Our politicians sign an oath to protect our constitution. Our military signs an oath to protect our constitution. We the people must fight to protect our constitution with our votes.

Some cities have violated this amendment by banning guns within city limits. The people voted for this violation.

This one's been violated by the warrantless wiretapping.

This one has been violated with the removal of habeas corpus.


This one has been violated by legalizing torture.

Most of us are not constitutional scholars but I'd appreciate any and all idea on what these amendments mean to us and if you think any others have been violated as well as the ones most recently violated in the detainee bill.

I think the 10A has also been infringed upon by the interstates use of artificial wars on drugs, without having the constituional authority (a specific amendment to allow prohibition of a powerful mood altering drug) to do so.

I'm not one to give a valuable opinion on the matter, though I do have some links to some testimonies that may reflect a certain viewpoint on current Constitutional violations and all that. The testimonies are from an Illinois State Legislature study in 1978 on "regionalism." I've only read the first two so far, though I'm pretty sure they're relevant. Horton's testimony is, perhaps, the most focused on the issue of the Constitution.

Norman Dodd.
David Horton.
Robert Pope.
Eve Lyn Moerlien.

The source is a very conservative website that adheres to certain conspiratorial ideas, but the testimonies themselves seem valid.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

How is the foreign intellegence program affected by the constitution and Bill of rights when the people being watched are not U.S. citizens?



Yes, let's treat terrorists as if they were citizens, right?




Torture has not been legalized.



Well, this is pretty easy, the detainee bill has not violated anything but the liberal judges that give us faulty rulings pretty much every time they open their mouths. There is something that has been violated, that's freedom of religion. The liberals have inserted "Seperation of Church and State" and claim that's what the Constitution says and it is not stated anywhere, and besides, even if it was in the Constitution it doesn't mean that you can't pray or say the name of God Himself anywhere you want, especially in a Government building.

Abortion is another issue that the Liberal judges say is Constitutionally protected even when the Constitution doesn't address the subject . . . anywhere!

__________________
Honor role student at the Limbaugh Institute for advanced Conservative studies.

Actually, the NSA program involved wiretapping, without warrant, on a conversation between a party in America and a party in a foreign country. That this was done without a warrant invites the speculation of a lot of abuse (such as listening in on political opponents). Also, the Constitution does not just apply to citizens; the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and thus applies to any person on American soil.

But you have not yet determined if the individual in question is a terrorist yet. The government can simply claim that this non-citizen or that non-citizen is suspected of terrorist activities and can then toss that individual into prison; at the same time, the government is denying them a right to a speedy and public trial (you know, the same trial that will actually determine if they are guilty of terrorism or not). That can be determined by a military tribunal, I hear (I've yet to read the actual bill).

That this bill passed is bad enough; and that people are defending it disgusts me.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

And when have terrorists been coverd under out constitution?????? These mutherfuckers are POW's NOT American citizens. Furthermore what liberals define as tourture is more of a discomfort then anything else.

__________________
America’s political correctness is a disease that will bring down our once fine nation.

As Luap mentioned, the issue here is that these individuals have not actually been convicted in any sort of trial, hearing or tribunal. They are being held only because some government office has accused them of being terrorists. This law would allow them to be held FOREVER without ever having to be placed on trial.

Imagine if some other nation grabbed a US citizen and accused him/her of being a terrorist and placed them in a prison. Farthermore, that country decided it had no obligation to give the accused a public trial or to demonstrate the evidence that proved they were a terrorist. It simply tossed them in prison and threw away the key based solely on an accusation. THAT is what we are doing.

I have no problem with holding terrorists or "enemy combatents" in Gitmo or wherever else. But we MUST have some system to guarentee, in the eyes of the American and global public, that these people we've accused actually ARE terrorists!

The constitution isn't meant to protect Americans from the government....the constitution is meant to RESTRICT the US government from doing certain things. Therefore the constitution restricts the US government from taking away habeas corpus, from cruel and unusual punishment, from spying without a warrant, from banning guns in the USA.

The detainees are not POWs. Bush removed that status from them first thing, so they weren't covered under the geneva convention. That is why he got in trouble with the Supreme Court and had to get congress to make this detainee bill that makes it legal for him to torture people, takes away habeas corpus and lets them use coerced evidence (what they said while being tortured) in court. These three things are un-American and a constitutional violation.

Do you have any idea of howmany Americans are being held right now in jails because they are accused of a crime?

Would it make you feel better if all these POW's had a bond hearing and the judge orderd them held with out bond due to the fact that they are a flight risk??

Furthermore why do you care so much about the enemy for? if you have a problem with people being held why dont you turn your aggression on our fine judicial system right here in America instead of fighting for POW's?

Do you have any idea what these fuckheads do to American POW's?? they cut off their heads and not only POW's but civilians as well but your worried about them being held for 5-6 years with food, water, clothing and a nice clean cell.

As far as tourture the only people getting that are the people who are found with information and documents on them.

__________________
America’s political correctness is a disease that will bring down our once fine nation.

Thats just an opinion and a reason to hate the government, the bill of rights is exactly that, the peoples rights. We are given these rights to protect our selfs from the government.

__________________
America’s political correctness is a disease that will bring down our once fine nation.

Sorry to see somebody choosing minimize this serious issue by wrapping it in a partisan-attack blanket. The BoR has been in flux and decline for decades with both ruling parties to blame.

I) The Dems have been undercutting religion. The left has been undercutting free speech with 'policital correctness'. The Repubs have undercut free speech in the past to support their abortion views and would seem to like to do so now to 'fight terrorism'. Sort of speech/assembly/redress violations occurred with Clinton's stacking 'town hall meetings' and W's 'protest zones' overly far from public appearances. (There admittedly may have been earlier examples that I don't know of.)

II) This Amendment has been repealed under the 'abrogation of duty' clause of the job description for a Supreme Court Justice.

III) Hey! This one's still intact! (Or perhaps 'again', as I think it was routinely violated in the War of Succession.)

IV) Wiretapping schmiretapping. If one assumes the taps in question Do violate A4, it's just the layer of snow atop the tombstone. The war on drugs, and especially asset forfeiture, eviscerated this 'freedom' a long time ago.

V) Asset forfeiture applies again here. As do the Rodney King convictions of officers already found not guilty. And eminient domain abuse was going on for decades before Kelo officially struck out the last phrase of A5.

VI) Hmmm... While I'm sure there are instances where this has been violated, the only Current systemic problem I know of is the disallowal of Jury Nullification.

VII) Hmmm... Not sure if the governmental abuse of claiming 'civil penalties' in criminal matters applies here or not.

VIII) Minimum sentencing laws (another artifact of the the lost 'war on drugs'), criminal registries, and excessive 'civil penalties' are all slaps in the face of these former freedoms.

IX) I'm not sure when this was de facto repealed, but it obviously has been, since even the rights Specifically Listed are ignored; what chance to do any Not listed have of being respected?

X) This was suspended for the War of Succession, then ignored for the War on Drugs, then repealed somtime later in the 20th Century, with a cry that translates into current parlance as "All your interstate commerce are belong to me."


So we're what, 3-for-10, if one wants to look at it thru rose-colored glasses? Or worse, if one takes them off and/or looks closer. Yes, W has nibbled away at our rights, but the various rats that preceded him left it already looking like shredded swiss cheese.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

The important thing is that the law demands that those citizens MUST be brought before a judge and tried for his supposed crimes (officially it must be done speedily, though in pratice it tragically is not).
This bill, as I understand it, allows the detaniee to NEVER be put on trial. That's not OK. Sooner or later, in both demestic and foreign issues, there should be some method of officially and publically ascertaining whether the accused actually is guilty or not.
This bill makes no provision for that; it treats anyone accused of terrorism by the state as if they were guilty.

I merely want to government to have to PROVE that these people are, in fact, the enemy and that they have not been captured by mistake. The government has already admitted that some were detained by accident. There should be an officially, transparent method for confirming the guilt or innocence of the others.

I have no problem with terrorists being held in prisons or, possibly dependent on the situation, even executed. But I want some sort of method in place to prove that we are only holding terrorists, not innocent people.
5-6 in prison isn't much if you're guilty. It's an abominable theft from your life if you're innocent. The government must prove these people are guilty.

I was under the impression that, for all its faults, this latest bill DID require the rules of the Geneva Convention be upheld. Was I mistaken?

todd93;812626]How is the foreign intellegence program affected by the constitution and Bill of rights when the people being watched are not U.S. citizens?

RESPONSE: The problem is that some of them are.
-----
Yes, let's treat terrorists as if they were citizens, right?

RESPONSE:Actually "AS THOUGH "THEY HAD RIGHTS TOO
----

Torture has not been legalized.

RESPONSE:now, just "WHAT" do you think this last bill was about????
----

If they are and they're contacting a foreign entity that is a known terrorist, or is known to have ties with terrorists, then that qualifies "probable cause" and no warrant is needed, furthermore, they're not listening to people talking to their grandma and learning her secret recipe for Christmas cookies or anything like that. it has been stated and well documented that they are not allowed to eavesdrop into private conversations, and if they stumble upon a private call of that sort, then they disconnect and have miles of paperwork and reports to do on the call and the action taken.
apparently you want them to have the right to kill us, because it's obvious you're invested in our defeat.
The last bill was simply a clarification on the current Geneva convention common article 3 outlining what are and are not acceptable and legal means of interrogation of P.O.W.'s

Enemy combatants do not fall under this category anyway.

__________________
Honor role student at the Limbaugh Institute for advanced Conservative studies.