Author Topic: House Votes To Curb Patriot Act (Read 1279 times)

genozaur · « **Reply #60 on:** June 17, 2005, 12:02:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK Dunno exactly but I know how many planes went down or into buildings only because already existing laws in place werent enforced. 4 Wouldnt have even needed the Patriot ack to prevent it. All that was needed was enforcement of laws already in place.

Exactly. Plus the air-defence system in major coastal cities/ports. And the license to kill. Just as the Soviet PVO had it.

Toad · « **Reply #61 on:** June 17, 2005, 12:07:03 AM »

Yeah, I think you did misunderstand.

"Strict Constructionist" is tossed about like "judicial activist" these days. No one has really nailed down a definition of either and they've become buzzwords rather than real words.

As I said for me, it's what Jefferson meant when he said:

Quote

"In questions of power, then let no more be heard of confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

Follow the road map. It means what it says. We'll all do just fine.

Actually, the things that concern you, the potential abuses of the Constitution you just wrote above would outrage Jefferson, woudn't they?

They'd outrage both you and me. I see the protection from those things as strictly sticking to the Constitution and not twisting simple words into something they are not so the Constitution can be "stretched" to cover something that shouldn't be done.

Again, refer to "medical marijuana". We both know the Court should have let California set its own rules. We both know that medical MJ didn't impact the interstate commerce in weed.

If Jefferson had sat on the Court for the Med MJ case, which side do you think he have voted with?

I don't think we need "balance". I think we need 9 Jeffersons.

Hangtime · « **Reply #62 on:** June 17, 2005, 12:17:26 AM »

Quote

I don't think we need "balance". I think we need 9 Jeffersons

What, no Wheezeys?

Gotta have balance.

Toad · « **Reply #63 on:** June 17, 2005, 12:19:25 AM »

I KNEW someone was going to say that.

Someone else will say "Well I know Jefferson and Rehnquist is no Jefferson!"

What-evar.

You know my intent; TJ would never stand for the twisting and bending of his baby that's been done in the past and will be done in the future. He did a pretty good job though; it's served us well. Not perfect but best I've seen so far.

rpm · « **Reply #64 on:** June 17, 2005, 12:30:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
If Jefferson had sat on the Court for the Med MJ case, which side do you think he have voted with?

I don't think we need "balance". I think we need 9 Jeffersons.

Ah, but Jefferson would not be able to sit on the court. He would have already been arrested by the DEA along with Washington for trafficing, manufacturing and intent to distribute. Felons are not allowed to sit on the bench.

Remember, it was those "law and order" republicans that started the war on drugs, created the DEA, classified marijuana the same as heroin and cocaine, and turned procecuting it into a multi-billion dollar buisness of it's own. But I digress.

Toad · « **Reply #65 on:** June 17, 2005, 12:39:41 AM »

Of course, if we'd had Jeffersonian "strict constructionists" on the Court when Bush 1 declared the "war on drugs", those laws would have been struck down.

And you are right. You do digress; reminds one of the red herring fallacy.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #66 on:** June 17, 2005, 12:52:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
We're paying for his whole administration; I don't feel like I'm getting my money's worth either.

Quote

Thank God we don't get the government we pay for.
-- Will Rogers

Sandman · « **Reply #67 on:** June 17, 2005, 12:53:45 AM »

Me thinks Mr. Rogers didn't pay nearly as much as the rest of us.

rpm · « **Reply #68 on:** June 17, 2005, 01:03:09 AM »

Actually Toad, I was referring to the Nixon Administration that threw out it's own select committee report on marijuana and went 180 degrees in the opposite direction. But we are drifting off topic.

My apologies on taking so long to reply but my power has gone off 5 times in the last 20 minutes. The price I pay for country living.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #69 on:** June 17, 2005, 01:05:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
So you favor a totalitarian form of government where anyone that disagrees with the state is held in contempt? A one party system where the candidates are elected by 99.9% of the vote and the .01% are beheaded would be best in your view?

"Well if you have done nothing wrong then you would have nothing to worry about"

JB88 · « **Reply #70 on:** June 17, 2005, 01:26:12 AM »

one thing.

the recent roll backs of the patriot act materials appear to be based soley upon library records. (i may be wrong, i hope that i am)

this is sort of like opec jacking the price of oil +20 a barrell and then backtracking to +15 when the market gets skiddish.

suddenly they seem nice but what they have really done is jack up oil by 15 dollars and have gotten the market to bear the big fist.

see,

what concerns me more are secret courts and the wholesale trashing of the standard practice of law and civil order as dictated by the constitution...also known as THE LAW of the LAND.

so, while i am yippee about the latest changes, i fear that the ultimate outcome is a little bandaid to patch up the gigantic screw hole.

the market really shouldnt be prepared to accept anything less than absolute adherance or a constitutional convention to change the law.

war or no war.

the devil's in the details.

Aubrey · « **Reply #71 on:** June 17, 2005, 09:25:48 AM »

Do you all know who your Represeantive and your senators are.
If you do write a letter giving them your opinion. Someone told me oce ,... becuase no one does that really any more they count a WRITTEN letter on PAPER to be about 10000 people.

Maverick · « **Reply #72 on:** June 17, 2005, 09:32:42 AM »

I disagree that we need "balance" (as stated by RPM) in the SCOTUS. IIFRC the court was designed to rule based on the Constitutionality of a law / situation. In that case IMO a strict Constitutionalist would be the best bet to maintain the intent of setting up the Court as a check and or balance to the other 2 arms of the Government.

Raider179 · « **Reply #73 on:** June 17, 2005, 09:58:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by ET
I have just read the book "Constitutional Chaos" by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano of Fox News. It is an interesting read and he explains how our own government from prosucutors to judges are violating different parts of the Constitution.

just a sidenot here. anyone else notice everyone on Fox has got a book to pitch? lol

Toad · « **Reply #74 on:** June 17, 2005, 10:00:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Aubrey
Do you all know who your Represeantive and your senators are.
If you do write a letter giving them your opinion. Someone told me oce ,... becuase no one does that really any more they count a WRITTEN letter on PAPER to be about 10000 people.

I know my Dad did an experiment one time. He was part of a group of about 30 people, divided into 3 groups of 10. They had some issue the wanted to raise.

10 people called in and voiced the opinion.

10 people wrote a letter stating approximately the same concerns

10 people sent an e-mail with the same concerns.

Everyone of them got the exact same letter in reply via snail mail.

Now, as to how their efforts were "weighted" in the Representative's office, I suspect they were all treated as the same.

After all, none of the contacts offered money to the Rep.