Just throw the US Constitution away

[morefngdbs]

I just finished reading this story.
http://www.24hgold.com/english/news-gold -silver-who-else-is-on-obama-s-secret-ki ll-list-.aspx?article=3650674406G10020&r edirect=false&contributor=Ron+Paul

Then I checked the US Constitution's 5th Amendment & found that the story I linked stated a true fact.
That under the 'Due Process Clause' - no person shall be deprived of life ,liberty or property, without due process of law.

So how is it a US Presidnet can have a hit list & use his Presidential powers to order the military or other Agencies to murder Americans, without 'due process' ?

You have a monitary system, taken over illegally under the Constitution by a privately owned company the Fed. You have a Private Company printing your currency, which goes against your own coinage act in the Constitution which deals with coinage can only be Gold & silver.
Yet you allow this private company to issue your dollar notes.

So why hasn't the Constitution been thrown away.
You're not really using it. As i see it...
Any part of it that gets in a President's, Congress or a State Governments way is ignored...like your so called 'Homeland Security' policing force, which doesn't have to abide by anything in the Constitution. It can search & seize without warrant. It walks all over the so called rights of American people...supposedly so you can feel safer.
It doesn't have to abide by the laws it says its there to uphold ?!?!?!
How can you uphold laws, that you yourself do not have to obey ????
Does that mean there are now different laws for different groups & some citizens are exempt ?

Well tell me how does it feel to be slaves in your own country.
And why don't you stop pretending you have a Constitution that controls the Political leaders from abusing you. Your system is a joke ...a bad joke that has been played on the American people, & yet I see no sit ins, no protests that you've all been had.

[Love]

How can you complain about what the president does and then reject the Constitution?

That's a huge contradiction!

[Camarohusky]

I suggest you read the constituion before you comment upon it.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4:
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof ...;"

Also, the killing of al Awaki was debated heavily in another thread. In that thread the idea was put forth that in the position Awaki had put himself, he had become an enemy soldier who was killed in armed conflict, NOT a prisoner or regular citizen to which due process would apply.

[morefngdbs]

At 10/12/11 11:21 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Also, the killing of al Awaki was debated heavily in another thread. In that thread the idea was put forth that in the position Awaki had put himself, he had become an enemy soldier who was killed in armed conflict, NOT a prisoner or regular citizen to which due process would apply.

;;;
What armed conflict ?
The US is involved in a war in Yemen now ???
First I've heard of that.
Still doesn't change that a President has a hit list to murder American Citizens, without due process.
I don't give a fucking rats ass if its "HARD" for them to find or catch himn ...there is nothing I can find in the US Constitution that says, if your having trouble capturing an American Citizen accused of a crime...you can just kill him, fuck due proscess.

But in THe copy of the US Constitution I'm reading , I can't find that.
So if my copy has had this omitted , please link me to the one that gives the President that power & I'll apologise for being wrong.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/12/11 03:34 PM, morefngdbs wrote: What armed conflict ?

The war against Al Qaeda.

Still doesn't change that a President has a hit list to murder American Citizens, without due process.

It's not murder if it is in open and declared armed conflict.

But in THe copy of the US Constitution I'm reading , I can't find that.

Commander in chief.

So if my copy has had this omitted , please link me to the one that gives the President that power & I'll apologise for being wrong.

The Commander in Chief power.

[All-American-Badass]

At 10/12/11 03:34 PM, morefngdbs wrote: What armed conflict ?
The US is involved in a war in Yemen now ???

Not per se but we are at war with Al Queda, which does have a heavy presence in the Middle East, and low and behold Yemen is where that is.

First I've heard of that.
Still doesn't change that a President has a hit list to murder American Citizens, without due process.

Besides Al Awaki, I have no idea who would be or was on this so called "hit list" you're talking about. It seems that you believe that just because one American citizen who basically nullified his citizenship when he got heavily involved with Al Queda, which is an enemy force, was killed in a drone strike in Yemen. The Government has a list of American citizens they want dead or alive.

[Warforger]

I don't think you should be blaming the President, you should be blaming the Federal Courts who are responsible for making this constitutional.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 10/12/11 11:21 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I suggest you read the constituion before you comment upon it.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4:
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof ...;"

Also, the killing of al Awaki was debated heavily in another thread. In that thread the idea was put forth that in the position Awaki had put himself, he had become an enemy soldier who was killed in armed conflict, NOT a prisoner or regular citizen to which due process would apply.

The problem is that in order to be an enemy combatant, you have to actually be part of a faction that the US Government has declared war upon. the US Government has not declared war on Al Qaeda.

As for the Coinage issue...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPKaQL6vT 1Q

Skip to 0:50

[Proteas]

At 10/12/11 09:57 AM, morefngdbs wrote: And why don't you stop pretending you have a Constitution that controls the Political leaders from abusing you. Your system is a joke ...a bad joke that has been played on the American people, & yet I see no sit ins, no protests that you've all been had.

Because in order for those things to happen, people would have to be awake enough and actually give enough of a shit about their country in order to do anything about it. Until such a thing happens, the smallest segment of the voting population will continue electing these idiots to power in repeated succession.

People wanted change? This is what they get. Say what want about Bush or Clinton, I can't say I remember either of them doing something this heinous.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/12/11 07:56 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: The problem is that in order to be an enemy combatant, you have to actually be part of a faction that the US Government has declared war upon. the US Government has not declared war on Al Qaeda.

The AUMF does that. It does everything a declaration of war does without the fanciness of a declaration and the official title of a war.

As for the Coinage issue...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPKaQL6vT 1Q
Skip to 0:50

Response to this guy. "Why?" He makes lots of claims, like "regulate the value" means to designate relative values, not the plain meaning fo "regulate the value" He never says why, and doesn't even seem to care to ask.

If he has a reason for saying that his version of the word "regulate" is mroe apt than the plain meaning, I would love to hear it, especially as his whole argument relies upon that assertion.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/12/11 08:42 PM, Proteas wrote: This is what they get. Say what want about Bush or Clinton, I can't say I remember either of them doing something this heinous.

This comment is decidedly more partisan and much less intelligent than your usual posts...

I really doubt that you truly believe thsi sort of thing just became evil once Obama entered the Presidency...

[Iron-Hampster]

trade freedom for security, end up with fascism.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/12/11 09:59 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: trade freedom for security, end up with fascism.

The freedom to engage in open combat against your own government while still receiving due process?

Perspective!

[Proteas]

At 10/12/11 09:35 PM, Camarohusky wrote: This comment is decidedly more partisan and much less intelligent than your usual posts...

I'm calling a spade a spade, you're defending the right of the President to have a U.S. Citizen murdered.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/12/11 10:39 PM, Proteas wrote: I'm calling a spade a spade, you're defending the right of the President to have a U.S. Citizen murdered.

So, are you saying that we should treat all deaths in military conflict as murders? Should they be afforded due process? Should we prosecute those who kill them?

Or should we only do so becuase Obama is a Democrat? (you do remember that Bush has held numerous Americans in Guantanimo for many years, right? I didn't hear a peep from you then.)

[Proteas]

At 10/12/11 10:48 PM, Camarohusky wrote: So, are you saying that we should treat all deaths in military conflict as murders? Should they be afforded due process? Should we prosecute those who kill them?

Complex Question, one which I will respond to by pointing out that....

Or should we only do so becuase Obama is a Democrat? (you do remember that Bush has held numerous Americans in Guantanimo for many years, right? I didn't hear a peep from you then.)

The people held in guantanamo bay were not U.S. Citizens and were not part of an organized or easily identifiable military group, and as such, did not have any rights under U.S. or the 4th Geneva Convention, something I mentioned quite frequently when Bush was in office (when I did bother to enter such topics).

Anwar al-Awlaki was a U.S. Citizen. One that the U.S. Government knew the location of and probably could have worked with Yemeni authorities (who wanted him gone, too) to capture and bring up on charges.

[Proteas]

At 10/12/11 11:01 PM, Proteas wrote: 4th Geneva Convention

* as soldiers or prisoners of war.

[orangebomb]

At 10/12/11 09:57 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

Then I checked the US Constitution's 5th Amendment & found that the story I linked stated a true fact.
That under the 'Due Process Clause' - no person shall be deprived of life ,liberty or property, without due process of law.

Unless they say that they're are now part of Al Queda, which is considered treason and actively plan on attacking innocent Americans on American soil, no less. Al-Awaki was such a person, and therefore that's enough justification to kill the bastard.

So how is it a US Presidnet can have a hit list & use his Presidential powers to order the military or other Agencies to murder Americans, without 'due process' ?

The president is the commander in chief, which means he has complete control of the military and can do what he wants to do with it. If that means invade another country and call it a military action, armed response or whatever, then he has the power to do that, right or wrong. The government has always had a secret hitlist of their enimies, from John Wilkes Booth, to Al Capone, to Hitler and Bin Laden.

So why hasn't the Constitution been thrown away.
You're not really using it. As i see it...

Swing and a miss. The Constitution generally differs from person to person from a context standpoint, but other than that, most everything has been done by the Constitution, with a few notable exceptions. {which is debateable IMO.}

Any part of it that gets in a President's, Congress or a State Governments way is ignored...like your so called 'Homeland Security' policing force, which doesn't have to abide by anything in the Constitution. It can search & seize without warrant. It walks all over the so called rights of American people...supposedly so you can feel safer.

Yeah, I don't ever recall that happening too many times, if at all. Plus, It's not like they haven't had a damn good reason for what they're doing, otherwise they aren't going to bother. Not to mention, if something that egregious would happen, most likely someone would have done something about it a long time ago.

Well tell me how does it feel to be slaves in your own country.

First off, we are not slaves, and to think we are is completely asinine. I don't know where you get your opinions from, but you are obvious either completely obilvious to what goes on in America, or you seem to love using hyperbole in your statements. Either way, you're wrong on all accounts.

And why don't you stop pretending you have a Constitution that controls the Political leaders from abusing you. Your system is a joke ...a bad joke that has been played on the American people, & yet I see no sit ins, no protests that you've all been had.

A bad joke that has been going on for nearly 235 years, and I think we have been doing just fine with it. Plus, there has been protests about this for about as long as the Constitution has been around, some of it is justifiable, most are simply white noise and ignored because there has been no merit.

[Loiarlyritpyat]

Just be glad knowing extrajudicial killings are commonplace in other countries. In this case and all future cases it is directed towards those who broke the law.

[gumOnShoe]

Here's the logic in a much shorter period of time. Then you need to look at it at a longer stretch. I will openly admit this is grey area, pushing towards the space of "you probably shouldn't do that," but lets move forward anyways.

1) Kid picks up a gun and goes on a rampage through a school.

2) Cops show up. Can they take this kids life?

--- 2 A) If they do they deprive the kid of life.
--- 3 B) If they don't he deprives other kids of life.

And here we have reality. Reality dictates that sometimes you don't get to make the best choice if you want to preserve your system. Our system says that if you are infringing on others rights, the police have the right to take you out.

Clearly someone in the government felt the american who had declared war on the U.S. and was trying to help create terrorists to attack u.s. citizens was a threat. I wasn't in the room when that decision was made; however, someone made that same decision about Osama Bin Laden, and all of Al Qaeda in general (which is the group this U.S. citizen (who seems to have denounced his citizenship) joined).

Did the man deserve a trial? Maybe. Was it worth the money to run an opp to capture and bring him back and try it. IMO no, but I suppose he was supposed to have that right. But the thing is, you've found on of the MANY hypocrisies in our supposedly holy constitution. People who are "us" and not "them" get rights. "They" get whatever we're generous enough to give them, be it bullets or peace.

[frigi]

With that guy getting killed it might have saved your life later on. You think of that you anti american son of a bitch.

[Proteas]

At 10/13/11 07:29 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Did the man deserve a trial? Maybe. Was it worth the money to run an opp to capture and bring him back and try it. IMO no, but I suppose he was supposed to have that right.

So Osama was worth sending Seal Team 6 after, but this guy wasn't?

[morefngdbs]

At 10/12/11 07:56 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: As for the Coinage issue...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPKaQL6vT 1Q

Skip to 0:50

;; Interesting video Smilez.
I'm a coin collector,m mostly I have Canadian & British, gold & silver coins & bullion.
But I also collect Canadian & American pennies.
I have at least 1 example of every penny issued since Canada first issued coins in 1858.
So I am quite familiar with monetary requirements & the fallacy of the Pozi scheme, the bankers & Government have puuled off on their citizens.

I'v never said 'that the Government couldn't do it' I'm saying that to do so it would have taken the entire government of the US the Courts, the Congress, The Senate to change the Constitution to allow them what they are doing.

If laws are in place, if a Constitution has been adopted...& it lays out how things are to be run & the rule of Law is to be enforced...then that has to appy to everyone from the Homeless guy on the street. to the President of the US. Each of them should be held accountable 100% to what the laws says.
THis works the same for police forces etc. If the law says you need a wire tap to listen to a phone conversation.
No President should be allowed to create a police force aka homeland security & say this police force doesn't have to obey the law.
Plus if that is what they are doing, & Homeland security, The Fed, etc. is proof its happening, then just toss the damn paper into a museum & move on to what you are now a 4year term Dictatorship where the President is doing whatever he wants reguardless of the Constitution.
Here's a link naming the actual owners of the Federal Banks in the US.
No where will you see the US Government listed as an owner.
http://www.federal-reserve.net/isaprivat elyownedcorporation.htm

[morefngdbs]

At 10/12/11 10:39 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 10/12/11 09:35 PM, Camarohusky wrote: This comment is decidedly more partisan and much less intelligent than your usual posts...

I'm calling a spade a spade, you're defending the right of the President to have a U.S. Citizen murdered.

;;;
Save your breath Proteas...he's not worth reading.
If declaring war on an named group with no country, no nation anywhere is even possible. Then why hasn't the US declared war on the Mafia & just gone around killing them ?
They know the Mafia , commits just about every crime in the book. Yet they are still afforded the rights of any citizen under the law.
But an American who is a member of an extremist muslim group, has had war declared by the President. Can be assasinated.
The war in Iraq...to Save America, from Weapons of Mass destruction (weapons that were never found & never existed to the extent they could have ever threatened the US. Yet hundreds of thousands of Iraq citizens were killed & wounded byt he US President vendetta & his inside dealings with Saudi Arabia, who wanted Sadam contained...& Georgie Dubya, definately did that...along with rescuing the entire Bin Ladin clan & flyin gthem out of the US immediately , actually during the no fly zone in American skys...1 of the only planes in the air was carrying the Bin Ladens to safety ! On the orders of George Bush Senior...backed by georgi junior !
But lets just ignore that FACT as well.
Which I always thought was something Congress was responsible for.

[morefngdbs]

At 10/13/11 10:20 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Which I always thought was something Congress was responsible for.

;;;
Sorry to clarify
" I always thought the Us Congress was the body that declared war."
From what I have been able to understand from the copy that I have read (more than once)
But as has been pointed out... I may have a flawed copy.
Still waiting to hear back on that .

[SizzleBolt]

I say remove the president altogether, he is obviously the cause of problems, as indicated by this 100% totally legit eyewitness photo of 9/11

[morefngdbs]

At 10/13/11 08:50 AM, frigi wrote: With that guy getting killed it might have saved your life later on. You think of that you anti american son of a bitch.

;;;
Asshole go back to general & lurk for awhile.
That guy is not as big a threat as the drug gangs operating just south of your border, in Mexico.
With the logic of assasination no matter where no matter who
So when are you going to start bombing them ?

[Camarohusky]

At 10/13/11 10:20 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Then why hasn't the US declared war on the Mafia & just gone around killing them ?

That's not the most legitimate argument out there... There are numerous things where governments, people, busiensses and pick and choose their battles. Picking and choosing doesn't destroy the legitimacy of the battles they do pick.

But an American who is a member of an extremist muslim group, has had war declared by the President. Can be assasinated.

Congress authorized the President to use military force. Let's take us a peek at the dictionary: War = "A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict." The AUMF openly allowed the President to engage in open and armed conflict with Al Qaeda which had openly declared war of the US. You can claim form over function all you want, but a rose by any other name is a rose.

The war in Iraq...

While the war in Iraq was technically legal, I won't defend it as right.

Which I always thought was something Congress was responsible for.

Again, I have 4 letters for you. AUMF. Congress gave the President the right to engage in military actions against those who label themselves as Al Qaeda. Not only did al Awaki label himself as such, he engaged in hostile actions toward the US. The only difference between him and a regular soldier is that al Awaki's fight was for a defined, but amorphous entity, whereas a traditional soldier fights for a named country. Again, the form amy be different, but the function is still the same.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 10/12/11 09:10 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 10/12/11 07:56 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: The problem is that in order to be an enemy combatant, you have to actually be part of a faction that the US Government has declared war upon. the US Government has not declared war on Al Qaeda.

The AUMF does that. It does everything a declaration of war does without the fanciness of a declaration and the official title of a war.

Maybe I've overestimated the constitution.... It wouldn't have been the first time.

But i'm not the kind of constitutionalist that would say, if the constitution stated explicitly that the executive has the authority to assassinate assassinate anyone he pleased if he deemed that person to be a national security risk, and had no obligation to give the names of the targets or the evidence to support his conclusions, I wouldn't stop griping about it.

As for the Coinage issue...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPKaQL6vT 1Q
Skip to 0:50

Response to this guy. "Why?" He makes lots of claims, like "regulate the value" means to designate relative values, not the plain meaning fo "regulate the value" He never says why, and doesn't even seem to care to ask.

If he has a reason for saying that his version of the word "regulate" is mroe apt than the plain meaning, I would love to hear it, especially as his whole argument relies upon that assertion.

In the 18th century, the word Regulate was understood to mean "to keep regular".

it had not yet evolved into a placeholder for "To control" or "To manipulate at will"

I know that the idea of interpreting the constitution based on 'original intent' is very silly, however when interpreting a legal document you have to accept the social nature of language, and the fact that words had a specific understood meaning that differs from one generation to the next.

[Proteas]

At 10/13/11 10:00 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Picking and choosing doesn't destroy the legitimacy of the battles they do pick.

It does, however, call their priorities into question.

The AUMF openly allowed the President to engage in open and armed conflict with Al Qaeda which had openly declared war of the US.

And the AUMF is not above the law, however, seeing as how it's been knocked on it's ass when it came to the military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay Cuba and domestic spying. It would stand to reason that if al-Awlaki's father had challenged it in open court instead of petitioning the President and Amnesty International, his son might be in custody right now instead of spread all over a crater.

While the war in Iraq was technically legal, I won't defend it as right.

But allowing the President the right to indiscriminately murder a U.S. Citizen IS right?

Not only did al Awaki label himself as such, he engaged in hostile actions toward the US.

Making him a traitor to our country, seeing as how he maintained a U.S. Citizenship.