:facepalm: no but the one in the US was.
:facepalm: no but the one in the US was.
Would it surprise you to learn that during the time of the civil war there were slave owners in the North?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
I DO treat these laws as illegal... Which is one reason why I'd love to be on a jury for a drug-related charge (or something related to THIS) because I could nullify the law. Now we just need to convince everyone else in the United States to nullify senseless marijuana prohibition and the detainment of American citizens... (Although if they are detained without a trial... that could pose a problem to the whole "nullification" deal...)
Lol it would surprise me yes but it would also be irrelevant. The emancipation proclamation did not go "And from hence forward we are going to be a corrupt, overbearing and centralized government with no responsibility to the constitution or rights of the people"Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
It has fuck all to do with what you call it. Perhaps I'm not up on my Civil War history, but I don't see what that example has to do with the matter at hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
And if you're referring to the emancipation proclamation, that's irrelevant because congress had nothing to do with it; it was an executive order issued by Lincoln himself and nothing else.
Well, I guess this comment:
is just beyond my understanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supernova
Ok, emotions are difficult to convey in his format, I'll give you that. Allow me to rephrase: "You're bringing up the confederacy right now? For what purpose?"Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
I don't understand, the USA already has this policy. It was part of the Patriot Act, Title II, which is also unconstitutional.
Someone had said that if the congress passes something unlawful, there are certain things the citizens can do to repeal the law, such as go to the courts or in the extreme case, secede. The civil war forever closed the door on keeping the government in check. The Confederacy was the absolute greatest chance anyone ever had (and ever will have) at a secession. And they failed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supernova
I don't think it is hopeless though. The states can still nullify federal laws and even secede. The problem is that there is no one left who understands this as they all think that states' rights equate to slavery. Those who know better think it is extremism at best.
Many states are waking up though, albeit slowly.
Repeal the 17th Amendment! Give the States their power back!Quote:
Originally Posted by Never
We need also to revise many others, especially the sections that say "Congress shall have the power to enforce this article with appropriate legislation".Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
Oh look,
Paul calls Senate
The Tea Party guy cares more about freedom than democrats.
Spineless cowards. I wish I could get my hands on some of these people, if they can be classified as such.
Learned from his father, the main opponent to the PATRIOT Act, and one of the only Representatives to vote against the Iraq War Resolution. I'm glad that he supports freedom, takes balls for a Freshman Senator to actually stand up for citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
The amendment is still in there, he just killed the part that would have allowed detainment AFTER a trial to be legal, even if you're found innocent. Now you can be detained... but you HAVE to be released when found innocent (although they don't HAVE to give you a trial.)
Still, this kind of news must be giving Obama supporters pause.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
I don't think anything but liberty gives them pause.
Mainstream Liberals are just like Mainstream Conservatives; convinced to believe that their party is actually "better than the alternative." Obama hasn't done anything serious that he promised, just like Bush didn't do what he promised (specifically non-interventionism).Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
People should support PEOPLE, not PARTIES. If Democrats wanted to elect a President they actually AGREED with, they'd support Kucinich. But instead they are bought-over by the big-money candidates like Hillary and Barack who overshadow the candidates that vote with their ideals in Congress, like Kucinich, and Paul, (and now Senator Paul). He is a true Tea-Partier, a Tea Partier who doesn't hate other races, who doesn't call Obama a "Muslim Terrorist," and is actually a low-tax libertarian. Buuut even the Tea Party got bought and sold by "Mainstream" conservatives (something that "Mainstream" liberals are trying to do to #Occupy, but so far no luck.)
/rant
http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/...-said-what.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by cmind
The suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is protected by law; under the United States Constitution, to be precise.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
US Constitution, Article I, Section 9:
Thoughts?Quote:
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
We are not in a state of rebellion or invasion (although if things continue as they are long enough this can only end one way).Quote:
Originally Posted by PR0G4P4RV18
(I don't see where you're going with that. Please explain.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Supernova
Forgive my ignorance, but at the present time, has the government detained someone and violated the Writ of Habeas Corpus?
If so, give a specific instance.
As you quoted, US Constitution Article 1 Section 9 states that the privelege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus may be suspended if the public safety requires it due to rebellion or invasion. I was just pointing out that neither of those have occurred.Quote:
Originally Posted by PR0G4P4RV18
I don't see why you're having so much difficulty with this. The Southern states had grievances, they took them to the highest level and were unheard, so they did the only thing available to them, which was simply secede. In response, the federal government started a war and killed hundreds of thousands of Southerners. They violently forced those states to stay in the Union. Therefore, the federal government proved once and for all that when it came down to it, they would rather go to war than allow a state to secede.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supernova
While the slave trade in the North was illegal, Northerns were just as racist as Southerners. In fact, the Free Soil party was against slavery because of the plantation system it imposed which gave African-Americans "jobs" that were suppose to be for whites. They wanted to end slavery because they wanted to make land free for white labor. Abolitionists were generally hated in the North because they sought equality between whites and African-Americans. I think people do not really realize this: that there is a difference between being anti-slavery and abolitionist. The former was merely being against slavery, sometimes for racist reasons and the latter is being against slavery and for equality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei