gradybridges wrote:Night Strike wrote:If a person believes in Communism, let them share their beliefs open and in the public. If the people don't like that viewpoint, they will be voted out of office. It's this backhanded re-labeling of their ideas that are causing us to move closer to Communism without most people realizing or recognizing it. Be open about your beliefs and let the public decide who they want to be representing them.
I just wish the Republicans would be honest about what they are doing. The Repubs relabled themselves as The Tea Party to gain control of the House in 2010 and have been using religion, abortions, and guns(for the last 30 years) to hide their real objective of killing unions, tax breaks to millionairs on up, and unregulating Wall Street. I just wish they would be honest about what they really believe in.
This thread mad my head hurt.
And, are you worried more about what the super-minority Republicans of 2008-2010 relabeled themselves as and social issues than you are about NDAA? The act that Congress and the P-Bo just passed that essentially strips the 5th amendment? Which is more important to you?
I will have everyone know a judge stood up to Obama and Congress and struck down some of the worst sections of the NDAA bill.
Judge Strikes Down NDAA, Rules Obama Must Obey Constitution
http://www.westernjournalism.com/judge- ... stitution/
In a considerable setback for a president eager to ravage the due process rights of the American people, Federal Judge Kathleen Forrest granted a preliminary injunction on Wednesday, striking down those sections of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 which sought to provide Barack Obama the power to indefinitely detain citizens without benefit of their 5th Amendment rights.
Signed very quietly into law on New Year’s Eve, the controversial Act has been roundly criticized as unconstitutional by groups on both the political left and right. Of greatest concern was Section 1021, which grants the United States military authority to exercise police powers on American soil. Upon order of the president and at his sole discretion, agents of the military are empowered to detain “until the end of hostilities” anyone the president believes to have “substantially supported” al Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces.”
Judge Forrest concluded that the Section “…failed to ‘pass Constitutional muster’ because its broad language could be used to quash political dissent.” In a statement clearly directed to lawmakers, she added, ”Section 1021 tries to do too much with too little – it lacks the minimal requirements of definition and scienter that could easily have been added, or could be added, to allow it to pass constitutional muster.” That is, Congress failed—perhaps deliberately– to define “substantial support” of terrorist groups or describe those activities which might be construed as crossing the legal line. And no law may be enforced if those to whom it applies are unable to clearly understand what a violation of that law entails.
