Posted on 05/15/2008 4:38:32 AM PDT by SJackson
There always seem to be someone who crawls out of a sewer to muck things up. That, by the way, is where Barack came from.
I wasn't aware that they took positions on non-gun issues, but if you're right that they're supportive of an immediate withdrawl from Iraq, repeal of the Patriot Act, and dismantling of domestic anti-terror efforts, yes, they're in Sheehanland on those issues.
And you base that on ???????
Throw away lines are cheap and unpersuasive.
If McCain believes that his own bills are Constitutional, he is on the far left. Barak Obama says he believes in an individual right to bear arms. Do you believe him too?
Funny how guys who disagree on war are summarily trashed on this website. Yet we are supposed to hold our nose and vote for the guy who craps on our First Amendment rights, wants to let terrorists into our southern border at will and proposes a multi-trillion dollar cap and trade plan borrowed directly from Al Gore. I’ll take the guy who I disagree with on the war, thanks.
McCain believes that his campaign reform law is not violative of the First Amendment. So far the judiciary has not opined either way.
One thing is certain: the law is useless and has been completely circumvented by 501(c)s of various kinds.
Other than that, I'm not sure which bills of his are so glaringly unconstitutional - ill-advised, certainly. Unconstitutional?
Barak Obama says he believes in an individual right to bear arms. Do you believe him too?
The laws of the state of IL, in which Barack Obama sat as a legislator, speak for themselves. John McCain's record in the Second Amendment, while far from stellar, is quite different.
It goes far beyond simple "reorganization of the executive department".
Attempts to simplify such a far reaching Act is indicative of the subversion of the Constitution by stealth that is being practiced against a dumb downed populace regarding the extent of the reach of government into an individuals life.
LOL. For a party that can’t seem to get over a few percent come election day, the propagandists sure spend a lot of time telling us how dangerous they are.
Why do Republicans care who the libertarians vote for? I have been told endlessly that the “loserdopian” vote is insignificant and made up of only crazy drug users who want to smoke drugs. So if libertarians vote Libertarian, no problem, right?
Always begin by poisoning the well.
then you haven't really read the Patriot Act
Oh, that must be it. It could not be that I reached different conclusions than you did when I read it. That would be impossible.
nor engaged in the many debates here about its Constitutionality..
There hasn't been a whole lot of debate here. A lot of cutting-and-pasting, a lot of linking to websites, but not much analysis.
Your sweeping declaration does not have the legitimacy of consensus here.
Truth is not determined by a show of hands.
For your convenience, here is the complete text of The Patriot Act and my response to it.
Your response contains lots of the same tendentious assertions that simply are not a replacement for analysis.
For example: "The FBI can secretly enter someone's home or office, search the premises, and leave without notifying the owner. In theory, this would be supervised by a court."
It's not a matter of "theory" - there must be a warrant and the court must be notified. And this is not an innovation: it is precisely these kinds of warrants that have been used for decades to secure wiretaps or make copies of documents without seizing them.
Another: "Previously, there were legal restrictions on Carnivore and other Internet surveillance techniques (Section 216)." Laws change every day - it does not mean that the new law violates the Constitution. In the old days, the principal ways people communicated were via speech and snail mail. Today people routinely carry on conversations non-verbally through IP media. I'm not sure why reading mail would be Constitutional and reading email wouldn't be.
Another: "In effect, this provision suspends any due process provisions of the Constitution, especially the Fifth Amendment which states that 'no person … [shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.' " Again, it is a matter of defining due process and how exactly it applies to citizens and non-citizens. And, again, there is no innovation here: criminal aliens have been held without council - even US citizens have been incarcerated for long periods without legal advice, like the internment of Japanese-American citizens - an extremity that this law does not authorize.
Another: "Foreigners who enter the U.S. on a visa will be subjected to biometric technology, such as fingerprint readers or iris scanners." Does the Constitution mandate that foreigners should be allowed to dictate the terms of their own visas?
Another: "Without a court order, credit reporting agencies must disclose to the FBI any information that agents request in connection with a terrorist investigation. The agencies may not disclose to the subject that the FBI is snooping in their file (Section 505)." This is completely in line with existing laws and is modified to allow FBI Directors to appoint special deputies to use this tool.
Another: "The current definition of terrorism is expanded to include biochemical attacks and computer hacking." Again, why exactly is this unconstitutional?
It goes far beyond simple "reorganization of the executive department".
I never posted or implied that it was solely such a reorganization - in fact I explicitly described aspects that went beyond reorganization.
Attempts to simplify such a far reaching Act is indicative of the subversion of the Constitution by stealth that is being practiced against a dumb downed populace regarding the extent of the reach of government into an individuals life.
That's quite a "sentence."
I would argue that "dumbing things down" would be exemplified by the following analysis:
"If I think a law sounds scary, then it must be unconstitutional."
If the Patriot Act was so wonderful, surely you’d agree that the people voting on it should have been given enough time to read the damned thing before voting on it, right?
Dude, there is a lot to say good about McCain. His views on the Constitution are NOT one of them.
That's only when the liberal Republicans win. When they lose, it's, "YOU FU$&IN' LOSERDOPIANS CAUSED THE DEMOCRAT TO WIN!!!! NOW AMERICA IS GOING TO BE NUKED AND THE US WILL BE UNDER SHARIA LAW!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"
I can't wait to see these people when McCain gets destroyed in November.
Yep, obviously Barr represents a threat or else Front Page & FReepers wouldn't take the time to hyperventilate about him.
I'm not sure what part of your post is funnier - that I think the USA PATRIOT Act is "wonderful" or the assumption that Congressmen ever bother to read the legislation they vote on.
Look up the timeline as to when it was presented to Congress versus when it was voted on. Unless every member of Congress has supernatural speed-reading abilities, there is no way they could have read the thing.
Oh, and Congressional staffers had ten days to review this Act and summarize it for their bosses.
Barr will hurt McCain because enough frustrated Pubs, Indies and even Mod. Dems will vote for him just enough to lose the election for McCain. Well, I actually don’t believe that but nutters like Barr, Paul while dealing with some issues correctly simply give Dems even greater chances to be elected. Third Parties just do not work. Except to hurt the two major parties: see Nader and or Perot.
Presented on October 2. Voted on October 12.
Unless every member of Congress has supernatural speed-reading abilities, there is no way they could have read the thing.
Every Congressman has, at great expense, a crew of staffers whose official reason for existence is to review and research legislation.
I'll also point out that the final version of the Act presented to the Senate is 57,000 words long.
If it were printed in standard paperback format, without indentations and extra lines to set off every paragraph and subparagraph, it would take up 160 pages in a standard paperback book.
A typical Wall Street attorney can be expected - in fact is expected - to review a 100,000 word indenture agreement overnight in order to place a corporate bond offering. A bad job will ensure ruinous litigation and the loss of clients.
A lawyer on a Congressman's staff should be quite familiar with the federal code to begin with, and should be able to turn over 57,000 words of a bill in a similar timeframe - especially if it is a priority.
No law firm in DC would hire anyone who couldn't do that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.