Skip to comments.Police State
Posted on 11/12/2001 12:09:08 PM PST by Stand Watch Listen
click here to read article
WE DIDN'T LOVE YOU ENOUGH. WE LET OUR PEOPLE BECOME IGNORANT OF THE GREAT FREEDOMS OF OUR CONSTITUTION TO THE POINT THAT THIS VERY PIECE OF FREE SPEECH, WILL IN ALL LIKELIHOOD BE MONITORED BY "THE AUTHORITIES" FOR FURTHER REVIEW.
MAY OUR CHILDREN AND THEIR CHILDREN FORGIVE US.
I'm with the critics on this one, my FRiend.
"Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, one of only three Republican lawmakers to buck the House leadership and the Bush administration to vote against this legislation, is outraged not only by what is contained in the antiterrorism bill but also by the effort to stigmatize opponents. Paul tells Insight, "The insult is to call this a 'patriot bill' and suggest I'm not patriotic because I insisted upon finding out what is in it and voting no. I thought it was undermining the Constitution, so I didn't vote for it and therefore I'm somehow not a patriot. That's insulting."
Ron Paul's my HERO!! This is a horrible bill and needs to be gotten rid of by the Legislature before it eventually gets overturned by the SCOTUS!! Folks who are gonna be flip-flopping on their votes can use the excuse that they never saw the original legislation and were misled...but this Legislation deserves to be relegated to the Ashbin of History, IMHO.
BTW...Go Insight Go!! Excellent publication!!
What is it about "shall not be violated" that seems so hard fer Congress to grasp?!
Great post, SWL...MUD
I think it's the "not."
It's like quicksand.
Thanks for posting this.
One of the other issues in this is how a law can be constitutional if the legislative branch did not understand what it contained . I would like to see an appeal based on this alone. Somehow we have to stop this "fast track" "back room comitee" process. Too much legislation, especially spending bills, get voted on without being read.
I agree, this is a bad bill. But rather than concentrate on what "shall not be violated" means, I think that some effort should be put into defining what "the people" means.
If this is to be a bill that combats 'terrorism', then it should be no problem for true patriots to put legislation on paper that states, in effect, if you are not a legal citizen, then you are afforded no rights under The Constitution and ought beware.
"We the People" should stand for no more. And no less.
Many people will not lay down and take it.
When agents sneak into homes and are shot by home owners it will only add fuel to the fire for gun control legislation.
I see a bad moon rising.
Could it be ...
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.