Specific threats to the United States Constitution was the topic of a talk given by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach in Emporia Thursday evening. Kobach was invited to speak by the group Kansans for Constitutional Integrity.
“I want to talk about three threats to the Constitutional Republic,” he said, “and they touch upon my duties as the Secretary of State.”
To preface his talk, Kobach pointed out the original purpose of the Constitution.
“The government of the United States is the first example in the world of a Constitutional Republic,” he said. “The primary purpose [of the Constitution] is to restrain government.” He described the document as a “cage” created to constrain the powers of the government.
“That’s what the Constitution is: a cage,” he said. “And in the cage you put the government. In order for this to be able to work, you have to have a culture of constitutionalism and the broader society has to believe that the principle is correct, and has to observe that the government must obey the rule of law just as the people must obey the rule of law. ...”
The first threat he mentioned is one he has years of experience with as a former professor; it involves the Commerce Clause of Article I, Sec. 8, which limits the federal government to regulating commerce with foreign countries and between the states. The Founding Fathers’ view of the Constitution was based on the notion of limiting the federal government and giving the states broader powers to govern themselves.
“The federal government is a government of enumerated powers,” he said. “They can’t do whatever they want to promote our welfare; they have to find it on the [Constitution.] If it’s not on the list, it doesn’t exist.”
Kobach pointed out that the original purpose of the Commerce Clause was to allow the federal government to regulate commerce along coastal routes, waterways and roads, and to regulate the instrumentalities of commerce, such as ships and railroad tracks.
“These are pretty narrow items on the list,” he said. “... And that’s how our country was governed throughout the end of the 18th Century, throughout the entirety of the 19th Century and into the first three decades of the Twentieth Century. Congress did not regulate the daily lives of Americans.”
That changed in the depths of the Great Depression, when the powers of Congress were expanded in a number of ways. The federal government began enacting regulatory laws in ways it never had before. In 1942, Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which governed how much wheat and other commodities a farmer could grow.
“In this case, a farmer decided he would produce his quota of wheat, but he would also produce additional wheat that would not go on the market,” Kobach said. “This individual wheat would be consumed by his family.” His argument was that his own wheat couldn’t be governed because it wasn’t on the market. “But the federal government said, ‘No, you can’t ... because if everybody did that, then there would be more wheat produced, even though a lower percentage of it on the market, and the greater production would drive down the price of wheat.’”
That lead, Kobach said, to the notion that if Congress could govern anything that had a substantial effect on the states, you could regulate just about everything.
“That’s the way that case after case after case went from 1937 until 1995,” he said.
The biggest violation so far of the Commerce Clause, he said, is what has been called Obamacare.
“The problem with it is the individual mandate,” Kobach said. “The individual mandate forces all Americans to purchase health insurance. ... The 26 states that are suing are saying that regardless of whether the choice is given or not, the individual cannot be forced by Congress to purchase health insurance.”
The government’s Commerce Clause argument does not hold up because the Constitution does not give Congress the power to do that. For example, Kobach said, if a young man chooses not to buy health care, he isn’t engaged in any commerce at all.
“The point is, the Supreme Court is now going to decide what I think is the greatest Commerce Clause case ever,” he said. “If they decide that the federal government has this authority, then the entire concept of enumerated powers doesn’t matter because you can fit everything into commerce power.”
The second threat Kobach mentioned is a relatively new movement called the National Popular Vote Project, which is gaining steam in several states. In this project, lobbyists are pressing state legislators to push for passing laws that will circumvent the electoral college by forcing states to pledge all of their electoral votes to the popular winner of an election.
“The interesting thing is, several states have already passed such laws,” Kobach said. “The law takes effect when the number of states that have passed equal 270 electoral votes, the number you need to win the presidency.”
The danger, he pointed out, is that such a process would nullify the built-in protections the Founding Fathers developed to make sure all states were represented equally.
The third threat Kobach spoke of is in regard to the new voter ID law passed in Kansas earlier this year. That law will go into effect soon, and Kansas was the first state to pass such a law.
“[Voter fraud] is not a direct threat, but it is a threat to the foundation of our Constitution,” he said. “The Constitution is based on the notion that we all accept that elections are won fair and square. ... It’s absolutely essential to the transfer of power.”
Pointing to evidence of disorganized voting procedures and cases of fraud, Kobach said that requiring voters to show identification is necessary to ensure accuracy.
“It’s not that we don’t want illegal aliens to vote,” he said. “It’s that we don’t want any aliens to vote. I don’t want my vote canceled out by someone who is not a citizen.”
jamesbordonaro (James Bordonaro) says...
Although I didn't attend his speech, I thank Mr. Kobach for coming to Emporia to present his version of history. However, I am concerned by a general trend of viewpoint which Mr. Kobach epitomizes which seeks to equate the Founding Fathers with undue wisdom. The document which was crafted has not served the country as well as might be hoped for. It has had to be amended more than 2 dozen times. Further, while Geo. Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and others where men of courage and established basic principals of democratic rule, they were not people whom we might want to associate with if alive today as many southern representatives to the Constitutional Convention were racist slave holders. The first government cobbled together after the defeat of the British didn't last long at all and the second government (our present constitution) only held up for some "four score and seven" years before cleaving the nation apart.
I am surprised that Mr. Kobach thinks that popular election laws are a threat to democracy. The trend away from reliance upon the Electoral College is a good thing just as was the amendment to directly elect senators.
December 2, 2011 at 6:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
THOMAS PAINE the next level.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM5_Mv...
December 2, 2011 at 9:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
Our education system is at the heart of the problem of America being great going forward.
http://www.hermes-press.com/education...
December 2, 2011 at 10:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
I went to the meeting and said,"the biggest threat to America is the money powers."
http://www.hermes-press.com/cabal_ind...
December 2, 2011 at 11:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Excellent comment, James. Thank you for posting that food for thought.
December 3, 2011 at 7:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rabid_Randy (anonymous) says...
The U.S. Senate has just passed a bill that effectively ends the Bill of Rights in America. This bill, passed late last night in a 93-7 vote, declares the entire USA to be a "battleground" upon which U.S. military forces can operate with impunity, overriding Posse Comitatus and granting the military the unchecked power to arrest, detain, interrogate and even assassinate U.S. citizens with impunity.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/de...
December 3, 2011 at 8:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
With "impunity"? Somehow I doubt that. I'd have to read the Bill for myself. I'm guessing there will be a lot of over reacting to this.
December 3, 2011 at 9:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rabid_Randy (anonymous) says...
I doubt that too. For anyone wanting to see the bill that was passed, you can read it here:
S.1867 "National Defense Authorization Act" http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D...
The House still has to pass it, which they probably will seeing how easily it passed in the senate. Jerry Moron and Pat Roberts both voted in favor of this bill.
December 3, 2011 at 9:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Your link doesn't work, Randy. In the meantime, I have e-mailed Jerry Moran. He always gets back to me so I will wait to hear from him.
December 3, 2011 at 1:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
We are going into a police state.
December 4, 2011 at 12:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
yea, that was a bad link so I googled the name of the bill and it came up. Good luck reading it, all 800 + pages.
I am glad Moran responds to you create. Usually all I get is a standard form letter from a staffer that is robo signed. And it usually has nothing to do with what I wrote about.
i do wonder why there is not much news on this from the lame stream media. It seems rather important.
December 4, 2011 at 7:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Moran always gets back to me. The first response is always the kind generated by a robot, but within two or three weeks time, he himself always gets back to me. Perhaps it is because I worked closely with him with regard to Veteran's Affairs when he was chairman of that committee when he was a congressman. Maybe not. Who knows. Still, I will await his personal response.
Also, you can always call his staffer in Hutch. They are always willing to talk to people.
December 4, 2011 at 9:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
Rabid Randy, I too am "VERY CONCERNED ",waiting to see what the final version is after amendments....., please take time to digest what this new bill has within it to impact your lives....read the bill......
December 4, 2011 at 12:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
IT'S SUPERNATURAL--A MUST SEE
http://www.morningliberty.com/2011/12...
December 4, 2011 at 4:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rabid_Randy (anonymous) says...
Sorry about the broken link. The entire text of the bill is here:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-11...
(Very big file, might crash your browser)
The issue is with Sections 1031, 1032, and 1033, which can be found starting at page 359 under the bold heading "Subtitle D-- Detainee Matters."
This is a summary of those Sections:
(1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;
(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and
(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.
December 5, 2011 at 11:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
"Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; "
This sounds similar to Homeland Security Stuff. I wonder why they needed another bill.
December 5, 2011 at 2:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
It reminds me of something north korea ,or germany 1943 would do....grab a USA citizen and lock them up forever w/o trial.......in America???? What a way to silence protest and kill free speach.
December 5, 2011 at 4:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rabid_Randy (anonymous) says...
That bill was passed. Anyone in America who the Government feels is a threat to National Security can be held without due process in Guantanamo or other foreign prisons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EpJ8g...
December 10, 2011 at 9:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I know I said I was going to leave the posts for a while. And I did, and consoled my granddaughter, her husband and my daughter on the death of my great grand daughter.
Thank you Steve and Create for your thoughts and words. I will have a hard time dealing with this tragedy myself, but the forums and the posters, as well as my posting, may just help me to deal with it. I know that may sound a little " Crass ", maybe even " Wierd " , but we all deal with adversity in our own different ways . In these past few years I have kind of begun to think of the people on this Forum as friends and an extended family, even though we don' t agree all the time on everything and at times we may even get a little " nasty " and ill tempered with each other . But for the most part it doesn' t last .
I felt I had to post the following for all of you to read and interpret it for yourself. And this may just put some of your minds at ease.
S.1867
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Placed on Calendar Senate - PCS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.
(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
continued ::
December 10, 2011 at 10:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
continued :
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
(c) Implementation Procedures-
(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.
(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F...
December 10, 2011 at 10:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
meth,
As these bills are always hard to understand unless you are a lawyer, please re-read your post of the bill language.
My take on it is :
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
so I read it that if a waiver is granted then a
U. S. citizen can be detained. I'm not sure but the whole bill is sure pushing the limits of our constitution.
December 11, 2011 at 7:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
This is what a free society does we stay vigilant over our freedoms.
December 11, 2011 at 9:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rabid_Randy (anonymous) says...
meth,
The language of Section 1031 originally said that U.S. citizens would not be subjected to imprisonment without trial. The Obama Administration requested to have that language taken out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhDxON...
The bill passed by Congress absolutely DOES NOT exempt citizens. Section 1031 reads, "A covered person under this section" includes "any person who has committed a belligerent act".
The Feinstein Amendment 1031(e) is dangerously misleading. Don't be fooled: In the text of 1031(e), "Nothing in this section shall be construed...", the only word that matters is "construed" -- the Supreme Court are the only ones with the power to construe the law. The Feinstein Amendment 1031(e) permits citizens to be imprisoned without evidence or a trial forever.
Obama threatened a veto for 1032, but NOT 1031. 1032 is UNRELATED to imprisoning citizens without a trial. Obama has never suggested using a veto to stop Section 1031 citizen imprisonment. Applying Section 1031 to citizens was requested by the Obama administration:
December 11, 2011 at 9:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
create,
have you heard back from Morans' office on this yet?
I think we all on here need to e-mail him and Roberts and then compare answers, (if we get any).
Sail, how about it?
December 11, 2011 at 9:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Just sent my e-mails asking them about this.
It would be interesting if many of us did this and then compare the replies. Let's see if they are really listening?
December 11, 2011 at 9:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS...
December 11, 2011 at 10:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
Ahhh, this is interesting,scary but interesting.See above link on how sen roberts and Sen Moran voted on the1031. Good job Rabid for the reserch on the amendment #. Can this be happening in the land of the free?
December 11, 2011 at 10:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Have not heard back from Moran's office yet. He usually takes a couple of weeks to answer. If I think about it tomorrow, I'll call his Hutch office.
Let's take a different tack here. Some people are taking this to mean their own freedoms are at stake, when I don't think that's it at all. Had this bill been enacted before Timothy McVeigh bombed the Miura Bldg in OK City, how would things be different? As a domestic terrorist, wouldn't he have been taken into military custody?
I'm just asking, I don't know. But I am not upset about this at all. We need to protect our freedoms, and if it takes military action to do it on our home soil, then let it be.
December 11, 2011 at 11:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
Careful there Trigger, you are talking about a lot of freedoms there.....We dont want to change our nation slogan in for the national slogan of "OCEANIA".
December 11, 2011 at 11:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
WOW!
Can't believe that came from create.
If this bill is what Rabid Randy says it is, it does away with our constitutional rights. something our military has fought for forever.
And it puts the military in charge, something we should all fear.
Our rush to give away our fundamental rights to insure our safety will come back to destroy our free country, something the founding fathers warned about.
Many people thought that the formation of the TSA and airport security searches, (without due cause) were o.k. too. Until the strip searches and body x-rays started.
And yet we still allow these warrantless searches of our persons.
This is how a free country perishes.
little by little
bit by bit.
December 11, 2011 at 12:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rabid_Randy (anonymous) says...
create,
Section 1031 includes terrorists, but it also includes "any person who has committed a belligerent act." The definitions of belligerent are:
1. Inclined or eager to fight; hostile or aggressive.
2. Of, pertaining to, or engaged in warfare.
If the government feels you are hostile, they can detain you with no evidence and with no trial. If this passes the House, it will directly affect Occupy Wall Street protestors and any other participants in future protests. They can be viewed as hostile just by simply being there. There is no crime severe enough to take away an American citizen's right to a fair trial, but this bill does just that. Even Timothy McVeigh deserved a fair trial. BRADLEY MANNING DESERVES A FAIR TRIAL TOO.
It's useless to e-mail Moron and Roberts, as they have already betrayed the Constitution. This will be voted on sometime soon. You will have to e-mail Congressman Huelskamp. https://forms.house.gov/huelskamp/web... and tell him to vote NO on H.R. 1540.
December 11, 2011 at 12:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rabid_Randy (anonymous) says...
Nevermind, I'm wrong on Huelskamp, he has passed it too. It's just waiting on Obama's signature now. He'll be signing it into law on Tuesday.
December 11, 2011 at 12:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
If people are already believing that our own congress people have betrayed the constitution, then this is just plain over reaction. I've never heard such ridiculous thinking in my entire life.
I'm beginning to think I'd rather move the f*ck away from a state where people believe their own congressmen are betraying the constitution. This is flat out stupid!
What now, Randy. Wanna have a revolution? This is pure bullshit!
December 11, 2011 at 2:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
And by the way, some of the same people who oppose this Act, are all in favor of putting the military on the southern borders.
Well, what is it? Six of one or half a dozen of the other?
Jesus Christ!
December 11, 2011 at 2:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rabid_Randy (anonymous) says...
"some of the same people who oppose this Act, are all in favor of putting the military on the southern borders"
Source? That is the biggest line of BS I've seen all day.
The truth is some of the people who support this act are all in favor of putting the military on the southern borders. Senators Moran and Roberts both voted YES on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism, but that isn't the point of this conversation. It's never been about immigration and I don't know why you tried to steer the conversation in that direction. This conversation is about the elimination of due process rights of American citizens arrested on American soil.
December 11, 2011 at 3:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Yeah, well you keep telling yourself that, Randy. I give up on you people who think everything is a conspiracy. BS!
December 11, 2011 at 4:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Lets get the meaning of " Belligerent " straight shall we.
A belligerent is an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat. Belligerent comes from Latin, literally meaning "to wage war".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belligerent
Belligerent Law & Legal Definition
Belligerent is a Latin term meaning to wage war. A belligerent is a nation or person engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law. Belligerents acts in a hostile manner.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/bell...
I have re read the bill, especially sections 1301, 1302, 1303 and see not reference at all made to the arrest or detaining of any U.S. citizen, except if said U.S. citizens is determined to be a terrorist, aids in terrorism or is a member of or aid Al Quida or engages in a terrorist act, wages war or is determined to be " belligerent " in every sense of the Legal Law Definition of Belligerent . ( see above legal law definition of " Belligerent ) !
I will say, that I for one would not oppose putting the military on the Southern Border of the U.S. . After all there has been a full scale invasion of the U.S. along the southern border for years, that, in my opinion, needs to be stopped or slowed, at the very least !
December 11, 2011 at 5:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I for one believe that Randy has gone over " The Edge " .
JMO
December 11, 2011 at 5:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rabid_Randy (anonymous) says...
create,
Why was an amendment to clarify that U.S. citizens on U.S. soil would not be subjected to this bill not passed? Both Moran and Roberts voted to keep language protecting the rights of American citizens out of the bill. Do you think that is just a crazy conspiracy theory too? You can see it for yourself on the senate website:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS...
December 11, 2011 at 5:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rabid_Randy (anonymous) says...
S Amdt 1126 - Prohibits Detention of U.S. Citizens Without Trial
Rejected by a 55-45 vote. Moran voted in favor of, and Roberts voted against.
http://www.votesmart.org/bill/14187/3...
December 11, 2011 at 6:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
I received a response from Moran this afternoon.
He said he was concerned about the same issue and voted for the Feinstein ammendment which spelled out American citizen rights. it failed. He then voted for one with "compromise language" in it that supposedly does the same thing.
Which makes me wonder if it does the same thing, why didn't the Feinstien amendment pass, and what's the difference?
i would not be so quick to dismiss or attack anyone who questions our government, That is our job as citizens and we all, Including create and methusla do it every day on here.
I see no difference in Rabid_Randy's stand on this issue and some of the ones we have voiced; (SEE ROCKS STORIES)
December 11, 2011 at 6:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rabid_Randy (anonymous) says...
When Moran responds to create's email, will create respond by calling him a conspiracy theorist and a BS'er?
December 11, 2011 at 6:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Well, I will be the first to admit that I just don' t know for sure.
And Steve C. is right, when he said that it would take a Philadelphia Lawyer to totally understand what any congressional bill is, what it says and how it will affect " We the People " !!
I think that most of us have the perception that our government, all aspects of our government, Federal, State and Local and what they do has become nothing more than an elobrate " Dog and Pony Show " and usually benefits only either those in government or those who are influencing/controlling them the most !
Rabid_Randy, I certainly hope that your take/interpretation on this is wrong .
I will email Moran, Roberts and possibly Arndt, when I can, to see what they have to say about it.
Just to let you all know, I may not post for a while, as the reality of the loss of my great grand daughter is really affecting me more each day.
Even more so, since the preliminary findings as to cause of her death, was determined to be "drowning ", while she was in the care of a baby sitter .
No fault or blame is forthcomming, as no one knows for sure if it was an accident . Besides, the baby sitter is only 15 years old.
I haven' t been able to sleep much since it happened sometime Friday.
And it happened in Nebraska City, Nebraska, as that is where my granddaughter and family lives.
I haven' t been able to sleep much since this happened.
So, my friends, I will say good bye for now .
And may God bless you all and grant you long, happy and prosperous lives.
December 11, 2011 at 9:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
and then it started..................
December 12, 2011 at 8:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
Methusla, Im so sorry for your loss and the pain your family is going threw .
December 12, 2011 at 9:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
Create, please view the attached utube from a US SENATE member,then do your own research, dont be optimistically blinded .
December 12, 2011 at 11:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYbZG1...
December 12, 2011 at 11:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Thank you, sail, but I'm not being blinded at all. I know my own views.
This whole thing reeks of conspiracy theorists who believe that the idea of detaining Americans means that every Tom, Dick and Harry walking on the streets will be detained. This reeks of paranoia. My government does not do that.
The question to ask is What is the threshhold for detaining someone? I doubt very seriously it would be for looking cross eyed at some government official, or getting on blogs and forums and screaming about how the government spends our tax money.
I believe Randy is a trouble making conspiracy theorist. They can be dangerous people.
In fact, I am inclined to agree with methusla. Thank you, methusla.
I'm getting off this thread for good.
December 12, 2011 at 2:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rabid_Randy (anonymous) says...
Nobody said every Tom, Dick, and Harry walking on the streets would be detained. My problem is that neither Tom, Dick, nor Harry should be able to be detained on American soil without due process rights. If you can't agree with me that American citizens SUSPECTED of terrorism deserve due process, guilty or not, then we will never see eye to eye on this.
Just because you cannot understand the language of the bill does not make me a conspiracy theorist. Saying that just makes you sound ignorant. I'm done arguing with you about this create.
December 12, 2011 at 2:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Any one who is left reading this thread may find this new link interesting.
http://news.yahoo.com/house-senate-ag...
The interesting part:
"The legislation would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. The lawmakers made no changes to that language.
Civil rights groups still pressed for a presidential veto.
"The sponsors of the bill monkeyed around with a few minor details, but all of the core dangers remain — the bill authorizes the president to order the military to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others found far from any battlefield, even in the United States itself.
The bill strikes at the very heart of American values," Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.
"Based on suspicion alone, no place and no person are off-limits to military detention without charge or trial."
I know create isn't reading this, but earlier she posted ,
"This reeks of paranoia. My government does not do that. "
Well it seems to have done it.
December 13, 2011 at 12:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
In our effort to stay safe, (which we really aren't) we keep giving up rights. Don't our elected officials Senator Moran, Senator Roberts and , what's her face take an oath to "Protect and Defend" our constitution? Do they even know what it says and means?
This alone would be legal grounds for recall, or maybe even a treason charge?
December 13, 2011 at 12:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Treason:
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.
December 13, 2011 at 12:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
americus1987 (anonymous) says...
The "Security State" will do absolutely anything to protect itself. That includes operating outside the boundaries of the constitution if need be. Rummy proved this by sanctioning covert torture tactics against "suspected terrorists" to provide intelligence authorized through the Bush administration. The constitution defends against the use of "cruel and inhumane acts" under the 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments.
Do you think all of those "suspected terrorists" got the right of due process?
Do you think the Feds care if you are a U.S. citizen if they believe a person has a terrorist background?
NO
December 13, 2011 at 12:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Well, boys and girls this should be an eye opening, jaw dropping revelation .
It would seem that our current President, as well as some past Presidents, Vice Presidents and their advisors are moving the U.S. toward a complete Communist/Nazi/Socialist State, that will have every citizen under the Boot/Thumb of Totalitarian/Communist/Nazi/Socialist rule as was 1932 to 1945 Germany, the U.S.S.R., China was and still is and all of the other totalitarian ruled countries .
In the U.S.A. of today it would seem that it is becoming more apparent that the Constitution, via, all of the bills, laws being passed by congress and ammendments that are " Amending " the origional Constitutional Rights of American citizens , the Constitution is looked upon by our government as just a piece of worthless paper that can be side stepped by their " Will " alone .
And what is really sad, is the fact that the terrorists have, are accomplishing exactly what they promised to do.
That is to instill such fear in the citizens and government of the U.S.A. that our government is destroying the very freedoms that our fore fathers fought and died to achieve .
If " We the People " just set back and allow this to happen, then we deserve nothing better than to be " SLAVES and MINONS " of the " STATE " .
It would appear that our, the citizens of the U.S., biggest fear, threat to our way of life and freedoms, should be owr own President and Congress. And it would also appear our own greatest " ENEMY " is __ " The Enemy Within " our own borders, namely our own President and Government and quite possibly those who have the most control/influence over them .
If this bill passes as is, hard and difficult times will really start, in earnest .
If you want to see real terrorists ! You will have to look no further than the President and Congress/Government of the United States of America and those who control them .
December 13, 2011 at 2:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rabid_Randy (anonymous) says...
It looks like the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta, Canada to Texas carrying oil from Canadas oil sands will be getting government approval faster thanks to the House passing the "Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011" tonight.
This bill provides tax protection for working class Americans while creating new jobs through the pipeline project. The House GOP measure extends the payroll tax cut for one year and renews aid for the unemployed, while cutting back the maximum length of jobless benefits from the current 99 weeks to 59. It would keep the Social Security payroll tax at a lowered rate of 4.2%. That rate is set to go up to 6.2% on Jan. 1 if Congress doesn’t act.
So if congress doesn't pass this bill allowing the pipeline to proceed, Social Security payroll tax will go up 2%. How is this not blackmail? And of course, all Representatives from Kansas voted in favor.
December 13, 2011 at 7:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Rabid_Randy,
To be perfectly correct, fair and balanced, you should have said;
Social Security payroll tax will go BACK up 2%.
THAT'S WHAT IT WAS A YEAR AGO. 6.2%
And ALL of our politicians voted to lower it for 1 year, until the economy improved, shows what they know about the economy, huh?
Ask yourself this;
How much faster will the s.s. fund go broke if our pols keep this tax cut?
It's election time, so i expect a lot more of these "bones" thrown to the poor ignorant masses. It keeps their minds of the important stuff.
December 13, 2011 at 8:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
that would be keeps their minds off.
December 13, 2011 at 8:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rabid_Randy (anonymous) says...
Yes, it will go BACK UP to 6.2% (and it should) and a bill should be passed that prevents ever using FICA to try and stimulate the economy again. Taking away from the SS benefits of tomorrow to try to solve today's problems is not smart.
The point I was trying to make was that unrelated things (major things) like the Keystone XL pipeline should never be included in something like a payroll-tax extension bill. The tar sands are already an environmental disaster. The amount of recoverable oil is so small it is cheaper to build a pipeline and send it to Texas refineries than it is for Canada to build new infrastructure and refine it themselves. We should be investing in clean energy, not in dirty fossil fuels.
http://i.imgur.com/ESeKB.jpg
December 13, 2011 at 10:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
I have to agree with you randy, tying the pipeline to the tax cuts was a political ploy, one which I am sure the right will paint the left with the tax increase burden. Lumping in unrelated measures should be illegal.
December 13, 2011 at 10:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
Hope the route takes a 200 mile bend away from the big "o" aquifer.......... Our media both local and national sure went silent on the NAT DEF AUTH ACT, to me they have been negligent in their duties to we the public..........
December 14, 2011 at 7:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
Can you imagine the outrage the anger the protests,if this defense bill was presented in the late 60s, my god have we been castrated as a people,its as if the whole damm country is on a psycotropic drug and weve become so open minded that our brains have fallen out.
December 14, 2011 at 7:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
WASHINGTON – House lawmakers voted 234-193 to approve a bill on Tuesday that would extend a payroll-tax cut for American workers and also fast-track a U.S.-Canada oil pipeline, setting up a showdown with the White House and the Senate. The White House says that President Barack Obama will veto the bill, which would require permitting of the Keystone XL pipeline within two months. Obama has delayed a decision on the pipeline until 2013.
Emphasis on "Obama will veto the bill..." Hope it works.
I agree with goodoleboy re: lumping in unrelated measures should be illegal. Isn't that where the bridge(s) to nowhere come from? Ted whatshisname from Alaska was a master at adding the fat to bills. Happens all the time, except that folks get up in arms when somebody else gets the fat and they stay very silent when their own state benefits from the same.
Am interested how constitution thinkers will view the latest Moran sponsorship of a Bill which would allow waiver of visa requirements for foreign doctors to serve rural areas of this country which are seriously lacking in physician availability close to home.
December 14, 2011 at 8:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
I've had very good care from them there foreign doctors @ the v.a. hospital.
Seems to me that there are too many kids getting those college degrees in some easier fields. Need some more young'ns going into the healing arts, by golly. Maybe our kids aren't smart enough or too lazy to get that hard book learning? Why should they study or work hard for them doc degrees, they don't have to, the gubernment will take care of um?
What are we old folks that need care do in the meantime?
What a pickle?
December 14, 2011 at 11:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
A REMINDER TO ALL POSTERS
There have been two comment threads disabled in the last two days.
I asked for one of them to be pulled and agree with the gazette on pulling the other one.
when we comment on here let's be a little more mindful of who may read our comments. There are many ways to state your opinions without being slanderous or hurtful.
thanks, steve
December 14, 2011 at 12:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rabid_Randy (anonymous) says...
Well it looks like Obama will be signing the NDAA bill soon. http://www.nationaljournal.com/nation... By the end of the week he will probably have signed NDAA, SOPA, and the Payroll Tax-Cut extention bills into law.
http://i.imgur.com/ixAxN.jpg
December 14, 2011 at 10:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
We have since learned that the language of the bill has been changed, something that has led to White House assent. I invite anyone interested in BOTH sides of the issue to read the following article contained here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12...
The article is worth reading since it presents both sides and doesn't just make flat statements that may lead to fear mongering.
The article points out that Sen. John McCain was a strong supporter of the orginal Bill. I wonder what folks would be saying about McCain had he become president and this Bill came before him?
"The bill's strongest supporters, including Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), had argued that it was necessary to make plain that the military has the authority to detain Americans. Other less-fervent supporters argued that, although they were not entirely happy with the practice, the fact is that the executive branch already detains Americans -- as it did in the case of convicted terrorism suspect Jose Padilla."
Let it be known that I post the link to this article in order to further understanding of BOTH SIDES of this issue and not just one. I still support the NDAA as is MY RIGHT as an American citizen! Those who have put me down for that opinion are using the same tactics as contained in the Bill they oppose.
When you always agree with others, that becomes your prison. I choose my jailers carefully. And yes, that river runs both ways.
December 15, 2011 at 7:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
You would think that someone who served his country as a pilot in the war and was "Detained" as a prisoner of war would have a more solid grasp of the other side of the subject.
While McCain has served his country honorably both in the military and as an elected official, I lost all respect for the man when he picked an unqualified vice presidential choice in order for his campaign to counter the Clinton / Obama races.
Lindsey Graham????? If he had his way we would be a Christian state using the bible much like many of those Islamic states use the Koran as the law of the land. Beheadings for witchcraft anyone?
Yes create, you can disagree with others, and you can support the NDAA. Those are your rights, (FOR NOW). but please note the update on your own link:
Update: 7:18 p.m. -- The story has been updated to include the House's passage of the National Defense Authorization Act. 10 p.m. -- It was also updated to make
clearer
that
the
military
is
authorized
to
detain
American
citizens.
I am happy to disagree with you on this one.
December 15, 2011 at 8:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
I don't get it. The addendum simply states that the story includes the update to make the military's role more clear. I don't have a problem with that. At least the story is fair in its offering, including the addendum.
Once again, Steve, I am happy to disagree with you as well. At least you haven't tried to shave my head and send me to Gitmo.
December 15, 2011 at 8:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
BTW, Steve, I'm sure all of us know by his many campaign speeches and speeches in congress, that John McCain is about as militaristic as anyone can be. For example, even today, he is adamantly opposed to the Iraq pullout and accuses Obama of pulling out in order to further his own presidential re-election. We've lost 4,500 lives over there. Enough is enough, campaign or not.
Let it be known that I did not support McCain, and yes, you might think he would have a different perspective on this Bill due to his Vietnam POW experience. But as far as I know without researching it, he was captured behind enemy lines. As such he was an enemy combatant. We do the same thing with enemy combatants of the U.S. We capture them and imprison them. North Vietnam had a right to capture and imprison him. War is war.
However, I will say that his lengthy imprisonment in Vietnam was partly his own doing. He was given the opportunity to get out, but he refused because he didn't want to appear as if he was being given special treatment because of his admiral father. That's his claim anyway. Some accused him of being a martyr in order to gain his father's respect. We'll never know.
December 15, 2011 at 9:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
Hope that tonights GOP debate on fox will highlight this question.............it is interesting that pres obama ran on closing gitmo,now hes signing a bill that COULD allow the detention of you and me in gitmo....W/O trial. Is something wrong here....
December 15, 2011 at 9:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rabid_Randy (anonymous) says...
The SOPA debate is live. Anyone wanting to watch can view it here: http://keepthewebopen.com/sopa
December 15, 2011 at 10:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
In an interview this morning, McCain states that the Iraq war was a "noble cause."
He further states that Saddam Hussein was going to ATTEMPT to obtain WMD. (Wow, look how far we have come from Bush's claim that WMD were absolutely and indeed there. Now we hear Hussein was going to ATTEMPT to obtain them. How you gonna prove that now, Senator? Wow!).
McCain disagrees that no residual force was left behind. "We risk losing all we gained."
A RESIDUAL force. Really? What the hell is a residual force going to do if some country like Iran is intent on taking over?
He says tensions already exist and I must agree with him there because according to a very interesting news report on NBC Nightly News last night, Iran's influence is feared imminent by many Sunni's who clailm their tribe was not given fair consideration in the new government.
Hearing some of these people interviewed makes me feel so bad for all our war dead and their families.
http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/toda...
December 15, 2011 at 10:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
americus1987 (anonymous) says...
Sail- I remember Obama saying that as well. Obama saying those kind of things were just part of the scheme to promote his "change" campaign. Shutting down Gitmo is not in the cards for national security. Congress would have never allowed it and obviously he didn't know a thing about Gitmo before he got elected or he wouldn't have made that claim in the first place.
December 15, 2011 at 1:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
ditto americus. There's a lot Obama didn't know about national security before he took over the helm. No candidate really does know until he or she is given the information they need once they become president. For that reason alone, I used to laugh at some of the stupid things Sarah Palin would say, and now Michelle Bachman says.
December 15, 2011 at 1:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit...
December 15, 2011 at 6:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
Its sad that pres obama signed a bill removing for some AMERICAN CITZS , the 6th amendment from our bill of rights dec 15th 2011, the same day our orig bill of rights was established dec 15, 1791.... sad day for our freedoms.....
December 15, 2011 at 6:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Create,
Funny thing about Bachman, she is on the intelligence committee yet it has not seemed to help her if you get my drift.
Sail,
I not happy Obama signed it either, but what is more surprising to me is that the House is supposed to be full of Tea Party republicans, they dropped the ball big time on this one.
December 15, 2011 at 11:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rabid_Randy (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy,
Your post reminded me of this picture:
http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lp7...
December 17, 2011 at 6:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
I receive a monthly publication called Imprimis from Hillsdale College. The pubs are of speeches and interviews. This month's pub is an interview with Larry P. Arnn, 12th president of Hillsdale College, and it took place this past October. "The Unity and Beauty of the Declaration and the Constitution."
I am not trying to prove any points I've made here on this thread. But I just thought some of you might like to read this very interesting interview. Dr. Arnn's book, "Liberty and Learning: The Evolution of American Education and The Founders' Key: The Divine and Natural Connection Between the Declaration and the Constituion and What We Risk by Losing It" will be available this coming February, 2012.
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimi...
December 21, 2011 at 6:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
Impressive read. It makes you wonder how so much could be written on such a few pages...
December 21, 2011 at 9:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Yes, sail, impressive read indeed. Of course, he is a scholar so naturally he knows exactly how to get the most from only a few words. HIll's College, by the way, specializes in teaching of communication skills. One word must do the work of many. I plan to buy his book when it comes out in February.
Speaking of a few words, I am posting here the answer I received today from Senator Jerry Moran with regard to his vote on the NDAA. His words don't seem to mesh with what some others have erroneously reported on this thread. Yet, despite what he says here in his letter to me, some others have still called him a traitor. I always prefer to go to the horse's mouth and wish others would do the same.
Dear Mrs. XXXXXX:
Our government has a duty to secure our country from terrorism, but we should not sacrifice the constitutional rights and protections we enjoy as Americans. Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act ( " NDAA " ) and its impact on civil liberties .
The 2012 NDAA , S. 1867, codifies existing U.S. laws regarding the capturing and detaining of suspected terrorists . I believe it is essential that our country's detainee policy not compromise the rights that our Constitution guarantees each and every one of us . For this reason, I, along with Republican Senators Rand Paul , Mark Kirk, and Mike Lee voted for an amendment introduced by Senator Feinstein that would have prohibited the U.S. military from detaining a citizen of the United States without a trial. I also voted in favor of Senator Feinstein's compromise language to maintain the current laws relating to American citizens and legal resident aliens detained in the United States . This amendment was adopted by the Senate 99-1 .
Following the Senate's passage of the NDAA, Senators and Congressmen met for a conference committee to negotiate the final language of the bill. The conference committee further clarified the detainee section of the NDAA to safeguard citizen's constitutional rights. On December 15 th the Senate adopted the final version of the NDAA . As Congress continues to consider these issues, I will remember your thoughts and I will work to ensure that Americans' constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties are balanced with our important national security needs.
I am grateful for the opportunity Kansans have given me to serve them in the United States Senate. If you are interes ted in learning more about my efforts on your behalf, I encourage you to visit moran.senate.gov . Please let me know if I can be of service to you or your family in the future.
Very truly yours,
Jerry Moran
December 21, 2011 at 3:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS...
December 22, 2011 at 11:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
See above post, the amendment 1126 did not pass, I am afraid we have a problem here Houston.. the amendment 1126 was to amend subsection 1031....Create dont take my word, do your own reserch, go to Sen Morans web site...
December 22, 2011 at 12:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mslater (Matt Slater) says...
DONATIONS FOR CONGRESS:
A driver was stuck in a traffic jam on the DC beltway. Nothing was moving. Suddenly, a man knocks on the window.
The driver rolls down the window and asks, "What's going on?"
"Terrorists have kidnapped Congress, and they're asking for a $100 million dollar ransom. Otherwise, they are going to douse them all in gasoline and set them on fire. We are going from car to car, collecting donations."
"How much is everyone giving, on average?" the driver asks
The man replies, "Roughly a gallon."
Merry Christmas everyone!
Matt
December 22, 2011 at 3:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
I'm afraid you're right, sail. Thanks. Look at all the nays. Tea Party? At least we know Moran and Roberts voted Yay despite the amendment not passing.
December 22, 2011 at 4:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grXmxx...
January 20, 2012 at 1:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
The above u-tube is eye opening for all who have not kept up on this very important issue.
January 20, 2012 at 1:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )