I would like to know if it is unamerican to disagree with government policy.
Who sets government policy anyway?
The president?
The fact is: America is governed by individuals never elected by the people.
policies are set by agencies.
Jefferson wrote, “Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless… the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is [now] while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war, we shall be going downhill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.”
As in the last days of the Roman Empire, there is a growing fire at the Imperial Palace (sic) the White House. But this time it’s not Nero who’s fiddling; it’s the American people.
Yeah, Coldfire, last I checked we had this process called “voting” which meant that people elected certain officials (senators & representatives), but then there’s that whole Electoral College thing which is just way too confusing for me.
So, Hoe, are you upset because the guy you voted for isn’t President, or do you actually think Shrub was put in place by some sort of agency, and if so, was it a temp agency or a talent agency? Because I could see either one working, really…
By the original Constituation, there were two houses of the Congress- the House of Representatives, in which all of the members were directly elected by the people, with House seats given to each state in proportion to population; and the Senate, in which all of the members were selected by the individual State Senates.
Likewise, the President was not directly elected by the people, but rather each state was given its province to choose electors (equal to that state’s representation in Congress), and the electors would then vote for the President. In fact, most states quickly fell to having a popular vote for electors who were specifically pledged to certain candidates; so, for example, you would go to the voting booth and vote for “Lincoln”, but in fact your vote was really for a slate of eight electors who had promised the Republican party that they would vote for Lincoln. Needless to say, electors aren’t completely reliable, which is how Ronald Reagan got an electoral vote in 1976 (even though he wasn’t listed on the ballot, nor did he get so many write-in votes that it somehow “qualified” him for an electoral vote), and as another example one of the DC electors refused to vote rather than vote for Gore (in protest over a lack of voting rights in D.C.).
The situation regarding Senate election was changed in the early 1900’s; the Populist movement was sweeping the country, and calling for major reforms in government. One of these reforms was a call for the direct election of Senators, which was eventually enacted into an Amendment of the Constitution (though which one I don’t remember off-hand). Thus the Senate- which originally was akin to a House of Lords, with the idea of an ‘impartial’ deliberative body set apart from politics and having to constantly be held to public opinion- eventually became just a slowed-down, exclusivist version of the House of Representatives.
Sorry to be talking about this at great length, but it interests me much more than the standard foam-at-the-mouth leftist drivel Hoe is spouting, which is merely his version of masturbation, apparently.
Really? What the Hell have I been doing every November? Dammit, if I find it it’s some kind of scam I’m gonna be pissed off. I might have to take my constitutionally protected right to speak out and say something. I’ll get all my friends together and we’ll exercize our constitutionally protected right to assemble. My congressmen is going to hear about this I tell you.
And what is this about policies being set by agencies. I thought the President and the Congress were the only people in the guvmint. Are you telling me there are other people in Washington?
Of course if Hoe is wrong about this, I might have to take my constitutionally protected 12 - gauge and shove it up his…
[sub]and the only person un-American in this thread is Coldfire
So, if Hoe’s an Icelander, shouldn’t he be bitching about the All-thing and how bad Bjork’s latest album sucked?
I will give him a point that he didn’t make. I, for one, am deeply concerned about John Ashcroft’s dismantling of Constitutional protections, specifically- lawyer-client privilege. I am also still incensed that GWB was appointed by the US Supreme Court. Yes, I know that subsequent ballot examinations show that Bush would have won anyway, but nontheless the Supreme Court acted in, IMHO, a low and dishonest partisan fashion.
But, no, it is NOT un-American to protest government policy. Most of the social advances in this nation have come from courageous people who bucked the system. However, taking up arms for the Taliban against the US is definitely un-American.
Bush signed a bill wherein the United States no longer has to provide a civilian trial for anyone who should stand accused of committing a terrorist act against the United States. Instead the government will now try said individuals in a “special closed military court.” In this trial, the defendants will not even be allowed to present any exculpatory evidence that the adjudicating military body should deem “contrary to the security of the State or the domestic tranquility of the people.”
In fact, this executive order establishes military tribunals or kangaroo courts, which directly violate due process of law. It is, as of now, probably the most unconstitutional of all the unconstitutional laws that have been passed and incorporated into this new disingenuously named “USA PATRIOT Act of 2001.”
This law then could be interpreted, so that the prosecutorial power of the government could be extended essentially to anyone who disagreed with State policy.
Now this is essentially what my question in the beginning of my thread referred to.
Here’s an idea: state your agenda in your fucking OP.
Actually, the bill is related to non-US citizens suspected of committing terrorism, not no anyone. Since this violates the rights of exactly zero US citizens, how is it unconstitutional? A trial by jury would not be a jury of the accused’s peers anyway; moreover, a jury drawn from US civilians would then be privy to classified information over the course of the trial. Jurors would also be potential targets for retalitory action.
Given the hysteria and bloodlust that emerged in America after 9/11 regarding the terrorists, I would also question the likelihood that jurors would be unbiased.
I don’t like the measures that Ashcroft has been trying to implement, but I also don’t think the military tribunals idea is completely without merit.
I’m not at all happy about the USA Patriot Act, but Hoe needs to get his facts straight. The thrust of the Act is to dismantle the Church reforms, enacted by Congree to rein in the CIA and FBI after the Church Committee in 1975 uncovered massive intelligence-gathering abuses by intelligence agencies.
The most controversial bits are found in Title II of the act.(The text can be found here as a .pdf file, so you’ll need Adobe Acrobat.
Section 203 allows intelligence to shared openly between agencies. Section 206 makes it much easier to obtain a court order for wiretapping suspects. sections 209 and 210 significantly broaden the government’s ability to use the Internet to gather domestic and foreign intelligence, allowing them to subpoena voice mail records, for example, like they do e-mails now.
But this has nothing to do with the individual’s ability to protest government policy. This law screws with the 4th and 6th amendments, but not the First.
Hoe, you can read through President Bush’s Executive orders. You won’t find the Patriot Act among them. There is a bit of difference between an Act of Congress and a Presidential Executive Order, but you knew that.
I see Beadalin and gobear are educating you as to the actual provisions of the Act, so there’s little need to point out for the third time that you’re wrong.
As always, one has to look at the fine print of this new executive order for secret military tribunals. As usual, the word “terrorism” is once again being used to pull the wool over the American people’s eyes, while we stand with our thumbs stuck up our asses, waving the American flag, our rose colored spectacles a darker tint than ever.
The language of the bill doesn’t even mention the word “terrorism.” The pro-government media uses the word to maintain ratings from a naïve flag-waving population. The way it is written, the bill can be interpreted that the government has the ability to prosecute any individual who disagrees with State policy. Or even anyone who constitutes a threat to the ratings of pro-government media. Or anyone who represents a threat to the naïvete of the American people. Anyone then could essentially be prosecuted under this bill.
This military court, or tribunal, is not a defacto star chamber. It is the absolute raw and naked abuse of power by government. A star chamber, simply put, is any extra-legal and/or extra-constitutional body formed by government to pass judgment on the actions of private individuals.
