Interpretation of Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ After Boston Bombing

page: 1
53
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+26 more 
posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
I paraphrased the title a bit for space but this sentiment comes from none other than the New York Nanny, Mayor Bloomberg. It seems, he thinks we need to shred that Constitution just a little bit and trim some fat off the 'ol Bill of Rights.


In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday the country’s interpretation of the Constitution will “have to change” to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks.

“The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry,” Mr. Bloomberg said during a press conference in Midtown. “But we live in a complex word where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”


Wow.. Now imagine that. We live in a world so dangerous now that it's beyond the scope of what the U.S. Constitution could envision or handle. So dangerous, he claims it's become, we need to necessarily sacrifice liberty for security. Yes, indeed. That appears to be precisely what this proud member of the Global 1% Club is telling us little people.


“It really says something bad about us that we have to do it. But our obligation first and foremost is to keep our kids safe in the schools; first and foremost, to keep you safe if you go to a sporting event; first and foremost is to keep you safe if you walk down the streets or go into our parks,” he said. “We cannot let the terrorists put us in a situation where we can’t do those things. And the ways to do that is to provide what we think is an appropriate level of protection.”
Source

Neigh Neigh I say. First and Foremost, the obligations of the elected leadership from Mayor to President is to maintain and uphold the values as well as spirit of what the Constiutution embodies across every paragraph of the document. It's so far against his style of thinking, I believe he's in the wrong nation for his approach. Very much so.


Where was Bloomers in the 1960's and early 70's when groups like the Weather Underground, The Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) and other extreme radical groups were bombing everything from the Pentagon itself to statues in cities across this land with Anfo and other homemade explosive? The Constitution saw us through that period and we've been through worse still ...all without giving up the essential core of what it is to be American and what this nation is, to stand free for the rights of the INDIVIDUAL OVER The interests of the state or the collective.

The scary thing is, I believe this sorry excuse of a man actually has high ambitions to run for far more than Mayor. I wonder what his approach and attitude would bring in higher office than he now holds? (Particularly how he had to get laws changed just to HOLD the office he still does for term limits
).

Here is hoping my Great Nation never has to learn what men like this could do to it, if give more than they have now to work with.

Scary times indeed and a time where vigilance is more critical than perhaps ever before. Eternal vigilance, it's said, is the price for true freedom. We've been sleeping on the job as citizens.
edit on 23-4-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



+21 more 
posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   
"Those who are willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither"

The quotes from him in the OP sound like treason
edit on 23-4-2013 by Hawking because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   
The world is inherently dangerous, it always has been. There will always be jackwagons filled with hate, killing other people.

How about we don't do anything, and accept those facts. I could get blown up today or tomorrow. Does that mean I'm going to cower in fear? Does that mean I'm going to *ask* to be treated like a caged animal?

No, this whole thing about taking away rights for security is dumb as hell.

It never solves anything, it never really prevents anything.


+2 more 
posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   
No,No,and HELL NO.

Bloomberg's vision of "safety" is to ban those "terroristic" big Gulps, etc. Security is the greatest lie of that past 13 years.

Doesn't exist, and all those who push for more "security measures" are not only lying to the rest of us, they are lying to themselves.

Someone wants to do harm, and take life, they will. and no amount of "constitutional interpretation" is going to change that.

Since the Boston Bombing can't believe how many people sound just like GWB.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   
If you are serious about your Freedoms.
It's time to put up or shut up.
Get off your chairs and go visit your congressman.
Hell become a congressman and change things.

Complaining about stuff on the internet isn't going to change anything.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Maybe these retards should start addressing WHY it's a (supposedly) less safe world today?

How about the complete systematical removal of morals and values thanks to Hollywood, celebs setting the example, the removal of the middleclass thanks to "capitalism",...

But no, as usual, it's not their fault. I wish for the day when mediapeople finally grow a pair again to start asking legitimate questions, but ohyeah that's right, they're not allowed to. When will someone ask this muppet what he thinks the reason is? Are we evolutionarily turning into a worse species or something? No, THEY created the world we live in, and now its our fault and we have to pay for it. This is complete garbage and depressing to say the least. Who with an iq over 70 can read this without fearing the world we'll be living in within 20years? It's coming exactly like predicted and I dont see it ending well. Most will welcome it and the rest will either suffer in silence or die fighting it



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



Security is the greatest lie of that past 13 years.
Sorry to disagree, "for the last 50 years". And another step back, the last 100 years! Nov 1963, and Dec 1913.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   
1. Yesterday some 1 million people died planet wide - where's the outrage?

2. The KGB had thes powers without limits Mr. Bloombutt, and you were one of the many back in the 60's-80's who decried the outrageousness of their ways.

3. Police do not "prevent" crime, this is impossible. Police investigate events, attach people to the events and a court decides who is "guilty" and nowhere in the process is there the prevention of something - it is post facto. When police to "stop" someone from say "bombing" they have not actually prevented a crime, as there is no proof the "crime" would have occurred: Yesterday I bought ice cream, my wife threw it out to prevent me from eating it - stopping the crime, the only problem is she assumed it was for me, but it was for my neighbor.

4. Prison's have these powers mr. bloombutt wishes, they aren't safe.

5. If mr bloombutt were sincere, he'd make the distinction between, say his "stop and search" program which netted very few arrests for either future crime or past crime, and searching with cause - oh, never mind that's spelled out in the constitution.

6. Why is it that people who have nothing to do with the issues of crime etc. are the biggest experts? A newspaper man is the best man to judge how the efforts regarding crime are made?

Consider this when you seek to give your power over to the police for safety, and this is not a reflection of any given officer, but of a very obvious fact that is totally overlooked. When an "officer" is feeling insecure about any given situation, he is afforded the right to kill anyone who makes him insecure - this is not murder, manslaughter or even a crime.

When a man is feeling insecure about a policeman's actions, he must simply submit, because were he to attack the person making him feel insecure, it would be murder. The constitution applies to you, not him. He may shoot you, and you are with out recourse, you cannot shoot him not matter what, you are not equal in the minds of the court.

This is important to see, the moral ground once established as the "police work for, in order to protect, the common man" is now gone, the police work for the State, enforcing the rules of the State, just like the KGB etc. There is never a day when the uniforms change, there is a day when the moral compass is removed from those who execute the edicts of the State - we're here now. The "Constitution" does not apply to any action unless you go to court after the fact, and if you can't the rules of gang warfare apply. What bloombutt wants is not the ability to do as he pleases, he has that, he wants the ability not to be challenged on it ever - no moral compass at all. When there is no moral compass, it is too late.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Bloomberg is the embodiment of modern tyranny. Let us hope this man never runs for president.

He truly believes freedom is too dangerous for anyone but him. This is what happens when an insulated rich liberal is given power over the people. He's insane and I can only hope that his ilk are marginalized from American politics forever.
edit on 23-4-2013 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
the only thing that needs to change is:
the DHS head in charge - needs to resign for incompetency.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by All Seeing Eye
 





Sorry to disagree, "for the last 50 years". And another step back, the last 100 years! Nov 1963, and Dec 1913.


Sorry we are talking about terrorism here YES?

The largest "constitutional intepretation" began:

With the Patriot Act,NDAA,creation of DHS, etc. so 13 years was accurate, and now with the Boston Bombing they are saying more is needed for same "reasons".
edit on 23-4-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibajaba
the only thing that needs to change is:
the DHS head in charge - needs to resign for incompetency.


Or abolish the DHS. We had all the intelligence necessary to investigate 9/11 and even to prevent it prior to the creation of the DHS. It wasn't needed then, and after their repeated assaults on American liberty, they are certainly not needed now.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Your speaking about Constitutionality?


Congress created the Federal Reserve, yet it had no constitutional authority to do so. We forget that those powers not explicitly granted to Congress by the Constitution are inherently denied to Congress and thus the authority to establish a central bank never was given.
tenthamendmentcenter.com...
To me that says it all, it is unconstitutional, and never was, constitutional, and passing it has been the greatest act of terror ever imagined. WWI WWII, and all the others are a direct result of this unconstitutional act. Terror, monetary terror. 100 years of terror.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


And the people who have said this was coming were the crazies, not the ones who are trying to institute a police state.


+7 more 
posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibajaba
the only thing that needs to change is:
the DHS head in charge - needs to resign for incompetency.


See, I'd argue the entirety of the DHS should be mothballed. It is an Orwellian agency which serves no legitimate purpose other than being an invasive pain in the ass. If I was holding a glass of water and the DHS was on fire, I'd drink the water.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Maybe if people felt free and not backed into a corner from an oppressive government, they might not get violent in the first place?

Just a thought.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 





See, I'd argue the entirety of the DHS should be mothballed. It is an Orwellian agency which serves no legitimate purpose other than being an invasive pain in the ass. If I was holding a glass of water and the DHS was on fire, I'd drink the water.


I concur since the events of last week is what exactly the DHS was created for, and we all saw what an epic multibillion dollar failure that was..

The DHS was created to save the sheep from the wolves,to where the only wolf left is the FED'S.

The government never has liked competition.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


That is what i am worry the most, Bloombug I mean Bloomburg should never be allow to run for more power than he got now.

He is a a danger, an arrogant dictator that his powers in NY has gone far beyond what is expected for a man of his position and getting away with it because obviously he have the people and voters in NY eating out of his hand.

He is a mobster, a good example of how to look for for extremist groups pushing their candidates of choice to pursue agendas.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Bloomberg is a progressive fascist scum bag. The ironic part is the people who support him don't even begin to understand just how fast he will also take away there personal freedoms. Like the freedom of speech. Trust me everything will be up on the table all in the name of security.




When you give up freedom for security it is a never ending cycle. Men like this mayor would see us all wearing the chains of ignorance and apathy. Hopefully they will fall lightly upon our backs.





new topics
top topics
 
53
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join