• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Well Done That Man--Senator Paul

#1
Noting that the good Senator has had bi-partisan support for his filibuster, I hope our Masters see the importance of resolving this issue of potential drone killings of US citizens within the US to the survival of our Constitutional system. Anything less than an unequivocal NO (in contrast to the artful dodging and dissembling of our current Masters) to the issue will be utterly shameful.
 
#2
Noting that the good Senator has had bi-partisan support for his filibuster, I hope our Masters see the importance of resolving this issue of potential drone killings of US citizens within the US to the survival of our Constitutional system. Anything less than an unequivocal NO (in contrast to the artful dodging and dissembling of our current Masters) to the issue will be utterly shameful.
Err, I'm not getting why the assassination of US citizens without due process outside the US isn't even more outrageous.
 
#4
English and American statute law both rest firmly on the Magna Carta, a document which seems to trouble American politicians today, so much so that they are studiously overlooking it.

The most important concepts in Magna Carta are:

No private armies are to be raised by anyone, not even the head of state.

Habeas Corpus, which doesn't fit very well with Guantanamo bay incarcerations or executions without trial.

No one is above the law, not even the head of state, not even when no one is ******* looking.

Your president knows this, he's a lawyer after all, although human rights wasn't ever his forte, that was show boating and obtaining sub prime mortgages for septic: scum, layabouts and no hopers, the very property problem which landed us all here.
 
#5
Your president knows this, he's a lawyer after all, although human rights wasn't ever his forte, that was show boating and obtaining sub prime mortgages for septic: scum, layabouts and no hopers, the very property problem which landed us all here.

I have read somewhere (so can't quote it, unfortunately) that he bitterly hates the constitution.
 
#7
So when might they think extrajudicial murder of US citizens on US soil was an option? I'd guess under either a martial law situation or if facing an "imminent" terrorist threat. The use of drones makes absolutely no differences here.

Say Texas has turned Blue State in 2030, some folks cut up rough and that triggers a tit for tat race war with Mexican drug cartel involvement is spreading accross the border states. The governors are losing it, call for help, and a state of emergency is declared. The Feds go into full on FEMA camp mode and are shooting any folk out after dusk. Well it ain't pretty but I don't imagine POTUS Malia Obama will flinch.

Or there is a terrorist cell known to be deploying a nuke, Malai orders their death by any means. Mushroom Clouds over US cities have been a popular excuse in the past.
 
#8
Err, I'm not getting why the assassination of US citizens without due process outside the US isn't even more outrageous.
Given the so-called legal justification prepared by the DOJ on the issue I agree whole heartedly that there are problems whether inside or outside the US. I should have made that clear and appreciate the reminder.

Here is the memo (ironically appearing on MSNBC website---you gotta know that has the White House really upset):

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

Of particular note is the artful dodging of the lawyers on the critical issue of "imminent threat" at page 8, first full paragraph.
 
#9
I have read somewhere (so can't quote it, unfortunately) that he bitterly hates the constitution.
He has not to my knowledge been so stupid as to go on record expressly saying this but many of His public statements and His actions demonstrate the truth of it although I would not confine it to the Constitution but rather the the nation as a whole. An example of His contrarian view of the Constitution when juxtaposed against the documented intent of the drafters and the very words of the document can be found here:

[video=youtube;sMJS4CP3OC0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMJS4CP3OC0[/video]

Such a view goes a long way in explaining why His administration has been since His first immaculation done just about everything it can to undermine the bedrock principles of the Constitution, especially in terms of the intentionally limited powers of the federal government.
 
#10
So when might they think extrajudicial murder of US citizens on US soil was an option? I'd guess under either a martial law situation or if facing an "imminent" terrorist threat. The use of drones makes absolutely no differences here.

Say Texas has turned Blue State in 2030, some folks cut up rough and that triggers a tit for tat race war with Mexican drug cartel involvement is spreading accross the border states. The governors are losing it, call for help, and a state of emergency is declared. The Feds go into full on FEMA camp mode and are shooting any folk out after dusk. Well it ain't pretty but I don't imagine POTUS Malia Obama will flinch.

Or there is a terrorist cell known to be deploying a nuke, Malai orders their death by any means. Mushroom Clouds over US cities have been a popular excuse in the past.
It does not even have to be as apocalyptic as you posit. The scenario used in the US Army Command and Staff College basically involves the evil Tea Party in south Carolina (a southern state of course) refusing to comply with facially un-Constitutional edicts. Here is but one reprot of thsi troubling trend that perhaps helps explain my and many others' concerns about the direction of various "homeland security" measures here in the US:

A retired U.S. Army colonel who now teaches modern warfare to soldiers at the University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. has co-written an article with a Civil War expert that has ignited a firestorm today among those increasingly concerned about what some say is a distinct anti-civilian tone that has infected much of the military and Homeland Security since 2009.
Retired Col. Kevin Benson and Jennifer Weber, Associate Professor of History at the University of Kansas, co-wrote an article for Small Wars Journal on a 2010 Army report titled, "U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, The Army Operating Concept 2016 - 2028."
The report describes how the Army will respond to threats "at home and abroad" in the coming two decades and in doing so has made clear that a monumental cultural shift has occurred in the thinking of those at the top levels of military command. This shift has some government watchdogs worried, particularly given that Benson is using the platform provided at Fort Leavenworth to educate military personnel in his vision of the nature of modern warfare in America. According to the vision articulated by Benson, future warfare will be conducted on our own soil. The military will use its full force against our own citizens. The enemy will be average citizens whose values resonate with those articulated by the tea party.
The fictitious scenario used in the Army report as a teaching tool is a future insurrection of "tea party activists" in South Carolina. As the scenario goes, the tea party group stages a takeover of the town of Darlington, S.C. The mayor is placed under house arrest and prevented from exercising his duties. The police chief, the county sheriff, and other law enforcement officials are removed from office and told not to interfere. The city council is dissolved. The governor of the state, who had previously expressed solidarity with tea party goals, does little to address the situation.
A news conference is called by the new town leaders, all tea party activists, who tell the media that due to the failure of central government to address the concerns of the citizens, the Declaration of Independence has been re-imposed and the local government has been declared null and void. From the report:
When the leaders of the group hold a press conference to announce their goals, they invoke the Declaration of Independence and argue that the current form of the federal government is not deriving its “just powers from the consent of the governed” but is actually “destructive to these ends.” Therefore, they say, the people can alter or abolish the existing government and replace it with another that, in the words of the Declaration, “shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” While mainstream politicians and citizens react with alarm, the “tea party” insurrectionists in South Carolina enjoy a groundswell of support from other tea party groups, militias, racist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan, anti-immigrant associations such as the Minutemen, and other right-wing groups.
Several items of interest are to be noted in the scenario the Army uses to describe the tea party activists -- "right wing," "extremists," "insurrectionists," all of whom are lumped together with militias and organizations that are considered "racist" and "anti-immigration."
By contrast, those who oppose the tea party are referred to as "mainstream."
The obvious question that arises is why would this sort of scenario, with its obviously biased and skewed portrayals, be presented as a teaching tool to military personnel? Why would the U.S. military consider the tea party to be "extremist" or "insurrectionist?" And why would the tea party be classified together with groups that are "racist, "anti-immigration," and "extremist right wing?"
In the numerous tea party rallies that have occurred across the nation no racism was noted by any observer. Speakers included persons of all races and ethnic backgrounds. No sentiment was expressed against legal immigration but outrage was directed toward those break the law and enter the country by illegal means. And the charge that the tea party is extremist right wing is difficult to justify given that the main thrust of the movement is the protest against runaway government spending that has placed the nation on the brink of economic ruin due to its enormous and unsustainable debt.
Yet repeatedly since the election of Barack Obama in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has referred to the tea party as "potential homegrown terrorists."
Why? Not a shred of evidence remotely suggests that the tea party has any connection whatsoever with terrorists. Yet some of President Obama's closet longtime friends have not only been associated with terrorism but actively participated in it, such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, who as members of the Weathermen from the 1960s and 70s bombed federal buildings that resulted in the deaths of police officers.
But if one listens to the rhetoric emanating from the White House, DHS, and now the U.S. military, one gets the impression that none of the president's friends ever posed a threat to the country but hundreds of thousands of tea party activists are ticking time bombs lying in wait to unleash a nuke on an American city at the drop of a hat.
The brainwashing against conservatives by this administration has had a definite impact on the military. One analyst who works for retired U.S. Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely told this reporter that now over half of Pentagon personnel are solidly in Obama's corner and share his values and world view.
 
#11
Can't the Supreme Court strike down unconstitutional laws any more, or have they ditched the Constitution as well?
They can of course, but history has shown repeatedly that even it is not above the politics of the moment as in the Dred Scott case (upholding slavery) or the series of infamous cases upholding the mass deportation and incarceration in concentration camps of hundreds of thousands of Americans of Japanese descent in WWII.

In addition, given a sufficiently rogue president (as was President Jackson with respect to native americans all of whom he hated and in which he basically told the Supreme Court to go pound sand ([link]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia#Jackson.27s_response[/link]) when it found the seizure of Cherokee lands and their mass relocation to be unlawful, going ahead anyway with what turned out to be one of the most repulsive offiical acts of the US government in its history known in these parts as the "Trail of Tears" Trail of Tears - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) there is really no enforcement mechanism by the Supreme Court if it finds the president to be acting ultra vires of the Constitution.

This reality is but one of the reason why so many of the drafters openly acknowledged that the Constitution would function only so long as the people were "virtuous," a term and notion that draws little but derision from our post-modern progressivists.
 
#12
I have read somewhere (so can't quote it, unfortunately) that he bitterly hates the constitution.
It's very much a white establishment document, a cynical disguise for a criminal landgrab, all the signatories, to a man, were oath breakers! Perhaps that's why he wants to introduce some Kenyan democratic values!
 
#13
It's very much a white establishment document, a cynical disguise for a criminal landgrab, all the signatories, to a man, were oath breakers! Perhaps that's why he wants to introduce some Kenyan democratic values!
I do hope this was written with your tongue pressed firmly against your cheek as I have more respect for your powers of analysis to not fall for the revisionist history of the last 40 years or so regarding the drafters of the the nature of the Constitution. As for oath-breaking, there was a great deal of that on the eastern side of the great pond before the actions were taken by the "rebels."
 
#15
What prevents politicians from making further amendments to the constitution?

I'm not aware of the history or the exact law surrounding it.
Indeed our prescient founders foresaw the need to amend the Constitution over time and provided express provisions and procedures to do so. The problem is they also purposely made it difficult to avoid hasty changes made in the heat of short term emotion or otherwise at the behest of a ruling elite seeking to aggrandize power to itself.

This is a good synopsis of the procedure:











[h=1]The Constitutional Amendment Process[/h] The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.
The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.
In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.
In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.
 
#16
How does a nation with a Govt by the people, for the people and of the people end up seemingly to turn in on its' own with an eye to either self destruction or subjugation of the masses for the benefit of an elite ruling class ?

I can't believe there aren't mass demonstrations over this in the US.

You'd almost think that there was a conspiracy in here somewhere .......... At least in the UK we are governed by a bunch of elitist, well-connected but totally incompetent fools who couldn't plan to get out of bed with any reliability let alone seize power. The US gives the impression of being governed by seriouly nasty and self-interested schemers.
 
#17
I do hope this was written with your tongue pressed firmly against your cheek as I have more respect for your powers of analysis to not fall for the revisionist history of the last 40 years or so regarding the drafters of the the nature of the Constitution. As for oath-breaking, there was a great deal of that on the eastern side of the great pond before the actions were taken by the "rebels."
Britain/Hannover was at war, the seven years war and it's sideshows, was no cakewalk, it was really WW1, Britain and France fought on four continents and many poxy islands, each with a retinue of European coat holders. Once the threat of the French had been removed in north america, the chances were high that the crown would do the unthinkable and ratify the missouri valley as Indian lands for our allies in the war as promised, this didn't sit well with the well dressed your side of the pond.

Now you may see that differently and you are entitled to your view, but it won't change two facts:

The lands were grabbed and the Indian allies driven west.

All the signatories had held either colonial office, or the king's commision, most of them had both. They had all taken the oath of allegiance.

Unpopular politicians and political decisions taken far away in Britain, a country, victorious, suddenly holding vast foreign possetions, a new world empire, yet bankrupt after years of war, don't excuse either of those points.

Your government is making unpopular decisions now, but I suspect that if your corps called you, you would go and you are not about to burn your flag.

Your "pursuit of property" constitution is really the glitter on that turd, high sounding, hollow and full of shit.
 
#18
Britain/Hannover was at war, the seven years war and it's sideshows, was no cakewalk, it was really WW1, Britain and France fought on four continents and many poxy islands, each with a retinue of European coat holders. Once the threat of the French had been removed in north america, the chances were high that the crown would do the unthinkable and ratify the missouri valley as Indian lands for our allies in the war as promised, this didn't sit well with the well dressed your side of the pond.

Now you may see that differently and you are entitled to your view, but it won't change two facts:

The lands were grabbed and the Indian allies driven west.

All the signatories had held either colonial office, or the king's commision, most of them had both. They had all taken the oath of allegiance.

Unpopular politicians and political decisions taken far away in Britain, a country, victorious, suddenly holding vast foreign possetions, a new world empire, yet bankrupt after years of war, don't excuse either of those points.

Your government is making unpopular decisions now, but I suspect that if your corps called you, you would go and you are not about to burn your flag.

Your "pursuit of property" constitution is really the glitter on that turd, high sounding, hollow and full of shit.
As you say each is entitled to his opinion. As to you final "point," I can but say that if you really believe the Constitution is only about "property," then we probably just need to agree to disagree generally about these issues.
 
#19
Britain/Hanover was at war, the Seven Years War and it's sideshows was no cakewalk. It was really WW1, Britain and France fought on four continents and many poxy islands, each with a retinue of European coat holders. Once the threat of the French had been removed in North America, the chances were high that the Crown would do the unthinkable and ratify the Missouri valley as Indian lands for our allies in the war as promised; this didn't sit well with the well dressed your side of the pond.

Now you may see that differently and you are entitled to your view, but it won't change two facts:

The lands were grabbed and the Indian allies driven west.
...and of course, there was that 1772 court decision in England that slavery was unlawful. It may not have caused the push for independence among the colonies, but it may have affected the support of several of the larger landowners. After all, without slavery, their plantations were uneconomic.

In fact, they still felt rather strongly about it nearly a hundred years later; read the various statements justifying the secession of the States that formed the Confederacy. This is from Mississippi:

"...Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin..."
 
#20
Extrajudicial murder of US citizens in the US seems to be a national sport anyway...and it starts at the top as it should in a democracy...4x POTUS assassinated in office, at least 14 other attempts on various other sitting presidents, and two ( taylor and harding) who died in office and are thought to have been offed in some way but no proof.
 

Latest Threads