Possible Terrorist Attack at Boston Marathon

[Texan2]

I find this terrifying beyond words.

You may find it terrifying, but that doesn't make it any less accurate.

 

[Texan2]

I think you are getting my point Sage. We may not like a law, but until it is challenged in court and found to be unconstitutional, its a law (NDAA 2012 in this case)
We aren't the deciders of what is constitutional and what is not. That would be unconstitutional.

 

[M. Sage]

I think you are getting my point Sage. We may not like a law, but until it is challenged in court and found to be unconstitutional, its a law (NDAA 2012 in this case)
We aren't the deciders of what is constitutional and what is not. That would be unconstitutional.

I can't really agree with that last one. You are our rights' first line of defense. Governments are instituted among men, yada yada. You know the rest of that one.

What makes it scary is the wrongness of it. There's a particular law that this always reminds me of, it's a California gun law (and therefore bad enough to begin with): PC 12031(e). What that particular law does is say that a search is not a search, but an "inspection." If you have a "firearm container" police somehow have the magical power to search this container to make sure you aren't violating an earlier part of 12031 that makes it illegal to transport a loaded firearm by calling the search an inspection. If the firearm is found to be loaded, you go to jail. If you refuse the "inspection", it's specifically called out as grounds for arrest. It's widely known that the police also will run serial numbers during this so-called "inspection".

Now, does calling a search an inspection make that true? What reasonable person could possibly buy that? I'm sorry, but common sense has to step in at some point.

 

[Texan2]

I agree common sense goes a long way but that wasnt the discussion.

Who gets to decide whats constitutional?

 

[M. Sage]

I agree common sense goes a long way but that wasnt the discussion.

Who gets to decide whats constitutional?

Now? Nobody seems to be doing it. Supreme Court has abdicated their responsibilities on that count.

And I'm not sure what you were talking about, but it absolutely is my point. If you see a law that's obviously unconstitutional, do you enforce it? Will you take an action you know courts will support even if you see it as a blatant violation of the constitution?

You don't have to answer, I just want people to think about this stuff.

 

[Texan2]

The USSC has no abdicated their responsibilities. You just think that because they aren't doing what YOU would do. Thats the issue. People scream UNCONSTITUTIONAL when that has yet to be decided.

To your question:
No, I wouldn't enforce a law I felt was blatently unconstitutional, but that is an individual decision. Whether I do or don't enforce it, makes it no more or less constitutional.

No right protected by the Constitution is absolute. There is a set of rules that go with each of them.

 

[inceptor]

No right protected by the Constitution is absolute. There is a set of rules that go with each of them.

That's not how I read it. I do believe the Declaration of Independence states this clearly:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

The Constitution was written to protect those rights, not for the govt to decide which rights we can or can't have.

 

[okie556]

Exactly. He's still a U.S. Citizen.

Sent carelessly from Joe Biden's balcony

That's the shit I hate! (Not you Rusty...just the concept.) We let all these crazy ass people enter our country and then allow them to be called US Citizens. Just so wrong.

 

[okie556]

That makes this very disturbing.

This is not some battlefield in the middle east, this is an American citizen arrested in Boston. Extremely bad precedent being set here.


Feds Make Miranda Rights Exception for Marathon Bombing Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev - ABC News

What is disturbing to you? The fact we had allowed this scum sucking turd to use the title of an American Citizen? Or are you saying he was being somehow mistreated be he was a US Citizen? Which by the way makes me what to puke every time I see these radical bastards that come to our country and "ON PAPER" become US Citizens.

 

[Wolfwood]

Like what? Put him in gitmo like all the rest of the terrorists where he can live out his days like a damn king on our dime.

You have to remember with this administration he is a victim not us.


Sent from my toaster using secret alien technology.

ahh yes. Guantanimo By The Bay

 

[AngeliaH]

Citizen? I thought he just had residency. Not sure that makes a difference though. I think he was given asylum but not sure he was a citizen.

Sent from ..........squirrel!!

 

[Acera]

That's the shit I hate! (Not you Rusty...just the concept.) We let all these crazy ass people enter our country and then allow them to be called US Citizens. Just so wrong.

If he was a US citizen, then he went through the proper process. Not just allowed to call himself a US citizen, but actually a legal one. There is a difference between calling yourself something and being it.

The idea that a person can make a determination that the constitution does not apply to another US citizen on US soil based on whatever reason is absurd. If exceptions can be made for one, they can be made for anybody. Then the constitutions worth becomes less than the paper it's printed on.

 

[Wolfwood]

if you were the doctor working on this dude, how hard would u be working to save his life? (assuming his wounds were life threatening)

assuming doctors still take that oath thingy i'd probably work pretty damn hard.

 

[okie556]

If he was a US citizen, then he went through the proper process. Not just allowed to call himself a US citizen, but actually a legal one. There is a difference between calling yourself something and being it.

The idea that a person can make a determination that the constitution does not apply to another US citizen on US soil based on whatever reason is absurd. If exceptions can be made for one, they can be made for anybody. Then the constitutions worth becomes less than the paper it's printed on.

"He went through through the proper process" is what I think is wrong. If your born in Russia, Chechnya or any of those other radical countries, there should not be a process in place that allows one to come here and become a US Citizen. This is Obama's immigration plan in it's finest hour.

 

[Acera]

"He went through through the proper process" is what I think is wrong. If your born in Russia, Chechnya or any of those other radical countries, there should not be a process in place that allows one to come here and become a US Citizen. This is Obama's immigration plan in it's finest hour.

Those policies are not bho's (and I will bash that bastard all I can for legitimate reasons) they have been in place since at least 1790 (well for white folks anyway, and I think this guy would have qualified for that, blacks got that same right in 1952.). We have naturalized US citizens from every terrorist supporting country in the world walking our streets doing no harm and being productive honest citizens.

 

[okie556]

Those policies are not bho's (and I will bash that bastard all I can for legitimate reasons) they have been in place since at least 1790 (well for white folks anyway, and I think this guy would have qualified for that, blacks got that same right in 1952.). We have naturalized US citizens from every terrorist supporting country in the world walking our streets doing no harm and being productive honest citizens.

I will just agree to disagree.

 

[Acera]

I will just agree to disagree.

Well at least attempt to explain your reasoning as to why bho or his policies had anything to do with it when he (Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev) got his green card (permanent resident status) in 2007 under President George Bush?????

 

[Texan2]

Those policies are not bho's (and I will bash that bastard all I can for legitimate reasons) they have been in place since at least 1790 (well for white folks anyway, and I think this guy would have qualified for that, blacks got that same right in 1952.). We have naturalized US citizens from every terrorist supporting country in the world walking our streets doing no harm and being productive honest citizens.

+1

 

[Texan2]

That's not how I read it. I do believe the Declaration of Independence states this clearly:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

The Constitution was written to protect those rights, not for the govt to decide which rights we can or can't have.

You are correct. What you are saying and what I am saying does not contradict.

 

[Anger]

One thing is for sure, I can attest first hand to several left wingers I know, who were so fast to point fingers at the right.