just like how the establishment government onslaught of the power to censor the internet will never cease.

This is the reason we must always stay vigilant and cautious to the constant attacks on our rights.

It took a major show of democratic strength to put this one through (+1 for the D's fighting for rights) but some liberty loving Republicans cannot be ignored for their anti-establishment legislation fight as well. It truly is a major SHAME that 29 Senators voted against trial by Jury. Even McCain voted for the amendment and he is a strong proponent of military powers as he defended the 'military indefinite detainment of Americans' previously. Marco Rubio, a supposed tea party advocate (it is safe to call him a TEOCON) voted against trial by jury. WOW.

Vote Roll Call below

paul.senate.gov...




Nov 29, 2012
WASHINGTON, D.C. - This evening, the U.S. Senate voted on Amendment No. 3018 to the National Defense Authorization Act sponsored by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), and co-sponsored by Sen. Rand Paul, which protects the rights prescribed to Americans in the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution with regard to indefinite detention and the right to a trial by jury.

The amendment passed, 67-29.

Moments before the vote, Sen. Paul took to the Senate floor to again voice his support for the amendment and inspire his colleagues to do the same. Below is video and transcript of his floor speech.







NAY's :
Ayotte (R-NH)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McConnell (R-KY)
Nelson (D-NE)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

YEA's:
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Durbin (D-IL)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lee (R-UT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Paul (R-KY)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Risch (R-ID)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)

edit on 29-11-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-11-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Thanks. Small victory indeed. The traitors sure don't have any fear of exposing themselves anymore. I guess they feel pretty confident there's nothing we can do to them....

edit on 11/29/2012 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Thank you for sharing this and it brings just a bit of hope to see Congress putting aside divides when it's for the overall principles of the nation. Perhaps it's a rare sight, and thats the problem....but, I'll take what sights like this we can get, eh?
I'm also happy to see this:


Levin (D-MI)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)


People gave me a lot of grief locally for voting for McCaskil. At least some I know sure did. This is why though. I figure she'll go the right way when push comes to shove hard enough. I'm glad to see it looks to have been correct. After all, she just gained another 6 year term. She sure didn't vote this out of fear of voter reaction. Nice story all around. S/F!

(On the other hand, I'd ask everyone to recall who voted against and when they're up for the next boot from office.
)



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


Yer mah buddy.

High five.

A breath of fresh air to see at least one human suit+tie opening their flaptraps about our waning Constitution.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Yeah but can Obama just pull another executive order? He doesn't take no for an answer. Reminds me of Napoleon.

Anyways, thanx for the great news, and I hope it sticks!



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by elouina
Yeah but can Obama just pull another executive order? He doesn't take no for an answer. Reminds me of Napoleon.

Anyways, thanx for the great news, and I hope it sticks!


Yea, I know what you mean but I think the wording is important here:



1032. PROHIBITION ON THE INDEFINITE DETENTION OF CITIZENS AND LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS


Section 4001 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and


(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:


``(b)(1) An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.

``(2) Paragraph (1) applies to an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority enacted before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2013.

``(3) Paragraph (1) shall not be construed to authorize the detention of a citizen of the United States, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, or any other person who is apprehended in the United States.''.


Now, I'm not ENTIRELY SURE but the part where it says.




unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.


Could be the portion of the amendment that keeps Obama's greedy paws from signing an EO to carry out his wishes anyway.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:34 AM
link   
good news and glad you shared


Rubio ??
what a profound embarrassment.
'nuff said.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   
awesome , but after seeing mcain and levin as some of the yays , i got a bad feeling. so instead of un lawfully detaining us , they will now just focus on taking us out with drones.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Yeah really, exactly what I thought when I saw his name. I Thought Rubio might have some real potential, now not so much......



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Honor93
 


Yeah really, exactly what I thought when I saw his name. I Thought Rubio might have some real potential, now not so much......
nah, he mixes with enough locals for me to have written him off long before he got on the ballot. too bad more ppl didn't do their research ... he's bought and paid for.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


I thought that executive orders were, inherently, intended to bypass such legislation? After all, the whole concept of an EO ( in theory, please don't think I agree with this!) is to allow certain actions which are specifically prohibited - or not explicitly allowed - by in-place legislation?

Likewise I plead ignorance of the mechanics. It seems to be designed to be confusing!
edit on 30-11-2012 by Son of Will because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Wow so something actually happened in congress that's relevant and they made the right choice? Rare news nowadays...

I have so much respect for the real politicians that constantly fight evil politicians that support a different agenda than protecting citizens and country. I'm surprised not more politicians give up, looking at the constant upstream fight that it seems to be to uphold basic rights and common sense... They truly have nerves of steel and strength beyond belief.

I'm not a US citizen but it is rare to hear good knows from the US. Don't stop now!



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Son of Will
 


Personally I thought EOs were just to bypass congress, you know when extra urgency is required. It wouldn't surprise me though if it were possible for EOs to pass that break the law in some way, simply because of the speed at which things can be passed into law that way.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
take note of all who voted No and don't forget



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
I know I'm always looking for the dark cloud attatched to the silver lining, but when we have to depend on Congress to tell us which Constitutional rights we are allowed to have, I don't see that as a victory.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Dr. Ron Paul - should be placed in congressional hall of fame - the same room as the founding fathers.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
So effing depressing...........reading the replies i get the impression the people have no intention of fighting for themselves, or even backing the play of those who are in the thick of the fray........The halls of overment SHOULD at the very LEAST, have been flooded with telegrams, letters and emails of support for the valiant upholders of YOUR freedoms and rights.....
Everyone who voted NAY should now be buried in communications that define what they did as an act of a traitor to the constitution, and a promise to work to remove them from office at the FIRST opportunity!
You dont have to be an Oathkeeper to uphold your constitution, YOU, just have to be a serious citizen.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Sorry but we still dont get a jury in the vast majority of cases.

In reality with municipal courts, you have to actually lose the first non jury, non court of record sham trial.
Then after losing and being ruined, you get to appeal the loss by requesting a jury recorded trial.

They tried doing it to me so I fled the state.

I refused to sign enrollment documents to put my eight yr old girl in their ultra fail school system, and they broke a dozen laws and filed for custody of my kid over this alone, and I got NO JURY.

My kid is happy, can read real novels like the Hobbit or Gullivers Travels, etc. No abuse, nothing.

They wanted the 20,000 $ per yr from my kid govt account for enrolling her.
Not on my watch hell no.

Pennsylvania is a tyrannical law ignoring state of psychos oh my god the story is so much crazier than I told.
Ill make a thread w all info sometime soon.
edit on 30-11-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
So in reality of 90% or more actual cases, no jury is allowed.

What you get is a Judge who has every interest financially to say guilty.
.0000000001% chance of getting a nice judge.

This whole system is a scam anyone who got called to municipal court knows they are tyrants.

Its all about money, so get on your knees so the kangaroo court can jump over you.

I hate this anti freedom joke of a system we have in America.
ANTI FREEDOM



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
I know I'm always looking for the dark cloud attatched to the silver lining, but when we have to depend on Congress to tell us which Constitutional rights we are allowed to have, I don't see that as a victory.


We never had a right to a jury to begin with.

I challenge all Americans to attempt requesting a jury trial next time they get a summons.
Impossible, you can only get it on appeal AFTER LOSING the first trial.

Its a complete fraud....
They dont even record what happens in that first sham trial where you always lose every time.



new topics
top topics
 
28
<<   2 >>

log in

join