Well Done That Man--Senator Paul

Discussion in 'US' started by jumpinjarhead, Mar 7, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  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.
    • Like Like x 3
  2. Err, I'm not getting why the assassination of US citizens without due process outside the US isn't even more outrageous.
  3. Can't the Supreme Court strike down unconstitutional laws any more, or have they ditched the Constitution as well?
  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.
    • Like Like x 5

  5. I have read somewhere (so can't quote it, unfortunately) that he bitterly hates the constitution.
  6. What actually started this particular ball rolling?
  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. 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):


    Of particular note is the artful dodging of the lawyers on the critical issue of "imminent threat" at page 8, first full paragraph.
  9. 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:

    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. 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:

  11. 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. 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. 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."
  14. What prevents politicians from making further amendments to the constitution?

    I'm not aware of the history or the exact law surrounding it.
  15. 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: