My message to my Senators was as follows:
The Fourth Amendment says “the right of people to be secure in their persons, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” This law does not make sure people are secure in their persons, papers and effects. This law makes such aspects insecure. Uphold the Constitution as you affirmed in your swearing in. I urge you to vote down this law to uphold the purpose of the amendments to the U.S. Constitution, to prevent an abuse of governmental powers.
What is “the militia”? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.– George Mason. Suck it, Democrats. Now you can’t say the Second Amendment is ambiguous. (via leftybegone)
No, the militia is basically the national guard of each state. Most people would agree they have a right to bear arms: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.”
If a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution.” -Abe Lincoln–
That’s a radical statement from a man that started the national banking system in America (National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864). So, he is justifying the civil War because taking the power to coin money away from Congress is the majority depriving the minority of a constitutional right. In another sense, this justifies sorts of revolutions now.
Section 1. Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3 are hereby repealed.
Section 2. Every bill that shall have passed or been introduced in the certain committees of the respective house of Congress shall be recorded in Congressional records, which shall be in the House of Representatives and the Senate; a bill will need fifty-one percent of the respective house determined by votes of Nays, Yays or Abstainations to pass; if a similar bill is passed in another house the bills passed shall be combined in a joint conference committee; if no similar bill is introduced in the other house, the house shall pass the bill that was introduced in the other house which would be the House of Representatives or the Senate; once this process is completed, the Congress shall present the bill to the President.
Section 3. The President shall veto a bill or if Congress adjourns for ten days and the President does not sign it the bill will not become law; if the President does not sign the bill within ten days of it being passed by Congress, the bill shall become law; A vote of 51% in both houses of Congress will be sufficient to overcome a veto by the President; a bill becomes law when the President signs it and once it becomes law the President cannot ignore it through any means, such as signing statements, just because the law does not go with their beliefs; the President is authorized by his oath of office to enforce all the laws of the United States, no exception.
Section 4. Every vote in both houses shall be presented to the President; as he has the right to veto such legislation except for resolutions, that do have any lawmaking power but are rather the collective opinion of those in a certain house of Congress on an issue.
Section 5. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.– Abraham Lincoln is right, highlighting the debate between those that want to interpret the Constitution in different ways.
The article “Justices side with cops in warrantless search case: Pearson v. Callahan,” details how the Supreme Court unanimously sided with police officers in Millard County, Utah, who entered a mobile home without a search warrant in 2002. According to the article, an undercover narcotics agent went into a house and bought methamphetamine (meth) from Afton Callahan. Then the agent signaled the Utah police to come in and arrest Callahan for possession of meth. As a result, Callahan filed a civil suit against Milliard County and its police officers for violating his fourth Amendment rights. This started a chain of event through the court system, which went up to the Supreme Court.
In the first link of this chain of events, Callahan lost in district court but won in the state Court of Appeals who said that it was unconstitutional for police to enter the home. The U.S. district court said that the police officers had immunity under the “consent-once removed” exception which means that when an undercover officer enters they can call police for assistance. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver reversed that decision. In addition the Supreme Court went along with the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals but then took an odd step by asking both parties if the precedent in Saucier v. Katz (2001) should be overturned. The Supreme Court overturned Saucier v. Katz which caused the previous two-step process for immunity claims to be eliminated.
Privacy is Fourth Amendment issue that is at the heart of many legal arguments. Many Americans recognize that they have privacy and safety from warrantless searches. But, this can be deceiving. According to what I have learned, the Fourth Amendment is limited—there are many exceptions to it. For example, if someone is in danger, there is a cause to enter a house. Pearson v. Callahan relates directly to issues being discussed today because it touches on a number of issues concerning the fourth Amendment.
I think that the police should not enter one’s house unless they have a warrant. Entering a house without a warrant clearly violates the Fourth Amendment even if you have probable cause. I believe that only if there are exigent circumstances, chasing a criminal or getting consent to search should one enter a home. Finally, I believe that justices, judges and jurors should take a new view of the fourth Amendment by requiring warrants.
TRANSCRIPT: “I believe in the American Constitution. I follow the American system of Individualism and I am opposed to any general extension of government ownership and control.” (If I have the transcript wrong I’m sorry. I tried my best to listen and write what he was saying)
My friends, this is what we are up against. This is the philosophy of those that are on the right mainly. I mostly believe the opposite as Coolidge but I wanted to show the other side of things. I do believe in the American Constitution and I like the American system of individualism, but I am support extension of government control in certain circumstances (not to violate civil liberties or to unbalance the separation of powers) but certain measures that benefit the people such as the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases and the FCC to regulate the airwaves.
1. ‘Congress shall have the power…to declare war…to raise and support armies…to provide and maintain a navy…’(Article 2, Section 8) “Congress would be the only part of government that can start a war. However, some people argue the President has certain war powers as possibly mentioned Article 2 Section 2. Nowhere in the passage does it even hint at the power of the President to unilaterally go into war without Congressional authorization.” (http://bit.ly/hh32wf)
2. The ability to sign executive orders that act as laws to bypass Congress. This hasn’t been used much in the past 10 years, but it has been used to bypass approval by Congress.
3. Inherent powers, do certain actions in interest of “national security” including violating the Constitution (PATRIOT Act, listening in on Americans to protect from terrorism even though the Supreme Court said it was illegal).Some say they have the power to suspend laws in “wartime.”
4. The Bush Administration has demanded that presidential wartime powers permit the President to assume complete control over any and all aspects of an international war on terrorism.
5. Presidents have claimed for themselves certain powers that they feel are granted to them under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
6. Many President have said they have power of immunity from legislative oversight, since the beginning of the Cold War if not eariler, this power has been asserted
Since the first civilizations, there have been laws to control social unrest. Although many new challenges have arisen in the 21st Century, none is more potent than the expansion of terrorism
, particularly by Muslim extremists. The preamble of the U.S. Constitution says the American people must “provide for the common defense.” We as an international community cannot accomplish this unless we fight terrorism where it thrives.Terrorism presents the major challenge of our era because terrorists use our industrialized tools against us, including airplanes, the internet, and mass communication, while ignoring the laws of democracy that have enabled our civilization to thrive and create these industrialized tools.
Law is ever-evolving. Legal scholar Alan Dershowitz says in his book, Rights From Wrongs: A Secular Theory on the Origins of Rights, that all good law originates not from religion or nature nor from a stubborn protection of our enduring traditions but from emerging challenges. So, how do we address the promise of the U.S. Declaration of Independence that endows people with certain “unalienable rights,” including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with the everyday threat of terrorism?
I believe we must continue restricting some civil liberties to fight terrorism because it is in the interest of the common good to fight those who do wrong.
Terrorism is one of the worst crises the world has ever faced.
Islamic radicals want to wipe us off the earth because they do not respect our basic traditions of law. Unless we fight them, our legal traditions will disappear and the world will become more lawless with fewer ways to control social unrest.As a world, we must act quickly and decisively by striking terrorism at the source. We must renew our commitment to the enduring principles of law by enacting new laws. These laws would lengthen the sentences of terrorists, make harsher punishments and use the government’s power in mass communication to make it more difficult for terrorists to use the technology that the industrialized world created. As an international community, we need to have these laws implemented on an international scale by passing a resolution through the General Assembly of the United Nations.Then, we need to bring the accused terrorists to the International Court of Justice in the Hague. The world must follow a diplomatic route of dispute resolution to maintain order and communication. Finally, as an international community, we must fight terrorism in unstable countries by supporting their legal traditions and helping them with their emerging challenges.
ADDENDUM AS OF JUNE 2012:
The real terrorists are the financial terrorists (as David McGraw says), not those abroad, as a result, certain parts of this article have been struck. I don’t support measures that make terrorists whoever they are subhuman. That shouldn’t and can’t be the American way. Civil Liberties must be defended in a time of terrorism, because otherwise that is unconstitutional and immoral to the 99 or 99.9%.