December 9, 2012

You are here: Home / Archives for Constitution

S.1867 The End Of The Constitution & America As We Know It - Madison Ruppert Of End The Lie On RBN RBNOn

December 11, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Filed Under: Law, Prison, Terrorism, USA Tagged With:

What Sections 1031 and 1032 of Bill 1867 Really Mean

December 3, 2011 By Leave a Comment

If you haven’t already read section 1031 and 1032 of senate bill 1867, they can be found in the bill’s original pdf document here:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf

There really is a lot of hype going around about this senate bill. Most people who are building it up haven’t done their own research and are just regurgitating what they hear from those who are hyping it up. I fear people in my family think that way when I write them emails about this stuff, that I’m just spreading the hype. The thing is, I’ve done my research and have studied the applicable sections of that bill and am drawing my conclusion based on what I know.

There are also a lot of people who say this has nothing to do with United States citizens, as it plainly says in section 1032: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”

But, its important to pay attention to the language and scope of this statement found in section 1031 regarding people that can be detained:

————————————-
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
————————————-

The language appears to imply only “al-Qaeda” and “the Taliban” and “associated forces”. Sure it means “associated forces” being those who are associated directly with al-Qaeda and the Taliban, right? Surely it doesn’t mean any of us who are United States citizens, right?

They need to clarify to a much larger degree what “associated forces” means. To do this, they need to INCLUDE groups who fall under “associated forces”, not just EXCLUDE United States citizens. Someone might argue that when it says “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States”, they are in fact describing groups who fall under “associated forces”. But again, that is WAY too broad and must be clarified.

They need to clarify “hostilities against the United States”, too. For all we know, anyone that badmouths President Obama is engaging in hostilities against the United States. Again, anyone who brings to light the insidious corruption of our government (our current government as a whole) just might be engaging in hostilities against the United States because doing so would thwart the agendas of “officials” in our government who are pushing for a New World Order and a one world government.

To add more weight to the issue, it says “including any person who has committed a belligerent act”. People automatically think the bill is referring to foreigners who fall under “associated forces”. But what is a “belligerent act”? According to merriam-webster.com, belligerence is “an aggressive or truculent attitude, atmosphere, or disposition”. If we accept that definition and re-read “including any person who has committed a belligerent act”, that can very easily mean anyone around the world (including us Americans) who commit an act with an aggressive or truculent attitude.

Considering the context in which “belligerent act” is used in the bill, it is connected to war and may not necessarily be referring to joe-blow who commits an act with an aggressive attitude. Once again, they need to be VERY SPECIFIC when describing these types of bills.

To clarify things, they added the statements in section 1032:

————————————-
(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined–
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
————————————-

Think about this phrase from above: “The requirement in paragraph (1)”… What is paragraph (1)? Here it is: “Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.”

Going on: “The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined” (Now read it carefully) “to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” (again, there’s that very broadly defined associated force who can encompass just about anyone) “that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda” (ohhh, ok, so now they’re getting more detailed).

They HAVE to more precisely describe what it means to act in coordination with al-Qaeda because if they don’t, that lack of description will be used against us. You can count on that. For example, if you go to the airport and opt-out of the naked body scanners, you are treated like you’re guilty of something. They then will perform a full body pat down and touch your private parts whether you say you’re leaving or not. If you refuse that, you are taken into a room for questioning. Can’t forget to mention all the reported thefts and rapes that happen behind those closed doors. All this for the sake of safety? How many terrorists have the TSA thugs caught by performing these dangerous (the body scanners) and extremely invasive (the pat downs) protocol procedures? Oh, and I forgot to mention that high and mighty bankers and government officials are exempt from going through the scanners and having the pat downs, while it is THEY who are raping this country of its freedoms outlined in the Constitution. They are the terrorists and should be treated as such.

Now, by me saying what I just did and posting it on SurvivingTheFuture.com, it can possibly be “determined” that I am engaging in hostilities against the United States. But once again, these hostilities are not precisely defined in the bill which means that something so simple as writing a few lines of truth about our corrupt system might be grounds for arrest.

So am I truly safe just because of the little line they added in section 1032: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States”. I’m a citizen, right? If they determine for ANY reason at all I might be associated with al-Qaeda, the Taliban or “associated forces”, that little line will not keep me safe. If you’re a traitor, you’re a traitor and will be treated as such. And it will be determined by them.

People might say that I’m looking too deep, but considering the sins our current government has committed against humanity now and over the years (including enslaving us in so much debt that there is no way out except to turn to a world currency run by a world government supported by the Trilateral Commission and the Builderburg Group, thus destroying the Constitution… all this info is available), I don’t believe there is anything they wont do.

We are a VERY dependent people. Over 44 million Americans are using food stamps because they can’t afford to be independent in that area. What’s going to happen when the US Dollar becomes worth less and less, and the government keeps on providing food to its citizens and illegal parasites? Taxes taxes taxes. Money printing printing printing. Debt debt debt. The only solution will be create a world central bank that controls the money supply and prices. A major red flag for that is the preliminary testing of the idea – the Euro. A bunch of countries bought in to the idea and its destroying them. If we go a world currency, the same thing will happen and the United States will lose its sovereignty and its precious freedoms protected by the Constitution.

The thing is, its the ultimate goal of the globalists and eugenicist like Hillary and Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Al Gore, Newt Gingrich (he just talked about it a few days ago, and was supported by Bill Clinton), and many more is to have a one world government with them being a part of it.

There are good guys like Ron Paul who will do their utmost to restore America and have a real constitutional government, as well as the currency talked about in the constitution rather than our worthless federal reserve notes. Any idea why Ron Paul gets seconds compared to minutes in the Presidential debates yet will wins in post-debate polls? Its because mainstream media doesn’t want Americans to hear what he has to say. He doesn’t get the time of day from them, and its sad. But he is going strong, and I believe he needs to be President in order for us to get back on track. None of the other candidates will do it. They all say the same thing which is what we want to hear.

Anyway, this whole situation with this bill… The bill needs to be denied or drastically clarified so the scope includes very specifically defined groups of people rather than just excluding United States citizens. I could go on for hours about what our government has done, but people don’t want to hear it.

Here is the link to what zerohedge says about it and how it will create a police state here in America.

Here is a paragraph from their article:

“The Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.”

Here is what the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) briefly says about it:

“The U.S. Senate is considering the unthinkable: changing detention laws to imprison people — including Americans living in the United States itself — indefinitely and without charge.”

“The Defense Authorization bill — a “must-pass” piece of legislation — is headed to the Senate floor with troubling provisions that would give the President — and all future presidents — the authority to indefinitely imprison people, without charge or trial, both abroad and inside the United States.”

Here is a link to the ACLU website where you can send a message to your senators and urge them to oppose this bill. The message is pre-filled so all you have to do is send it. If you’d like, you can customize the message and insert your thoughts and feelings about it. Now is the time to take action and put forth your voice. This is real stuff. Its not hard to see that when our government is given power, they abuse the crap out of it. We can’t give our government this power. Its too broad and dangerous.

I hope you all send the message because by not doing so when the opportunity is available, we don’t let our voice be heard. The majority of the people tend to choose that which is right, right? The scriptures warn us what happens when the majority chooses evil. And by not letting our voices be heard, we withdraw from the majority of those who choose righteousness and inadvertently let those who choose evil become greater in number.

I’m sending the message to my Idaho Senator right now and sure hope you guys do the same for your state. Love you all! Here’s the link to the ACLU website to send the message:

https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3865&s_subsrc=fixNDAA

Anyway, I’m done with my rant now about section 1031 and 1032 of Bill 1867!

 

Source: http://www.survivingthefuture.com/what-sections-1031-and-1032-of-bill-1867-really-mean.html

Filed Under: Terrorism, Tyranny, USA Tagged With:

8 Facts That Prove the Tea Party Is Ignorant of the U.S. Constitution

December 2, 2011 By Leave a Comment

The Tea Partiers insist that they obey the Constitution to the letter of the law and that their radical agenda embodies the Constitutional idea. But study the Constitution and you’ll see that these so-called Constitutional conservatives don’t love the law – they’re trying to distort and rewrite the Constitution to subvert it to their wishes. These 8 facts serve as proof.

1. Congress enjoys a Constitutional authority to provide social services.

The first and foremost power the Constitution grants Congress is the right to “collect taxes…to provide for common defense and general welfare” of the nation. Michele Bachmann and other radical Republicans ignore this Constitutional imperative in their quest to dismantle all federal initiatives that aren’t explicitly spelled out in the Constitution.

If the Tea Party gets their way, it would mean:

Obviously, the Tea Party’s strict constructionism doesn’t permit the common-sense, for-the-social-good governance the forefathers intended. For further illustration, consider the current imperative to create jobs. Republicans are already opposing the bipartisan ideas in Obama’s American Jobs Act. The GOP appears ready to deny jobs to teachers and construction workers and strike down incentives for businesses to hire new workers.

Nevertheless, Obama’s Sept. 8 jobs speech delivered a compelling defense of the most basic Constitutional principle of general welfare:

How many jobs would it have cost us if past Congresses decided not to support the basic research that led to the internet and the computer chip? What kind of country would this be if this Chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do? How many Americans would have suffered as a result?

2. SCOTUS has upheld broad federal powers under the Constitution.

Following in the ideological footsteps of founding father Alexander Hamilton, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld that federal authority extends beyond the specific Congressional powers enumerated in the Constitution. Two landmark precedents were:

  • United States v. Butler (1936), which ruled that Congress has the right to tax for the general welfare beyond what the Constitution specifically lists. The majority opinion stated the general welfare clause is “a power separate and distinct” and “not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.”
  • Helvering v. Davis (1937), which upheld the constitutionality of Social Security by affirming Congress’ right to spend money to promote the general welfare – a concept the Court said changes with the times and is for Congress to decide, not the states.

Thus, the Tea Party’s “cut-the-head-off-the-snake” anti-government attitude flouts both the Constitution’s original intent and the SCOTUS precedents that have upheld a broad interpretation of the general welfare clause.

3. Far from outlawing gay marriage, Constitutional Amendments actually protect it.

Even though the radical right wants to strictly limit Democrats’ legislative powers, they don’t mind grabbing powers for themselves that aren’t expressed in the Constitution. Take for example the Tea Party’s imagined mandate to marginalize homosexuals and project morality onto others.

Thankfully, the tide is turning against the Tea Party on this issue. Earlier this year the Obama administration called the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. In June, a California bankruptcy judge also ruled DOMA unconstitutional. Then he called out conservatives on their misplaced homophobic zeal:

“The government’s only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land…in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society.”

Eventually, homosexuals will win marriage equality. The outcome is inevitable because our forefathers designed specific civil liberties to protect against the tyranny of religious zealots in Britain. They asserted these rights in two separate amendments:

9th: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain [government] rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

14th (excerpted): “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

4. The 14th Amendment forbids severe immigration laws that racially profile Latinos and Muslims.

Just as the 14th amendment protects gay rights, it also protects ethnic minorities from the immigration Gestapo.

Students arrested at rally supporting the Dream Act (Washington Post)

The draconian immigration law Alabama just passed (which a federal judge has blocked) allows the police to detain people suspected of being illegal immigrants if they aren’t carrying proper documentation. It also makes it illegal for anyone to give an undocumented immigrant a ride in a car (without checking their papers first).

From a civil liberties standpoint, the Alabama permits the targeting and unlawful detention of citizens who just look likepossible illegal immigrants because of their ethnicity. By condoning racial profiling and by permitting detentions of citizens who aren’t carrying papers, the Alabama law strips racial minorities of their liberty and controverts their 14th Amendment rights to liberty and equal protection.

5. The 16th Amendment gives Congress the authority to collect income taxes from any source.

Self-proclaimed Constitutional conservatives probably hate nothing more than the 16th Amendment:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived.

While most ordinary citizens pay income tax (unless they don’t earn enough to have a tax liability), the wealthy play by different rules. For instance:

Moreover, the Constitution does not authorize spending tax money on Big Oil profits or private jet ownership. Constitutional conservatives took it upon themselves to hold the debt ceiling and America’s credit rating hostage to protect these giveaways to the already wealthy.

6. Republican-backed voting restrictions circumvent the 24thAmendment.

Under the guise of stopping practically non-existent voting fraud, Republicans are working to disenfranchise elderly, poor, student, minority and disabled voters. These groups overwhelmingly vote Democrat and they also have a harder time meeting the new Republican voting standards.

The voting suppression efforts unfolding around the country include:

  • the adoption of mandatory government-issued photo ID laws as a prerequisite to casting a ballot,
  • proof of citizenship requirements for new voters,
  • reductions in the number of days (and hours) previously allocated for early voting, and
  • burdens imposed on those seeking to conduct voter registration drives.

Collectively, these laws represent a new form of 21st century voter suppression that President Bill Clinton calls a new “Jim Crow era.” And since people must pay fees to acquire the necessary ID documents, such laws amount to a violation of Section 1 of the 24th Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election…shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.

7. The Constitution does not grant any authority to ban abortion.

Given the fervor with which Constitutional conservatives attack pro-choice rights, you’d think the Constitution grants authority to regulate or ban abortion. It does not.

A woman’s right to choose is protected by the Roe v. Wade ruling and the 9th Amendment, which prevents government from over-reaching into individuals’ private lives. (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain [government] rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”)

Even though the matter is settled that a woman has the right to privately select her health care options, radical conservatives are still pushing through such exceptionally anti-choice legislation. Republicans are going so far as to criminalize miscarriage. In Georgia, Rep. Bobby Franklin proposed a bill to charge a woman with felony murder if she is unable to prove her miscarriage was an accident.

8. The Constitution allows the federal government “to regulate commerce…among the several states,” which is the Constitutional key that may allow health reform to persevere.

Republicans decry “Obamacare” for its “unconstitutional” individual mandate. Yes, buying health insurance may be a financial burden to some. However, the Affordable Care Act reasons that everyone must ultimately receive health care if they plan on staying alive. Health reform just asks that people pay health care costs sooner rather than later for the greater economic good (and it subsidizes premium costs for families earning less than $88,000).

The 6th circuit federal court ruled in June that the government can regulate the purchase of health insurance under the interstate commerce clause on the grounds that waiting to pay for health care until you get sick (or “self-insuring”) adversely impacts the cost of health care for everyone:

“The practice of self-insuring substantially affects interstate commerce by driving up the cost of health care as well as by shifting costs to third parties.”

A second federal court ruling in August opposed the individual mandate, saying the federal government cannot require citizens to enter into contracts with private health insurers. The Supreme Court will likely rule on the constitutionality of health reform later this year.

On Obama, the once and future constitutional law professor

This post would not be complete if I didn’t acknowledge that Obama too has gone astray of the Constitution, just not in the ways the Tea Party claims. Obama has:

The restriction of civil liberties, even for foreign terror suspects, is a serious departure from the Constitutional principle of a fair justice system. Obama is engaged in a precarious Constitutional dance motivated by the desire to prevent loss of life.

On the other hand, the so-called Constitutional conservatives are trying to remake the Constitution to serve the interests of the wealthiest and most powerful. If a Republican White House or Congress prevails in 2012, we will continue to see our nation drift away from the concept of “general welfare” to a state in which the government no longer provides health care, education or nutritional safety nets for the young, infirm, elderly, and poor. And we will see greater deregulation that will come at a great cost to our environment, our health, and our economic stability.

 

Source: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/12/01/8-facts-prove-the-tea-party-is-ignorant-of-the-u-s-constitution/

Filed Under: Politics, USA Tagged With: ,