Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
S.1867, The Senate, and the constitution...?
The First Amendment clearly states: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, ... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
S.1867 is a clear antithesis of this basic foundation of our nation, not to mention Posse Comitatus which has been violated with other bills passed into law by our last 3 Presidents. I'd bet on them passing it and Obama signing it.
My questions are: Is the Senate purposely rendering itself illegitimate? Are they committing institutional suicide? Are you going to stand for this? Are you willing to surrender your rights for false security?
This isn't the first, nor the last awful legislation in the Senate but this time I view it differently. I view it more with sadness for them and sadness for We The People. I view it with sadness for the sacrifices of our Founders and all the men and women who have ever fought for our country.
BQ: Senators Carl Levin(D) and John McCain(R) cannot be this shortsighted, stupid, and evil. So who is actually writing the text of S.1867?
Thank you.
Sorry John, if I wasn't clear enough. I don't listen to talk radio and to be honest I haven't personally read it. But the Huffington Post, Rand Paul, the ACLU, the Pentagon, Judge Napolitano, and others have been very outspoken in criticizing this bill. It declares the USA a perpetual 'battlezone' in this endless 'War on Terror'. It authorizes this President and any future President to kidnap you, torture you, and imprison you forever - without ever being charged with any crime. It authorizes the U.S. armed services to attack U.S. citizens. Senator Mark Udall Paul introduced an amendment to try to add a bit of due process when it comes to 'disappearing' Americans, and it was defeated today 61-37.
"Americans are the target. Resistance is “terrorism”: dissent is a crime, and you’d better shut up and take it if you know what’s good for you. That’s the message they’re sending – and how, one wonders, will Americans respond?" ~Senator Ayot
Sorry John, if I wasn't clear enough. I don't listen to talk radio and to be honest I haven't personally read it. But the Huffington Post, Rand Paul, the ACLU, the Pentagon, Judge Napolitano, and others have been very outspoken in criticizing this bill. It declares the USA a perpetual 'battlezone' in this endless 'War on Terror'. It authorizes this President and any future President to kidnap you, torture you, and imprison you forever - without ever being charged with any crime. It authorizes the U.S. armed services to attack U.S. citizens. Senator Mark Udall Paul introduced an amendment to try to add a bit of due process when it comes to 'disappearing' Americans, and it was defeated today 61-37.
"Americans are the target. Resistance is “terrorism”: dissent is a crime, and you’d better shut up and take it if you know what’s good for you. That’s the message they’re sending – and how, one wonders, will Americans respond?" ~Senator Ayotte
" {this bill} is carefully crafted to misl
Sorry John, if I wasn't clear enough. I don't listen to talk radio and to be honest I haven't personally read it. But the Huffington Post, Rand Paul, the ACLU, the Pentagon, Judge Napolitano, and others have been very outspoken in criticizing this bill. It declares the USA a perpetual 'battlezone' in this endless 'War on Terror'. It authorizes this President and any future President to kidnap you, torture you, and imprison you forever - without ever being charged with any crime. It authorizes the U.S. armed services to attack U.S. citizens. Senator Mark Udall Paul introduced an amendment to try to add a bit of due process when it comes to 'disappearing' Americans, and it was defeated today 61-37.
"Americans are the target. Resistance is “terrorism”: dissent is a crime, and you’d better shut up and take it if you know what’s good for you. That’s the message they’re sending – and how, one wonders, will Americans respond?" ~Senator Ayot
And sorry for the duplicate posting -- Yahoo! glitch.
2 Answers
- ?Lv 410 years agoFavorite Answer
It is a big document and I asked questions back and forth on it and the Amendment to it Rand Paul is considering -
Deep inside the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1867) that the Senate is currently considering is a dangerous and unconstitutional portion that needs to be stripped out. Congress would grant the President the power to use the military in order to detain certain individuals, including American citizens, without trial or due process, indefinitely.
Section 1031 of the NDAA reads: “Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force … includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons…. [including] [d]etention under the law of war without trial....” This “indefinite detention” section hands over to the Executive Branch the power to have the military arrest U.S. citizens. No trial needed. Simple suspicion would suffice.
The Japanese American Citizens League has warned that this measure’s detention principles are similar to the ones that sent innocent Japanese-Americans into concentration camps during WW II.
Sadly, this bill has already been passed in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives with nary a whimper by a 322-96 vote. The excuse given for such an egregious disregard for the Constitution by supporters of the bill including authors Senators John McCain (R- Ariz.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) is that the provision would strengthen and codify the legal framework necessary for dealing with “terrorists.” Other supporters insist that the language doesn’t necessarily include American citizens.
This law is clearly unconstitutional.
- John HLv 710 years ago
S. 1867, the Armed Forces Appropriation Bill is a BIG document. What part don't you like? I haven't had time to read it. Have you? Or are you just reacting to what you have heard on talk radio. Please be specific when you ask a question such as this.
