Patriot Act reaches out and touches ME !!!

by Amazing 28 Replies latest social current

  • Yerusalyim
    Yerusalyim

    TH

    Where were you protesting against the government using the RICO statutes to break up Pro-Life groups?

  • angelkins
    angelkins

    The most dangerous man in the U.S.? Ashcroft

  • searchfothetruth
    searchfothetruth

    It is totally amazing that certain people cannot see whats going on under their noses.

    Yes, the Patriot Act and more importantly Patriot Act II is taking, and will take more of your civil liberties away. What gives the Government the right to monitor people who it has no reason to monitor?

    The same is happening in Britain. We have just had proposals by Blair for constitutional reform, which was not even spoken about in Parliament, the cabinet was re-shuffled and new posts made up out of thin air, like 'the Minister for Constitutional Reform'.

    It is the Orwells anniversary and I recommend everyone to read 1984...you will be surprised at how like today it is.

    The Patriot Act has survived so long because of the persistent myth surrounding the "supremacy" of federal law. Article VI of the Constitution includes the so-called "supremacy clause," which states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land." All judges, legislators, and executive officials, at the State and federal levels, are bound by "Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." This apparent confirmation of the supreme power of federal law is actually tempered by the letter and intent of the Constitution.

    The "supremacy clause" is limited to those powers of government enumerated in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. The president has no real powers; he only enforces the constitutionally enumerated powers of Congress. What little power the president has is limited and clearly defined in Article II . The Supreme Court has absolutely no power; its only job is to rule on the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government. If either branch chooses to ignore the Court, then there*s nothing the Court can do to enforce its decisions. It*s that simple.

    Speaking of the "supremacy clause" in Federalist #27, Alexander Hamilton said, "the laws of the Confederacy as to the enumerated and legitimate objects of its jurisdiction will become the Supreme Law of the land . . . Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates of the respective members (States) will be incorporated into the operations of the national government as far as its just and constitutional authority extends" (emphasis in the original). The "supremacy" of national laws, as Hamilton declared in Federalist #34, is "expressly" confined "to laws made pursuant to the Constitution" (emphasis in the original).

    Federal "supremacy" is further limited by the Tenth Amendment. The original seven articles of the Constitution were ratified in 1789. The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. By declaring, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the Tenth Amendment amended the "supremacy clause," further solidifying the limitations of federal power. Thus, federal powers are clearly confined to those enumerated in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution.

    By logical interpretation, there is no federal power to provide Social Security, conduct random searches at airports, fund education, feed the children of the poor, provide medical care for the elderly, or declare certain substances to be illegal. Regardless of the wishes of a majority of Americans, no such powers are enumerated in the Constitution.

    Also absent from the enumerated powers of the federal government is the power to abridge any of the liberties of the people enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The Patriot Act, which does exactly this, is therefore null, void, and unenforceable. It should be treated as an act of treason against the Constitution, and when necessary, forcefully resisted.

    Opposition to the Patriot Act is growing. To date, more than a hundred communities have passed resolutions condemning the act. In some instances, local law enforcement officials have been directed not to cooperate with federal officials acting under the broad and unconstitutional directives of the Patriot Act. Most of these condemnations, however, are merely symbolic. Only one "community" has passed a resolution with any real teeth, one that would surely make the Founder Fathers beam with pride.

    The Alaska Legislature recently passed a resolution which "recognizes the Constitution of the United States of America as amended by the Bill of Rights to be the supreme law of the land" (emphasis added). The resolution clearly recognizes the limiting power of the Tenth Amendment. The resolution states, in part, "to the extent legally possible, agents of the state . . . shall not assist or voluntarily cooperate with investigations, interrogations, or arrest procedures," in violation of individual civil rights and liberties, the U. S. Constitution, or the Alaska Constitution. In effect, the Alaska Legislature has nullified the Patriot Act.

    More States should follow the lead of the Alaska Legislature and defend the Constitution, as the Founders would have done, against the growing fascist tyranny in Washington. It*s the prudent, constitutional, and peaceful course of action. Otherwise, contemporary American patriots might be forced into the potentially ugly business of exercising their Second Amendment right to defend their life, liberty, and property against the encroachments of yet another George so far away.

    Above article from www.prisonplanet.com

  • searchfothetruth
    searchfothetruth
  • Guest 77
    Guest 77


    SFT, since the founding fathers had ONLY ten original amendments what was the purpose of the additional amendments? Did this Constitution and Bill of Rights apply to ALL people or a select elite group like the 13 colonies?

    Guest 77

  • searchfothetruth
    searchfothetruth

    Obviously the world is a very different place from when the original ammendments were made, but any ammendments that are done today should still be in the 'spirit' of the constitution.

    The most important freedom Americans and Britains cherish is the freedom of speech, but when the government introduce measures to curb this then they are surely going against the constitution.

    As i've posted before, the British government are misusing 'D' notices which they are supposed to only implement to stop newspapers printing material which can harm national security (Hence 'D' for defence) but they are banging these blocks on newspapers for all kinds of reasons, which is censorship of the press.

  • searchfothetruth
    searchfothetruth
    In George Orwell's 1984, control the news and revise history was the function of the Ministry of Truth; in George Bush's Administration, literary history has become political reality.
    By Mick Youther

    1984, a single organization, the Ministry of Truth, controlled the dissemination of all news and information. A recent ruling by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has brought the United States one step closer to having a similar system. By a vote of 3-2, the FCC changed its rules, allowing the media giants to control even more of what we see, hear, and read. Almost no one thinks this is a good idea -- except the media giants and a slim majority of FCC commissioners who have been wined and dined to the tune of millions of dollars by the very corporations they are supposed to be regulating.

    • “Judging from our record, public opposition is nearly unanimous, from ultra-conservatives to ultra-liberals and virtually everyone in between. We have received about three-quarters of a million comments from the public in opposition to relaxing our ownership rules -- a new record -- and only a handful in support.”
    --Jonathan Adelstein, FCC Commissioner

    • “In the hearing today, there was mention of some 750,000 comments that the commission received on this and Commissioner Copps said that 99.9 percent of those were opposed to it.”
    --Terence Smith, media correspondent

    • “Seldom have I seen a regulatory agency cave in so completely to the big economic interests. That's exactly what happened today with the FCC rules.”
    --Sen. Byron Dorgan, (D) ND

    • “Michael Powell [yes -- Colin Powell’s son], chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, is supposed to protect civic discourse. It’s threatened now -- just six companies own most print, radio, Internet and television media outlets…. Mr. Powell thinks that’s too much diversity, and he’s pushing the FCC to adopt rules that will allow further ownership concentration. He thinks Americans can trust a few elite CEOs to tell us what we need to know to govern ourselves.”
    --TomPaine.com

    • “This path surrenders to a handful of corporations awesome powers over our news, information, and entertainment. On this path, we endanger time-honored safeguards and time-proven values that have strengthened the country, as well as the media.”
    --Michael Copps, FCC Commissioner

    Orwell’s Ministry of Truth not only controlled the news, it constantly revised history -- just like the Bush White House, where presidential transcripts are routinely altered to remove the president's gaffes, accounts of intelligence warnings prior to Sept. 11 continue to change, and Bush's past financial dealings have undergone repeated revisions.

    In 1984, whenever a fact from the past became embarrassing to “the party,” it was simply dropped down “the memory hole” and deleted from all records. It was if it never happened. The Bush Administration does exactly the same thing. Whenever the truth proves inconvenient, there is no hesitation to make up new “truths” to take its place. Our government officials are capable of saying whatever is necessary to further their purposes because they come from the same corporate mindset that can say with a straight face that tobacco is not addictive, that DDT is safe, and global warming is a myth.

    • "'Who controls the past', ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'"
    --George Orwell, 1984

    • "The struggle of freedom against tyranny is the struggle of memory against forgetting."
    --Milan Kundera, Czech writer

    • “Many journalists now are no more than channelers and echoers of what Orwell called the official truth. They simply cipher and transmit lies.”
    --John Pilger, journalist and filmmaker

    If we had had a truly independent media -- not owned by the same corporations that control our government -- it would have presented President Bush’s push for war in a totally different way. Instead of presenting the conflict with Iraq as an exciting upcoming attraction, it would have reached down “the memory hole” and pulled out the words and pictures from the Reagan/Bush years, when the U.S. government actively supported Saddam and supplied him with materials to build his weapons of mass destruction. It would have exposed how Bush Senior allowed U.S. money destined for agriculture in Iraq to be used to develop chemical and biological weapons. This would have been the lead story on TV and in the newspapers -- topped off with a picture or video of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with his good buddy, Sadaam Hussein.

    Right now, the Bush’s Ministry of Truth is working overtime to drop their main excuse for attacking Iraq down “the memory hole. If they are successful, by Election Day no one will remember their lies about weapons of mass destruction, and the war with Iraq will be remembered as “our finest hour”.

    Posted Wednesday, June 18, 2003
  • Undecided
    Undecided

    It doesn't bother me, I'm not going to talk over the phone about anything important , I'll just post it on the internet.

    My wife was using our cordless phone and talking to her sister-in-law up the street and someone a mile away called and said they heard the conversation on her phone. So it would be a good idea to watch what you say on the phone anyway. I don't use the phone much , about 5 min a week.

    I think the Gov. is more interested in your money .

    Ken P.

  • Mr. Kim
    Mr. Kim

    You haven't seen nothing yet! But, according to the "ruler of this world", YOU WILL!!

    Kick back and enjoy the fireworks!!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit