Constitution of the United States

One thing I have to say about this Malice, rights is and have already disappeared in many cases in an attempt to weaken the U.S. Constitution for adopting more and more, International Law formulated and excuted through the World Court.

Look, U.S. soveriegnty is at stake... America is at war... ideologically and financially, by both internal and external forces.... and it is being done without firing a bullet. America is being disarm simultaneously while right are being eroded away, not afterwards....

....to be more clear.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Although one good thing came out recently.

Bush ordered the Texas Supreme Court to wait on rulling on a cas4e to let the World Courts jump in.
The Supreme Court said...um...no.
Our laws are precident, a win for US law!
 
However, the needs of the states should be up to the needs of the people within it. That is what Democracy is all about.

The United States was never intended to be a 'democracy'. It was intended to be a representative Republic.
 
having the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the military, so they are not even related...so I will allow you to have a problem with the military.

No badmouthing to you Super... :)

Hence, "but that's another topic." ;)

However, I don't have a problem with the military, not at all, but the industrialization and profiteering off the military, privatizing it (Blackwater for instance). It's the "industrial" part of the military-industrial complex that I have a problem with. Selling weapons for profit.

Dwight D. Eisenhower said:
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.
 
Unfortunately, the Germans chose their government at the time and showed no objection to Hitler's practices. Hitler didn't overthrow the government and take complete control; his party was elected.

It's not that simple. Hitler took advantage of the social psychology of Germany to seize power. Events like the burning of the Reichstag convinced the German people that they should give Hitler dictatorial power.

The same idea was attempted in this country, but fortunately the American people had just enough intelligence to not let it occur to the same extent.

It is quite unfortunate, that with the very effective "dumbing-down" that is occuring both by an inadequate school system, and the massive influence of the media, there will be a point in the country where an artificial event like 9/11 will finish the job in completely shreding our Constitution.
 
Lets not get into a debate on the path Hitler took in power...
 
Lets not get into a debate on the path Hitler took in power...

But Malice, the way Hitler rose to prominence, is frightening similar, in many cases, happening in America and the erosion of America's Constitution.... sadly to say. :(

Those that discount history, are damn to repeat it.
 
But Malice, the way Hitler rose to prominence, is frightening similar, in many cases, happening in America and the erosion of America's Constitution.... sadly to say. :(

We have checks and balances in this country which can ward off any extremists and the baggage they carry, be they Bush, McCain or Obama.

Granted, the civil liberties of Muslims and Muslim-Americans have been trampled on repeatedly since 9/11, the PATRIOT Act has damned our own civil liberties, and the President has completely disregarded numerous laws and trampled on the Constitution himself... but this has happened in American history before... be it in the form of John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts during the Quasi War, or FDR and his imprisonment of Japanese-Americans during WWII... these problems tend to fix themselves though...
 
I didnt mean not to look at history, I meant lets not get into a debate about viciousness of it. Comparisons are always valid.
 
Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years. Ratified 7/1/1971

1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

What was the age originally?
 
21 or so?
Yes, it was 21, but ratified due to American Soliders and Marines could be 18 and die for their country but not vote for people that make the decisions that would possibly get them killed. Again a situation of Taxation without respresentaion, but in this case, the tax was your life.
 
We have checks and balances in this country which can ward off any extremists and the baggage they carry, be they Bush, McCain or Obama.

Granted, the civil liberties of Muslims and Muslim-Americans have been trampled on repeatedly since 9/11, the PATRIOT Act has damned our own civil liberties, and the President has completely disregarded numerous laws and trampled on the Constitution himself... but this has happened in American history before... be it in the form of John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts during the Quasi War, or FDR and his imprisonment of Japanese-Americans during WWII... these problems tend to fix themselves though...

Not just Muslims (they're most affected by this), but any American can be locked away as an "enemy combatant" indefinitely.
No Habeas Corpus for any one.

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0212-24.htm

http://greatreporter.com/mambo/content/view/1531/1/

It really is scary. Say something someone doesn't like and they could easily throw away the key.
 
We have checks and balances in this country which can ward off any extremists and the baggage they carry, be they Bush, McCain or Obama.

Granted, the civil liberties of Muslims and Muslim-Americans have been trampled on repeatedly since 9/11, the PATRIOT Act has damned our own civil liberties, and the President has completely disregarded numerous laws and trampled on the Constitution himself... but this has happened in American history before... be it in the form of John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts during the Quasi War, or FDR and his imprisonment of Japanese-Americans during WWII... these problems tend to fix themselves though...


Thats if you believe that we have a government for the people, of the people and by the people.

The fact of the matter is that there is indeed a dictatorship in this country. Not by one person, but by a small number of rich men that have controlled this country for at least the past hundred years. The last REAL President we had in this country was John F. Kennedy, and he paid the price for that. Every President since then has been a puppet, having very little power but what these people give him. The Federal Reserve, the mass media, 9/11, The Patriot Act, etc. and etc. are not the works of our government, but the works of the wealthy elite that pull all the strings behind the scenes.
 
Thats if you believe that we have a government for the people, of the people and by the people.

The fact of the matter is that there is indeed a dictatorship in this country. Not by one person, but by a small number of rich men that have controlled this country for at least the past hundred years. The last REAL President we had in this country was John F. Kennedy, and he paid the price for that. Every President since then has been a puppet, having very little power but what these people give him. The Federal Reserve, the mass media, 9/11, The Patriot Act, etc. and etc. are not the works of our government, but the works of the wealthy elite that pull all the strings behind the scenes.

How is JFK the last REAL president by your standards? He came from a rather wealthy family, and his father was a prominent politician who basically bought his election to the House of Representatives in the 1940s...
 
Thats if you believe that we have a government for the people, of the people and by the people.

The fact of the matter is that there is indeed a dictatorship in this country. Not by one person, but by a small number of rich men that have controlled this country for at least the past hundred years. The last REAL President we had in this country was John F. Kennedy, and he paid the price for that. Every President since then has been a puppet, having very little power but what these people give him. The Federal Reserve, the mass media, 9/11, The Patriot Act, etc. and etc. are not the works of our government, but the works of the wealthy elite that pull all the strings behind the scenes.
x-files1.jpg
 
How is JFK the last REAL president by your standards? He came from a rather wealthy family, and his father was a prominent politician who basically bought his election to the House of Representatives in the 1940s...

John F. Kennedy was the last real President in that he was the last President to actually give a damn about the people of the United States and did what he thought was right in the office. Despite what his "advisors" constantly attempt to push on him. Examples:

1. The CIA told JFK before he approved the Bay of Pigs Invasion, that no U.S. servicemen would be used or needed for the operation to be a sucess as it was the only way he would agree to it. When it became obvious that the CIA lied to him when the invasion began to fail becaue of the lack of originally planned U.S. air support, JFK still refused to risk American lives for a cause he sternly believed was the sole responsibility of the Cubans. This really pissed off the CIA, and ever since, JFK completley distrusted them.

2. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, amidst constant pressure from his advisors, who had a vested interest in going to war, JFK refused the full out invasion of Cuba that they demanded he must do. He shrewdly understood that in such a tricky situation, it would be most beneficial to the American people to negotiate. He did just that, compromising with the Soviets in such a way that was entirely to the disfavor of the wealthy elite in this country.

3. Knowing that the Federal Reserve was a corrupt institution that served only to the discredit of the American people, JFK ordered the issuing of $4 billion dollars of debt-free Treasury Notes from the U.S. Treasury Department, as opposed to the Federal Reserve. Doing this meant less inflation, and a stronger economy. It also meant a loss in profits for the rich bankers of the Fed.

4. Had JFK lived, Vietnam would have never happened. In 1962, he had his Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, draft the orders for the pullout of 1000 U.S. advisors to South Vietnam by Christmas of 1964. Following this, he had planned on the complete pull-out of all U.S. forces in Vietnam by 1965. He remained publically quiet about this in order not to compromise himself in the 1964 election, but he privatley believed that Vietnam would only be a quagmire. This could not happen to the business interests who had invested so much in the coming war in terms of military spending and contracting, as well as the Federal Reserve bankers that would earn more interest money due to the government's need to borrow more money.


So, in November, 1963, he was shot in the head. JFK was the last President to do what was best for the American people while in office, and refused to compromise that to benefit the business interests that had been hijacking the U.S. government for decades. Ever since, the President has essentially been a public face, that does determine some things, but not anything that was already set in motion by the same business interests that JFK opposed.
 
So, what you are saying is "in your opinion" JFK was the last "real" President. Like the others since didn't do a damn because there wasn't a Quantum Leap episode based on the other Presidents. Ok, gottca.
 
Very smug and unnecessary. Theres no need for that. Your sterotyping of what I've written is not fair and in fact only displays your ignorance. If you don't want to debate, then don't attack my words in such an asanine fashion.

When you grow up, come back and we'll talk.
 
You shouldn't use the word ignorant. But, anyway. I respect your opinion, that JFK was the last "real" president. What ever that means, I however would like to think that Reagen and Nixon were Presidents too. I would like to think that Clinton, as much as I detest the man, was a President. I am still waiting for you to identify what a "real President" is. If it is a President that does something for the good of the American People, no matter how unpopular it is, then President George W. Bush is a "real" President by your justifaction. Anyway, this isn't a Thread about Presidents, it is about the Constitition of the United States, and by that Your Rights, just as much as Mine. My puny attempts at satire before I go to bed, may not have gotten a Chuckle out of you. But, at least I'm going to try to steer this thread back on topic.

16 Amendment needs to be Repealed to insure that Liberty stays intact.
 
You shouldn't use the word ignorant. But, anyway. I respect your opinion, that JFK was the last "real" president. What ever that means, I however would like to think that Reagen and Nixon were Presidents too. I would like to think that Clinton, as much as I detest the man, was a President. I am still waiting for you to identify what a "real President" is. If it is a President that does something for the good of the American People, no matter how unpopular it is, then President George W. Bush is a "real" President by your justifaction. Anyway, this isn't a Thread about Presidents, it is about the Constitition of the United States, and by that Your Rights, just as much as Mine. My puny attempts at satire before I go to bed, may not have gotten a Chuckle out of you. But, at least I'm going to try to steer this thread back on topic.

16 Amendment needs to be Repealed to insure that Liberty stays intact.

George W. Bush is a puppet. The War in Iraq, Afghanistan are not his ideas. Like I said, he is only a public face. Previous President's like Nixon, Clinton, and etc. where indeed "real" Presidents in that they held the office, and steered the country in a manner that was somewhat their own. But the main steering was done by the business interests that have Washington by the balls. Wars, laws, the Federal Reserve, our foreign affairs are not run by our public servants. They are run by big business, and only a select few at the top. It is the principles of Plato and Aristotle being realized, only the inherant good that both philosophers expected in the ruling class is painfully absent.

Anyways, this is quite off topic. I completley agree. The 16th Amendment is ********. It is one of the very few amendments that completely contradicts and nullifies something in the Constitution. It's also important to note that most of our taxes don't go to federal programs and the such, but to the Federal Reserve, a system that doesn't even need to exist, to pay back the interest of our loans.
 
Anyways, this is quite off topic. I completley agree. The 16th Amendment is ********. It is one of the very few amendments that completely contradicts and nullifies something in the Constitution. It's also important to note that most of our taxes don't go to federal programs and the such, but to the Federal Reserve, a system that doesn't even need to exist, to pay back the interest of our loans.
I completely agree with this statement, I shake you hand kind sir. Sorry for the thing with the thing earlier. Sometimes I have substance, sometimes I try to get a laugh, I meant no offense. But, lets keep this thread about Rights and the Constitition where it belongs, if you want a thread about Presidents Past, make one.
 
John F. Kennedy was the last real President in that he was the last President to actually give a damn about the people of the United States and did what he thought was right in the office. Despite what his "advisors" constantly attempt to push on him. Examples:

1. The CIA told JFK before he approved the Bay of Pigs Invasion, that no U.S. servicemen would be used or needed for the operation to be a sucess as it was the only way he would agree to it. When it became obvious that the CIA lied to him when the invasion began to fail becaue of the lack of originally planned U.S. air support, JFK still refused to risk American lives for a cause he sternly believed was the sole responsibility of the Cubans. This really pissed off the CIA, and ever since, JFK completley distrusted them.

2. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, amidst constant pressure from his advisors, who had a vested interest in going to war, JFK refused the full out invasion of Cuba that they demanded he must do. He shrewdly understood that in such a tricky situation, it would be most beneficial to the American people to negotiate. He did just that, compromising with the Soviets in such a way that was entirely to the disfavor of the wealthy elite in this country.

3. Knowing that the Federal Reserve was a corrupt institution that served only to the discredit of the American people, JFK ordered the issuing of $4 billion dollars of debt-free Treasury Notes from the U.S. Treasury Department, as opposed to the Federal Reserve. Doing this meant less inflation, and a stronger economy. It also meant a loss in profits for the rich bankers of the Fed.

These are valid points. But other Presidents have acted in similar fashions. For example, Truman fired Douglass MacArthur when he suggested that the United States use nuclear weapons against China and Korea during the Korean War. LBJ refused to invade Cambodia during the Vietnam War, stating that it would be irresponsible to do so. Many other presidents have a history of fiscal responsibility. Eisenhower kicked his chief of staff out of the room when he suggested that they cut taxes during the tail end of the Korean War, stating the financial burden the United States would encounter in the years ahead due to mounting debt, based on the uncertainty of the conflict's longevity. So JFK is not alone in all three of those categories.

4. Had JFK lived, Vietnam would have never happened. In 1962, he had his Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, draft the orders for the pullout of 1000 U.S. advisors to South Vietnam by Christmas of 1964. Following this, he had planned on the complete pull-out of all U.S. forces in Vietnam by 1965. He remained publically quiet about this in order not to compromise himself in the 1964 election, but he privatley believed that Vietnam would only be a quagmire. This could not happen to the business interests who had invested so much in the coming war in terms of military spending and contracting, as well as the Federal Reserve bankers that would earn more interest money due to the government's need to borrow more money.

Wrong. JFK was meeting with advisers on the Vietnam conflict and had them scope out the situation, but he had not made a decision on this. Have you read "An Unfinished Life" by Robert Dallek? It outlines what his foreseeable Vietnam strategy would have been: Keep us there until the conflict is alleviated, or until voters become tired of it. The same strategy everyone else took until Nixon became President.

So, in November, 1963, he was shot in the head. JFK was the last President to do what was best for the American people while in office, and refused to compromise that to benefit the business interests that had been hijacking the U.S. government for decades. Ever since, the President has essentially been a public face, that does determine some things, but not anything that was already set in motion by the same business interests that JFK opposed.

The last president who worked to benefit all Americans was LBJ. Looking past Vietnam, LBJ was responsible for the Civil Rights Act, extending Medicare and Medicaid, advocating a universal health care system... all of which Truman advocated during his Presidency, and Nixon advocated during his as well. No president is perfect. They all have scandals-- LBJ with Vietnam, Nixon with Watergate, Truman with being Truman, and so on-- but JFK was certainly not the last REAL president, as defined by your terms, because so many other Presidents have better resumes on the issues you brought forth.
 
He is European.

Actually I am originally Iranian and lived in the States until the age of 14. I have also lived and worked in New York City (Manhatten is my favorite city). Plus my father is a US citizen. I do however currently reside in Europe and hold a French passport.

And with regard to my belief that the right to bear arms is out of date is because citizens will never have the resources to bear enough arms to be a deterrant to the government in this day and age. And in a revolution scenario whether the right exists or not people will get a hold of arms. However, the 2nd amendment seems to most benefit (I am ignoring companies which of course do profit from it) those who end up on the rwong side of the law.

I am personally not against holding arms per se as I do own a hunting rifle which was given to me as a gift when I started hunting (I have given it up since then as I prefer to play golf) but just that it seems to me that it is too easy in the US to procure one and that amendment is one of the reasons.

I realise the Bill of Rights is sacrosant and I remember learning about them in school in LA but there are somethings which could not use a bit of modernising.
 
Actually I am originally Iranian and lived in the States until the age of 14. I have also lived and worked in New York City (Manhatten is my favorite city). Plus my father is a US citizen. I do however currently reside in Europe and hold a French passport.

And with regard to my belief that the right to bear arms is out of date is because citizens will never have the resources to bear enough arms to be a deterrant to the government in this day and age. And in a revolution scenario whether the right exists or not people will get a hold of arms. However, the 2nd amendment seems to most benefit (I am ignoring companies which of course do profit from it) those who end up on the rwong side of the law.

I am personally not against holding arms per se as I do own a hunting rifle which was given to me as a gift when I started hunting (I have given it up since then as I prefer to play golf) but just that it seems to me that it is too easy in the US to procure one and that amendment is one of the reasons.

I realise the Bill of Rights is sacrosant and I remember learning about them in school in LA but there are somethings which could not use a bit of modernising.

1. The Mujahadeen managed to do well against a vastly better-armed Soviet military in Afghanistan. So, massive firepower isn't everything.

2. If the Revolution has to happen, it would be better to have weapons at that time rather than go around trying to get a hold of one during the conflict.

3. Your perception of guns primarily being of benefit to criminals is largely driven, I believe, by media outlets. Few media sources regularly report stories of target shooting, hunting, or self-defense that doesn't actually involve shooting (brandishing a gun can drive a criminal away). Instead, they report what gets ratings, and that is gun violence. If all you hear are how guns are used by criminals against innocents, then that will drive perception.

In 1997, during our rash of school shootings, everyone constantly heard on the news about Luke Woodham killing a couple of people and injuring several others during a school shooting in Pearl, MS. What is rarely known by others (because it was almost never reported) was that the assistant principal went out to his truck to retrieve his own gun (because it was illegal for him to have it in the school building :whatever:) and held Luke with it until the cops arrived. Now, had the assistant principal not access to a gun, how many more people might have been killed/injured until the police arrived?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"