DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Hoijdxvh** · 12-10-2011, 04:41 PM

One of the major misconceptions about our Constitution is that it "Gives us our rights", as if simply abolishing it would eliminate all moral and ethical constraints on our government to act in any way it sees fit regardless of who it affects. This is modern day positivism at its finest, the notion that the government somehow "owns" us and that any "rights" we are "granted" are only the products of a benevolent government. This is also the antithesis of what is stated in our own Declaration of Independence. The rights we have are natural and contractual, the Constitution was designed to bind the government in such a fashion that it would recognize every individual has these rights and should never infringe upon them. Every "person" is granted habeus corpus regardless of their citizenship. Being a citizen has certain rights (voting) and certain inherent responsibilities, but the right to a fair trial is a right of persons. Suspension of habeus corpus as stated in Article 1 Section 9 is very limited by nature, to cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety might requirement. This should not be construed as an individual might "contribute" to actions that "might" hurt a person "someday" . The day we surrender that authority over to our government is then day we should accept that this authority may one be used against us.

But this law is giving the government the power to detain American citizens who they "think" are terrorists or are "suspected" of terrorism. It wants to give the government the right to go arrest a citizen, in America, and not give them a trial which clearly violates the Constitution. They added this to the Defense Authorization Bill like they always try to sneak things in on that. They know it will always get passed. So now instead of just rounding up suspected terrorists in Iraq/Afghanistan, they want to round them up here. Go to the comment I posted with the videos from the Daily Show. Rand Paul states during the debate of the bill that there are already laws that "classify" a terrorist. Missing fingers, having guns and weather proof ammo or 7 days worth of food could brand you a terrorist?

Really? Well a lot of people are terrorists than for using their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. Missing fingers? So then I guess veterans who lost limbs in combat are terrorists (oh they already tried to accuse us of being a "risk" once), and anyone else who lost fingers is a terrorist? And 7 days worth of food?! Maybe some people like to buy in bulk.

That's what people are upset about. The government wants the power to just round up whoever they want. That sounds like a dicatorship to me. I mean I like feeling safe that I can walk down the street and not be afraid some men in suits and sedans are going to stop and snatch me away in the night. Or take my family.

12-10-2011, 04:41 PM	#28
Hoijdxvh Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 438 Senior Member	One of the major misconceptions about our Constitution is that it "Gives us our rights", as if simply abolishing it would eliminate all moral and ethical constraints on our government to act in any way it sees fit regardless of who it affects. This is modern day positivism at its finest, the notion that the government somehow "owns" us and that any "rights" we are "granted" are only the products of a benevolent government. This is also the antithesis of what is stated in our own Declaration of Independence. The rights we have are natural and contractual, the Constitution was designed to bind the government in such a fashion that it would recognize every individual has these rights and should never infringe upon them. Every "person" is granted habeus corpus regardless of their citizenship. Being a citizen has certain rights (voting) and certain inherent responsibilities, but the right to a fair trial is a right of persons. Suspension of habeus corpus as stated in Article 1 Section 9 is very limited by nature, to cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety might requirement. This should not be construed as an individual might "contribute" to actions that "might" hurt a person "someday" . The day we surrender that authority over to our government is then day we should accept that this authority may one be used against us. But this law is giving the government the power to detain American citizens who they "think" are terrorists or are "suspected" of terrorism. It wants to give the government the right to go arrest a citizen, in America, and not give them a trial which clearly violates the Constitution. They added this to the Defense Authorization Bill like they always try to sneak things in on that. They know it will always get passed. So now instead of just rounding up suspected terrorists in Iraq/Afghanistan, they want to round them up here. Go to the comment I posted with the videos from the Daily Show. Rand Paul states during the debate of the bill that there are already laws that "classify" a terrorist. Missing fingers, having guns and weather proof ammo or 7 days worth of food could brand you a terrorist? Really? Well a lot of people are terrorists than for using their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. Missing fingers? So then I guess veterans who lost limbs in combat are terrorists (oh they already tried to accuse us of being a "risk" once), and anyone else who lost fingers is a terrorist? And 7 days worth of food?! Maybe some people like to buy in bulk. That's what people are upset about. The government wants the power to just round up whoever they want. That sounds like a dicatorship to me. I mean I like feeling safe that I can walk down the street and not be afraid some men in suits and sedans are going to stop and snatch me away in the night. Or take my family.
	Quote