On November 30, the US Senate rejected the "Udall Amendment," which would have stripped from the National Defense Authorization bill the provisions identifying the US as a battlefield in the war on terror and enabling the military to detain American citizens in the US indefinitely without trial, presumably at Guantanamo Bay. The Act itself was deemed likely pass within a few days, but President Obama has said he will veto.
Me, I can't believe that Congress would, in essence, vote to create a new Star Chamber--nor do I believe that's their intent. Surely they don't actually intend to gut the most basic protections in the Constitution. (And I've written a topical Hub to say so, something I normally never even consider doing.)
Surely, if this Act were to be passed in its current form over Presidential veto, it could not stand judicial review. Personal liberty would be completely meaningless; anybody could be alleged to be a terrorist, for any reason, by anybody, and if there's no due process, there's no meaningful recourse. That would cut the heart out of the Constitution, and surely no Supreme Court imaginable would countenance that.
But still--why is this even being contemplated? And why is no-one even talking about it?
And the first vote on another amendment goes on in half an hour or so--and still there's little attention to this issue. Amazing, and not in a good way.
Oh, gee: yet another thing we can add to the long list of things Obama didn't do.
Sorry. Off topic a bit but I get so sick of hearing about our "do nothing" President.
Who would call him a "do nothing" President? Surely no one I know. Perhaps the "do way to much" President or "doing the wrong thing, again" President or "My God! What is he up to now!?!" President ----- but "do nothing," hardly.
Well, I think he's done the right things, but not enough of the right things..
But I do hear that charge from the Right all the time. I was listening to NPR just yesterday and callers were saying that they would vote Republican because Obama "has done nothing".
Anyway, vetoing this is definitely the right thing to do.
If they are taking the effort to call in to NPR I would question the assertion that they are "from the Right" Also, a caller "from the Right" would not need to search out a reason to not vote for Obama.
Aren't Rightists automatically Republican and vice versa?
Isn't the charge how little Rightists actually think and therefore a reactionary Republican vote is the only one fro them. Don't Republicans and Rightists already hate Obama because he is Black, from Kenya or a Muslim?
At least these are the assumptions regarding "Rightists" - what ever that means.
NPR is an honest source of news and because it is, it has plenty of right wing listeners. They weren't "searching" out, the show was about the Republican candidates so they were saying things like "Unlike our current do-nothing President, I think Mitt Romney would step up and make important changes".
NPR hosts will tick them off just as often as it will tick me off. That's how all of us know that they really ARE fair and balanced, unlike the lying folks at Fox News.
When listening to NPR I find myself more bored than angry - unless it is BBC World News. I am entertained by those who contend that Fox News has some monopoly on distorting opinion show hosts when one need only watch the Sunday morning talks or MSNBC to see opinions just as vehemently held. There is no objective opinion and all news is rooted in opinion not verifiable, measurable fact.
Prison Planet is the best news source..that and Drudge
Alex Jones is more active in the NYC area where you live Brie. One point, his articles can be an alternative worth reading, however, he is a libertarian. He thinks that taking away all the rules of finance will somehow make greedy bankers contribute to the common good by making predatory loans against all of us. In other words, he thinks self regulation will make the market behave to the good of mankind.
If you believe this religion of economics, I have some swamp land in Florida I am just dying to sell to you.
All humanity is biased and opinionated.
The best defense is empirical testing with placebos, controls, blindness, and grouping.
And, ultimately peer review -- hence we have trial by juries.
"Surely, if this Act were to be passed in its current form over Presidential veto, it could not stand judicial review. "
I wouldn't want to be the test case. Would you?
This Bill would have to pass both Houses, I doubt that would happen. If passed, however, why would anyone think that Obama would veto it?
There are ample reasons to suspect that he would not. Ignoring the War Powers Act regarding Libya. Actions in Pakistan that can, and maybe rightly, be interpreted as acts of war. Maintaining Gitmo. The killing of Al-Alwaki. Supporting and seeking to expand the Patriot Act. Seeking an internet "kill switch." Obama is not afraid of controversy in the "War on Man Created Disaster."
http://capitolcommentary.com/2009/04/14 … e-meaning/
"This Bill would have to pass both Houses, I doubt that would happen."
"All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;"
--U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 7
Given the above, I'm pretty sure that this bill has already made it through the House....though it's possible that the Battlefield USA provision was added in the Senate.
Yes, the House has indeed passed its version of this bill, and contains similar provisions.
Nice catch on the Constitution point.
Carl Levin and John McCain are the sponsors of the Senate Bill. All taxing and spending is supposed to originate in the House, but that has been maneuvered around before.
Oh, wait...upon reflection, I think I'm in error, actually: all bills for raising revenue have to originate in the House, but this is a spending one, and it seems that spending bills can come from either house.
Doc, where did you find out about the House bill? 'Cos I've only heard outrage about the Senate one.
In any case, I'm still not feeling very sanguine about the House removing the indefinite detention provision on its version of the bill. I mean, I would have thought the Senate would never have put such a provision into a bill, and I was wrong.
The problem is that the language is murky. In one section it says this doesn't apply to US citizens but in another it is unclear as to whom it applies.
I hope it is vetoed.
Ron Paul's talking about it, and he's against it.
http://www.dailypaul.com/189669/msnbcco … daa-s-1867
PS - the Urall amendment was defeated thanks to Rand Paul
I suppose I am not that surprised. We have not been a government of, by and for the people since Lincoln intoned those words over a century ago. It is not about stewarding this country down a reasonable road anymore but rather about who is behind the wheel and whose foot is on the gas pedal. The politicians are all and the "people" can all be damned!
Maybe so, but there's the difference between bad and worse. This measure seems particularly extreme to me.
But maybe that's just me--certainly the reaction from media has been not far off a deafening silence.
This is a very evil bill and would be the death knell to America.
Do you think congress fears the citizens are on the move to remove them?
Dissent will not be tolerated.
I'm buying a gun, don't know about you guys.
IMO, it's much more radical to organize--a gun won't help you.
The part with the big round hole should point away from you.
We already have some. Maybe we need more. I'll call Santa.
I CAN'T BELIEVE OBAMA BROKE HIS WORD ABOUT THE VETO!!
He didn't. You should know better than to listen to the foil hat crowd.
He threatened to veto it UNLESS IMPORTANT PROVISIONS WERE CHANGED.
They were, so he won't.
Purple Unicorn 2012
Yeah, right. Did you see what those "important provisions" were?
One of the biggies is that service members are once again prohibited from practicing bestiality, (I know this sounds like something I would make up, but it's in there).
I'm sure all those Afghani goats are happy about that!
I guess next year they'll redefine "beasts" as "anyone who isn't approved by Obama".
Really, really? REALLY?!?!?!
How many ways does this guy get to be a colossal screw up before some people begin to realize that it is about his ego not facts or reality.
They are still playing the "Arab Spring" as if it is good that the Brotherhood is in charge of Tunisia, Libya and Egypt. That Iran is nuclear capable. That China, Russia, Venezuela and Iran are busy building force strength in South America.
The economy founders while they manipulate the easily lead and easily lied to. They manipulate employment data. They spend more than this country spent on all of WWII - adjusted for inflation. The connection between crony companies and the Obama election fund are left unexplored.
They sell guns to drug gangs in Mexico, putting Americans on the border and Mexicans south of the border in increased danger and resulting in those arms killing hundreds of Mexicans - all while covering up involvement and lying.
They attack every business, industry and productive endeavor. We are told to not go to Las Vegas, to not drive, to not use light bulbs. We are told that doctors, insurance companies, oil companies, pharmaceutical companies are evil and out to destroy us. Attacks on working people in oil, private jet, hospitality, medicine, insurance and pharmaceuticals hear the President of the United States attack their employers while the economy is flat lined.
He even has to lie to his wife about what he is eating because we are supposed to have "arugula with our beef" when most of us can't afford the rising cost of arugula let alone beef. When Americans are paying more everyday for food and the price of gasoline is still - STILL - twice what it was before this fool was elected. When the price of bacon has double in a year. When those with children are very aware how much milk has gone up and how little gasoline they can afford while on their 97th week of unemployment in an economy that hasn't really turned around.
This President is an idiot puppet who cannot articulate a cogent, non-radical idea without a teleprompter.
We have a lying, ego centric, leftist fool for President and you are shocked at anything he does? Really? REALLY???
Umm, I think you missed my tongue in cheek. I'm not shocked at any lies coming from the mouths of politicians. Sometimes a little surprised, often sad and disappointed, but never shocked.
Abject shame and apologies.
I was hoping for others to respond to my screed. It is more apparent each day that we have a President who is completely unprepared for real authority. The Senate doesn't prepare anyone for actual action. It is a vast debating society where those who blabber on are insulated from hard work and difficulties by staff and party functionaries.
Got em and a box full of buckshot. Ammo is what I need!
The NDA has passed the Senate; Senator Feinstein's amendment to ban indefinite detention failed.
There is a thoroughly confusing amendment that says "current practices" aren't changed, but that the military can pursue terror suspects within the US.
No further word yet on whether the White House will drop veto plans. Senator Durbin expects this issue will end up in the Supreme Court.
Just for the record, I want to point out that one Congressman has been talking about the likelihood of this kind of legislation.
The most amazing part about it all is that he used Economic arguments to arrive at the conclusion that it is only a matter of time before our freedoms are stripped away from us.
Ron Paul has been speaking out against these issues for more than 30 years, and YOU have the power to make sure that he becomes president.
Ron Paul's best book is "Freedom Under Siege", and it was written some 20 years ago. It is obvious that this man knows what he's talking about, and he's been proven right over and over and over again.
Who was the only congressman that predicted the 2008 bust? Ron Paul.
Ron Paul 2012.
I want to point out, also, that of the 7 senators who voted no --- that's right, only 7 people in the senate stood up for your freedom --- RAND PAUL was one of them.
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa … ate-floor/
There are only, perhaps, 7 freedom oriented senators in our Congress.
The best part about this bill is that, when people claim "the president will be allowed to throw anyone in jail he wants to, and then throw away the key", the only response the crazy lunatics have is:
"but a judge has to agree with Obama".
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/no-t … to-detain/
Seriously, that's it.
The president and a judge are all that is needed to throw someone in a gulag.
Only 7 senators voted against the bill -- how many Tea Party members are there? WAY more than 7? -- vote THEM out in the next election. What a joke the tea party has become.
". . . a judge agrees with Obama?"
He's the one standing in the way of NDA being enacted at this point, and opposed the legislation all along. It would seem that this power is not one that he seeks.
So your choice of words is--curious. Why not "the President" or "the administration?"
And that brings up another question that I don't have time right now to research, but would like to know the answer to: Just who has practical authority under this provision? Assuming the President has to sign off--and is that actually the case?--who will likely be *initiating* proceedings to have John Doe declared a "terrorist supporting Al Qaeda?" DOD officials? Military investigators? COs of intelligence units?
"Just who has practical authority under this provision?"
The Defense Department.
Look, you probably will never be bothered by the Army. They're going to be looking for terrorists, and you're not one. That's not the point. The point is that you could end up on the wrong list, and as a result, you could end up rotting in Leavenworth for the rest of your natural life, with no charges filed.
I mean, an 8 year old kid wound up on the terrorism watch list somehow. The mistake was first made when the kid was like a year old, and the family is still trying to clear the kid's name from the watch list, seven years later.
We have no idea of how many people are on that list at the moment, but we can be pretty sure that if they're pulling Cub Scouts out of line at the airport, some of the wrong people are on it.
I don't want to live in Brazil, thanks.
I would like to read the whole bill before passing judgement about the whole thing. I know how the wording works within law and it can be a bit confusing. So, although it may say that Americans can be detained and no due processes it may also state the provisions as to how and why this can be implemented that we don't know about just yet.
"So, although it may say that Americans can be detained and no due processes it may also state the provisions as to how and why this can be implemented that we don't know about just yet."
If the provisions are different from "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" then it's bad. For a citizen to be detained indefinitely without due process is patently unconstitutional, but I sure wouldn't want to be the test case (especially when there's no provision for appeal or habeas corpus or anything like it).
I don't care about the rest of the bill--well, no, I do, but the rest of the bill isn't the problem. If this one section were excised from the bill, the bill would not be anathema to democracy (it might be a good or a bad bill, depending on how you feel about the levels of spending it authorizes, and that's a discussion we can have, and ought to).
But there's no room for compromise on this: indefinite detention of US citizens on US soil is not allowed except in two cases.
"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Now, unless something has happened of which we are all unaware, there is no rebellion going on in the US at the moment (that is, nobody is trying to overthrow the US government by force of arms), and we haven't been invaded (that is, no foreign army has crossed our borders and occupied our territory). So Congress can't suspend habeas corpus (which is exactly what this bill does).
Of course this is Unconstitutional. Anyone with a 9th grade education can see that. The problem is that once someone is detained under the provisions in this bill, it's going to be a long hard fight for him to have his liberty restored. legal cases take a long time to hit the SCotUS, and they have to get into the legal system in the first place before they can get there. It's really, really hard for someone being held by the military--in secret, remember--to challenge their detention in a civilian court.
This law makes us all subject to military justice. Oh, we probably will not be detained by the military, but any one of us could be. Without a warrant, without appeal, without any chance of being released, until the government decides the War on Terror is over. And even then, I'm not sure they have to let you go.
I've disagreed with Senator Levin before, but I never thought I'd find myself ready to campaign against him.
Just posted an update on my Hub on this topic, but the short version is that House and Senate have prepped a final form for the NSAA, and Levin & McCain have been doing the rounds in support.
The New American--of which I'm not usually a fan--says:
"Constitutionalists are urging that the time is now for concerned citizens of the United States to contact their federal representatives and let them know that they will hold them accountable for their vote on this absolute abolition of the rule of law."
No word yet from the White House whether the President will hold firm and veto.
I just called my so-called Senator Charles Schumer and read the person who answered the riot act. I really would encourage every person out there to do the same. I also mentioned that I haven't heard a thing about Schumer opposing the execution of Anwar Alalaki (?sp?), who was an American citizen and was executed without trial, without conviction..and was totally unconstitutional. We need to let them know that we know and we need to start screaming!
I'm sure they took your call very seriously...
I'm confused about the Bill.
Especially when it leads to anyone defending the so-called "rights" of a terrorist under the supposition of American citizenship.
Seems to me there's an ambiguity about the whole issue. It needs to be spelled out in black and white and presented to the American people before any action is taken. But who are we to be able to hold the current Administration to anything at all? Peons we are, at the mercy of their twisted agenda.
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/fo … pic=218893
this should clear it up for you.
The bottom line is that YOU can be suspected of being a terrorist and sent to GITMO.
I understand that that's what's being touted as a reason to oppose the Bill.
However, I think it's a ploy to get people to oppose it so that illegals will be protected.....? The Left does play games like that.
And honestly I'm not worried about being suspected of being a terrorist. I think anyone would know it's highly unlikely that a 50-year-long natural born conservative citizen isn't very likely to be a sleeper traitor.
What needs to happen is to get people into Office who don't buy into the reverse-conspiracy theories and who know how to actually compose Bills that are understandable, say what they mean and mean what they say, (and wipe out those bills that are deceptive).
"However, I think it's a ploy to get people to oppose it so that illegals will be protected.....? The Left does play games like that."
Outcry against this Bill has come from both ends of the political spectrum--and nothing under discussion would somehow 'protect illegals.'
Meant to link the Daily Caller's story on this, as it includes some good comments. Here is a sample:
"In an op-ed published in the New York Times on Tuesday, retired Marine Corps. Generals Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar argued that the bill would compromise due process and harm national security by placing an onerous burden on the military.
"The military mandate, Generals Krulak and Hoar wrote, “would force on the military responsibilities it hasn’t sought” and “sideline the work of the F.B.I. and local law enforcement agencies in domestic counterterrorism.”
"“Right now some in Congress are all too willing to undermine our ideals in the name of fighting terrorism,” Krulak and Hoar declared. "They should remember that American ideals are assets, not liabilities.”
"The House is expected to vote on the NDAA Wednesday evening."
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/14/wh-re … z1gYXQGCLV
I'm glad, Brie. I previously called my Senators--Chambliss and Isakson--both of whom supported the NDAA. I plan to repeat the exercise, and add in my Representative. It may help if this comes down to a veto override.
". . . who was an American citizen and was executed without trial, without conviction. . ."
Not the place for discussing this issue, but Awlaki wasn't in American custody; he was driving along in an Al-Qaeda convoy when he was killed via drone strike. No offense, but that doesn't look like an 'execution' to me; it looks like a straight KIA scenario. Just my two cents.
"But who are we to be able to hold the current Administration to anything at all? Peons we are, at the mercy of their twisted agenda."
Well, this was a Congressional agenda, not a Presidential one. Though I've just heard that the White House will not veto, saying that their concerns were addressed adequately by the changes made in reconciliation.
Great. Now the Constitution has been trashed by two branches of government.
That was already done before now. Done at least 3 years ago.
Now it's 3 branches. Reckon we need to elect people who can properly interpret the Constitution instead of twisting it.
No, he isn't going to veto it.
In fact, he's saying that HE F**KING SUPPORTS IT
Wake up, people. It isn't the left vs. the right, it's the state vs. you.
Yep. The Administration says its concerns have been addressed; its flexibility to fight terror will not be impaired.
Or impose it, for that matter.
"That was already done before now. Done at least 3 years ago. Now it's 3 branches. Reckon we need to elect people who can properly interpret the Constitution instead of twisting it."
You have a point. It'll be interesting to see what happens with the court challenges this will face, now that the President has bailed. Just maybe the Supreme Court will not play lapdog on this, and it will be only 2 1/2 branches. . . Or not.
We are turning incrementally in to a Police state! The government took over industries, now is continuing to view Americans as the major threat. Bush and his darn Patriot Act, Bush's father supported Hitler as did many moguls of the day.
Their dream of Fascist control is slowly emerging. The Police are starting to receive their own drones already! All we need is the "emergency" and Martial Law will be declared.
You think the Feds will actually sell explosives to the next victim of their terrorist entrapment program. Whereby a Fed agent conspires with a person to commit a heinous act and then arrests the person upon completion?
All that needs to change in that scenario is no arrest and actually providing the weapon. Timothy McVeigh style. Yeah that's right I said it!!!
Waco, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, 9/11
ALL FALSE FLAG operations to pursue an agenda of control!
Now they are getting what they have wanted all along. The legal Right to kill you without any oversight or questions!
Don't bother with the sky is falling, tinfoil hat comments. Just research these actions and judge for yourself!
I pray that a solar flare wipes out every damn satellite in space. The people would be inconvenienced, but safer!
BTW: FEMA tests phone text warnings in New York today! Coming soon to the cell phone near you!
Well, I'm disappointed. I wasn't as surprised by those in Congress who are perennially more concerned about 'sending a message' about how tough they are--on terrorism, in this case--than about real-world effectiveness. But the President used to teach Constitutional law. I thought that he would understand the importance of due process, for which these detention provisions provide a very handy 'work-around.'
But then, the country doesn't seem to understand it, either. Few people seem worried, and I have trouble understanding why--given poll data, it's clearly not because they trust the President, much less Congress. Is it straight denial? They just don't want to consider this?
I don't think they realize all the far-reaching implications that are possible. Also, the MSM has been amazingly quiet on the issue. I have friends who watch the news every day, yet they hadn't even heard about the bill.
It is supposed to apply to terrorists.
But at some point the law could be used on all of us. If there is civil unrest the soldiers will have to decide if they want to defend the constitution or this law.
The Military will not break their Oath. Unfortunately for the People they will be following orders to invade someone else's Nation.
An Army of civilians as has been suggested by our current Administration will lack the discipline. Outside U.N. forces would accomplish the task with glee.
Give them a uniform a badge and a machine gun and the rest of us will be round up like sheep.
All the pieces are on the board, the puzzle just needs to be put in place.
The President used to pervert constitutional law - search out the notion of positive rights. That is Obama's constitutional philosophy.
"Pervert?" Are you always so judgmental about those with whom you disagree about something important?
"Positive rights" may not be popular with some conservative thinkers, but that doesn't make them a "perversion." For some intellectual history on this, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_a … ive_rights
And for an example of the concept applied in a legal analysis:
Yes. It is a perversion of the Constitution. The language is clear as are the concepts on which it is based. The Founders knew what they were writing. The perverting of the Constitution is a direct consequence of the least democratic branch of the federal government has been allowed to create law rather than measure law against the meaning of the Constitution.
It is a perversion of the Constitution to presume that the property of one citizen exists for the federal government to seize then transfer to another citizen. "Positive rights" presumes that the government in the originator of rights not that nature is the origin of rights. This places in the hands of men the power to determine rights rather than to seek a clearer understanding and compliance the the rights with which man is endowed by nature.
Liberals like Barack Obama place themselves above natural law and rely on the power of the state to create rights. This is a perversion. I don't see a judgement of Barrack Obama in anything I have written. I didn't call him a pervert, I called his teaching a perversion of the Constitution. How is that a personal judgement of someone with whom I disagree?
"I called his teaching a perversion of the Constitution. How is that a personal judgement of someone with whom I disagree?"
Sexual twistedness is bad, intellectual isn't?
""Positive rights" presumes that the government in the originator of rights not that nature is the origin of rights."
Clearly you didn't read my link on the concept of "positive rights"--a link I found following your instruction to look up the topic. But what I found doesn't correspond with what you say.
I intended "judgmental" to cover the apparent certitude with which you dismiss differing opinion. You don't just say "I strongly believe x, y, and z to be wrong, for reasons 1, 2 and 3"--the language you chose seems to close off any possibility that they could ever be considered as possibly valid in any way--they are 'perverse.' And when that opinion clashes with a deep intellectual history, I do find it a bit troubling.
I'm not saying you are wrong--frankly, I don't have much opinion on that--but I do think that it might not hurt for you to consider that if your opponents are mistaken, there might at least be good reasons why they are mistaken--good reasons for them to think as they have. Terms like "perversion" seem to shut that door pretty firmly.
For far too long we have tolerated an erosion of our natural rights. We have given back our freedom surrendered our liberty to a ever burgeoning state. If a line is to be drawn, I am willing to draw it. If that line must be held, I am willing to hold it. I blood must be spilled, I am willing to spill it.
We have been here before in the history of the world and the appeaser and "compromiser" did little more than delay the inevitable and embolden the enemies of our liberty. This is such a time and place. If you wish to vacillate and waiver in the face of an aggressively stateist ideology you are free to do so, I will not.
You might remember it was I who started this thread to work against the NDAA's erosion of Constitutional protections.
To me, your comment appears completely irrelevant to our previous conversation. However, your ability to breathe fire is duly noted.
Hardly, an emboldened Federal government rather than a severely limited one has lead to the point where we are no longer citizens but subjects of a state whose cupidity has no limit.
The Constitution has been subjugated to the caprice of politics for over 80 years. When the state can take a man's property with little regard or conscience it can take his life in the same fashion. Property and liberty are inextricably bound.
Well, you are going to have to point out to me a source explaining your vision of positive rights, as I'm not getting the connection between this and the greedy state. What the source I found said was that "positive rights" act as permissions--for example, the pursuit of happiness under this view could be seen as a positive right. By contrast, negative rights mean proscriptions--for example, the right to liberty means others are prohibited from enslaving you.
This is quite distinct from the *source* of the law, logically. Nor does this concept seem to empower a 'greedy state' directly.
So, if you want me to understand you, please fill in the dots a bit more.
Government cannot grant rights. Rights are granted by nature. The Constitution is a limit placed up the authority of the government - hence the idea of negative rights - an incorrect assessment. Liberals tend to think that there should be positive rights listed in the Constitution - see FDRs second Bill of Rights. This too is a dangerously flawed idea.
Rights, which flow from nature, depend on no one else and nothing else for their existence. They exist in nature, like the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution is intended to protect the natural rights fought for under the Declaration of Independence.
Since the 1930s there has been a move afoot to define rights as flowing from the state. The state is charged, in the Constitution, with preserving rights not creating them. Liberals tend to think of medical care, education, food, housing, etc...as rights equal, if not superior, to natural rights.
The greatest difference is that natural rights exist for everyone in equal proportion and require no surrender of property or labor. This cannot be said of the positive rights that Barrack Obama and those of his ilk want to pursue. How does one have the "right" to medical care when that right would require a doctor to give up his right to serve only those patients he wishes to serve. His natural right would be subordinated to a state created, positive, right.
One cannot be deprived of exercising their rights without due process. That curtails the exercising, not the possessing of those rights. If medical care becomes a right - how can one turn a patient away for a medical procedure? There is already suffcient evidence, for example, that the "right to an abortion" comes in direct conflict with real and natural rights - the right of free conscience and the right to act in accordance with conscience.
Doctors, hospitals, pharmacies have all had to fight to protect those real, natural rights.
"he greatest difference is that natural rights exist for everyone in equal proportion and require no surrender of property or labor. This cannot be said of the positive rights that Barrack Obama and those of his ilk want to pursue."
Thanks for elaborating.
Mtv is running a video campaign explaining EXACTLY what we should be getting prepared for:
The holocaust happened to people like us!
Short and to the point!
I've been saying all along that we're headed for a dictatorship if we don't do anything about it. It IS time to stand up and fight for what you believe. The second American revolution is about to start!
"It is supposed to apply to terrorists.
But at some point the law could be used on all of us. If there is civil unrest the soldiers will have to decide if they want to defend the constitution or this law."
Yes, that is exactly the point. I don't think this is part of a conspiracy to subvert democracy, as some commenters here do. But that doesn't mean that it's a really, really bad idea, nor that its subversion of the Constitution is benign somehow. There should be no 'work-arounds' for due process!
I meant to write "NOT a really, really bad idea," of course.
Or, to clarify: The NDAA detention provisions SUCK.
by Quilligrapher 7 years ago
Congress and the President still intend to deprive American citizens of their Constitutional right to a trial by jury."National Defense Authorization Act: House And Senate Negotiators Agree On Bill Hoping To Avoid Obama Veto The legislation would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens...
by Rod Martin Jr 5 years ago
A recent YouTube News report by WXIX Fox19's Ben Swann reveals something you're not like to find out about on the evening news. Obama is ignoring a federal court order regarding his actions under the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act).http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZjXHjkzMD4I supported...
by JosieLee 7 years ago
What are your thoughts about the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act)?Should it have not been signed? Is it taking away our freedom as Americans?
by Ciel Clark 2 years ago
If you could change one law in your country what would it be?
by John Wilson 2 years ago
A new agency - Global Engagement Center’s - job's to combat FAKE NEWS around the world. Good /bad?The legislation to combat "fake" news is in the new The National Defense Authorization Act of 2017. This is for an agency that is supposed to combat the type of thing that we saw in the...
by 910chris 6 years ago
Over the last couple of days a lot of media attention has gone towards a conspiracy theory involving Ron Paul and Mitt Romney banding together. They seem to be pushing it pretty hard which in my mind means that they are trying to paint Ron Paul as a sell-out. What are your thoughts?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|