I just hope either the Supreme Court strikes this law down or, when a president does abuse this law, the military remembers its primary commitment: to protect the constitution, even from the President.

But who will protect your constitution from your military?

An ungodly number of regular american citizens with an ungodly number of guns.

Or the governments of other nations that see our military as a threat but not our population.

"Governments are corrupt and the mass populations of virtually every country of the world know their own government is corrupt and do not agree with their policies. There is, however, at least one solution to this problem..."

United Humans of Earth

This message was sponsored by the UHE which supports a movement towards a more peaceful planet.

Yeah, that'd work

And the chances this will get past the Supreme court are...

It used to be "slim to none"...but now...

Sucks to be you es.

The only true solution is the Terran Star Empire and the Clark Dynasty.

I disagree. I say the only solution is nuclear war.

The only trouble with a law like this is that, if it passes, it probably won't be abused, so there won't be as much of a stink made about it. But it will set a precedence, so when it is abused, it will already be established.

Careful, men in black suits might be knocking at your door tomorrow.

Yes, god knows men in power have NEVER abused their authority.

Oh...wait...

Man what are you talking about. I've NEVER abused my authority.

Oh shi...:ninja:

Well, you did call everyone jerkoffs



Salright, my main problem with this taking away of rights for the "war on terror" is that terrorists aren't going to go away. Dang terrists.

The Anchor brings up an interesting point. If an extreme left president is elected, he could concievably use the tribunal to arrest Bush for undermining the fabric of democracy, thus giving aid to the enemy.

-'Swhat I'd do.

I find this thread almost as amusing as the articles it links.

Anyway, it's unlikely that the supreme court will strike this law down, though it is highly likely that it will hear a suit on it rather soon, and might force an amendment clarifying the fact that it cannot override an American Citizen's constitutional rights (Which it doesn't.) I would expect the suit to be brought forth by the ACLU or a similiar organization. It will probably orgininate in california or the pacific north west; those districts are the most amendable to the 'Bush is evil' way of thinking.

There seems to be a misconception that a bill can give the president power the constitution does not. They can't; the constitution gives the president only expressed powers. All matters not addressed directly by the constitution remain within the power of the state, not federal government. All a bill does is clarify and stipulate the power of the executive branch, and set up beuracracy for the administration of that power. The supreme court is the check against this power. It, and only it, has the power to veto any law. Unfortunatly, the process by which that is done requires the citizen to know his rights. This is terribly niave. Political correctness says there are no stupid people - if only that were the case, the world would be a much better place!

Now, some people take the constitution, and the bill of rights in particular, to apply to all people. It would perhaps be nice if they did, but they only apply to American citizens and persons on American soil. Yes, that's right, a person - even a known terrorist - picked up on American soil is protected by the constitution, and would still receive the full rights therein.

How many Japanese and Germans did America hold indefinitly without charge during World War II? The country didn't crumble then - in fact, it came out of the war a superpower. It won't crumble this time.

If you want proof that America is free, all you have to do is watch it's late night television, or visit message boards like this. I doubt very much that you can stand on a street corner in Iran and call Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the devil without getting picked up and shot in the head.

I always object to same thing in these sorts of debates. The immediate assumption that Bush is evil and out to grab power, or some other such nonsense. The people who think this way have formed an opinion based on emotion, and allowed it to cloud any rational thought they might have had. They can't debate the bill; all they can do is scream that "Bush is stealing our rights!". Well, know what? You have the right to fight for them; why don't you try that instead of *****ing about it?

All in all, it doesn't matter. There is only one way to make the human race stop killing itself: Kill all of them.

That's basically the reasoning behind the second amendment. The government should be afraid of its citizens overthrowing it at any time if they do something stupid.

Like Thomas Jefferson said... "It is the right and duty of the people to something something I love Hitler."
lol steven colbert

-Also, see below. It's not totally accurate but it's a good description of the alignment

Wow, that's a pretty frightening and stupid reasoning.

You all amuse me. Silly humans. Excuse me while I draw little anime characters killing each other in my sketch book.

*snot drips from nose*

Uh...it really is the reason Americans have the right to own guns. So we stand a fighting chance against our government.

Roach speaks the truth.

-Foreign invaders and domestic threats.

Roach is correct, if incomplete.

I was against guns until recently - until hurricane Katrina, in fact. I never really bought into the 'guns for use against the government' idea, mostly because it's no longer viable. Back in the day, people did have guns just as good as the military. In modern times, there are pretty damn good reasons why the general populace should not have assualt rifles and rpgs. However, Katrina showed me why small arms are still necessary in this world (Though they can certainly be heavily liscensed)

I saw videos on the news of armed looters going from house to house; of families being attacked and shot; of gangs forming and attacking police. People still need guns to protect themselves, and they should have the right to own them. It still falls to the government, however, to keep those guns out of the hands of criminals. Most anit-gun policy seems to operate under the assumption that, if noone can legally get guns, that the criminals won't have them. That's certainly not the case - the criminals aren't buying their guns legally anyway.

I now firmly believe that we should not have congress, senate, and presidency as the same party. There is absolutely no freaking way this is good for America.

Also, I was looking through votes by congress/senate for REAL ID and PATRIOT ACT and both of them were unanimous or practically unanimous. Anyone who says the democrats will be more careful with your rights is wrong, they vote away the rights just like the republicans do.

Hell, even the WA representatives/senators voted for PATRIOT ACT and REAL ID act, it's total crap. There is no elected official looking after our rights. We are not free, because we don't have the freedom to replace a political party. The dem/repub thing is so ingrained in our politics that it's impossible to remove them. Hell, a dude got arrested in Seattle for trying to take part in a local debate. He "didn't meet the requirements" - of course, the news won't tell you what the requirements are.

An independent or other "small" party candidate cannot get elected because they don't have a hundred years of campaign donations saved up in order to take out tv ads, newspaper ads, radio ads, post signs, etc. The current two parties have the system so rigged and they have no incentive to remove the rigging.

The current nearly 50/50 party split makes third party candidates much more viable. Independent candidates are become more prevaliant. Hopefully, this trend will continue, though It seems far-fetched to have a third-party president any time in the next few decades.

But they have gotten their show. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_%28United_States%29

Stupid? A bit. Frightening? Why? Are you saying people should be afraid of their governments?

Pretty good. This group showed what they thought of individual rights with Kelo v. New London.

There's a lot more in this thread I want to respond to, but it'll have to wait until tomorrow. It's late Friday night and I'm consequently in no condition to type up complete and coherent arguments.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Stupid? A bit. Frightening? Why? Are you saying people should be afraid of their governments?[/QUOTE]

No... I'm saying they shouldn't be.

No, they shouldn't, and governments should be afraid of their people.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]No, they shouldn't, and governments should be afraid of their people.[/QUOTE]I think the issue here is that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are afraid of their people.

Yeah, I agree. The government shouldn't be afraid of their people. They should feel like they are a part of the people, and try to help the people live better lives and all that stuff. If they are afraid of their people then it is like they have to see the people as an enemy to be dealt with.

...lol

I am glad logic amuses you...

"Fear" is too general of a word. I believe governments should act within the constraints of their people's allowance, and be afraid of the reprocussions of stepping beyond those boundaries. Nevermind trying to control us because they're afraid of what we will do.

It does.

There has been governements afraid of the people they govern before.

Heads flew left and right from a paranoia agent

You're taking fear the wrong way. By fear I mean, instead of us being afraid of what the government will do to us if we do something they don't like (getting punished for violating free speech, etc), the government being afraid of what the people will do to them (the elected candidates) if they do something we don't like.

As is, the government is just doing whatever it wants, and we people sit back and cower at their every move. That's not how it should be.

Should the government want to help the people and cooperate with them? Yes. Is that realistic in any way shape or form? No. Governments are made up of people with power, and power corrupts...etc etc.

I am taking fear in the sense of "omg these people have guns" since we were talking about the right to bear arms.

They should be afraid of losing power, yes. Afraid of someone else getting voted in, afraid of dissapointing their country. But not afraid of a bunch of locals declaring war and getting everyone killed.