Stealth Legislation Undermines the Constitution

The Rutherford Institute ^ | January 12, 2004 | John W. Whitehead

[Eala]

ping

[Byron_the_Aussie]

How timely.

[sinkspur]

How come Ron Paul is just now letting his followers know about this? He knew about it when it was before Congress.

[Federalist 78]

Congressional Record: December 9, 2003 (Extensions) Page E2491

[Gumption]

I think it has more to do with wanting to support the war effort than to fall into line with the GOP. Of course there's a lot more to it than that but ...

[Byron_the_Aussie]

...how come Ron Paul is just now letting his followers know about this?...

Huh?

Ron Paul's never faltered in his duty to inform Americans, about the way this Administration is tearing up the Fourth.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

I'll be fascinated to see how many responses this thread receives, Fed.

If this kind of abuse had been proposed by Clinton and Reno, FR would be afire. There'd be petitions, freeps planned, you name it. But when Bush attacks Americans' rights it's like, 'please sir, may I have another?' This President has insufficient knowledge of the history of freedom's challenges and also the temporality of his office. I shudder to think what a future Dem administration will do with a weapon like the PATRIOT Act.

Just by the way, and I say this as a cyber friend and admirer, tread carefully and mollify your enthusiasm as you explore these themes here. Many who've taken on a similar challenge in the past are now desaparecidos, like Wallaby and Uncle Bill.

[supercat]

And these subpoenas can be issued by relatively low-level bureaucrats without going to any court.

Wasn't there a recent court ruling against administrative subpoenas (RIAA seeking them against ISP's)? Would that not be applicable here also?

[zeugma]

I never thought I'd see an administration more blatantly disregard the Constitution and everything it stands for than the Clinton administration. I was wrong. Bush is even more dangerous than Clinton IMO. You'll find lots of folks here who are more than glad to support it, because Bush has an (R) beside his name.

[dirtboy]

Is there a bill number from Thomas so we can read up on what was signed? I've seen enough hyperbole over the last couple years that I prefer to read the bill for myself.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

LOL! You win the tagline competition, DB. :)

[dirtboy]

Thanks. Although I must admit, nothing I can invent about Howard Dean can compete comedically with the script that he writes for himself.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

...you'll find lots of folks here who are more than glad to support it, because Bush has an (R) beside his name...

You're right, but even those people- and many of them are good people- are dismayed, by his recent offerings.

The hard reality is that Bush is still the best thing conservatives have going for them, at the moment. He's let us down, he's let himself down, but under your system (where you don't have preferential voting) not only is there no realistic alternative, but a protest vote is disastrous. So the only option is to register the discontent and disillusionment as strongly as possible in the hope that he will change course. Most days there's plenty of opportunities to do just that, posted on the sidebar. Cheers, By

[Federalist 78]

H.R. 2417 / Public Law 108-177 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Dec. 13, 2003; 117 Stat. 2599; 38 pages)

[dirtboy]

Thanks. I'll read up on that over the weekend.

[MarcinIN]

Lessee here...
Reasons to vote for Bush;
1. Does SOMETHING about terrorism
2. Tax cuts
3. . . .
Reasons to vote for a Dem;


Reasons to weep for the Republc;
1. Campaign Finance Reform
2. Patriot I & II
3. Immigration
4. Oh, never mind.

Where did I put that link for the Constitution Party?
(anyone?...anyone?)