Senate likely to pass FBI spying bill after Orlando shooting

[Celebrity]

That doesn't make a damn but of sense.

Really, so it's everything or nothing?

Totalitarianism is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

OR

anarchy
/ˈanərkē/
noun
a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.

 

[apdst]

Really, so it's everything or nothing?

Totalitarianism is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

OR

anarchy
/ˈanərkē/
noun
a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.

Reality: you can't complain about civil rights violations, while at the same time supporting the violation of civil rights.

 

[Celebrity]

Reality: you can't complain about civil rights violations, while at the same time supporting the violation of civil rights.

Well, you can, but it would make you a hypocrite.

What part of the constitution links gun control to surveillance? This is just a delay, a deflection of what republicans fear. They fear they will have to go home and tell their constituents that they approved measures for surveillance or approved measures for gun control.

 

[Thoreau72]

I doubt it. Government surveillance isn't illegal. People in the government who break the law should be indicted. A claim that the whole government is broken has about a snowball's chance in hell of convincing enough people to actually do something.

The Fourth was effectively nullified 15 years ago, Habeas Corpus was effectively nullified about 4 years ago, and you doubt the Constitution is under attack by the legislative process????

By that statement, you seem rather in denial of reality in this country.

Diane Feinstein has proposed legislation that allows the DOJ to declare anybody a suspect for terrorism without any judicial oversight and you doubt the Constitution is under attack?

I hope I am misunderstanding your point.

 

[tres borrachos]

The vote failed by only 2 votes - 58 yea / 38 nay - with 3 Democrats [Donnelly (D-IN), Feinstein (D-CA), and Menendez (D-NJ)] and 1 Republican [Crapo (R-ID)] not voting.

Senate votes down proposal to expand FBI surveillance powers

U.S. Senate: Roll Call Vote

How come Feinstein sat that one out?

 

[humbolt]

Watch this. The bill will be back again this summer in some variant for another vote. It ain't over. It was too close for them to just let it slide.

 

[Celebrity]

The Fourth was effectively nullified 15 years ago, Habeas Corpus was effectively nullified about 4 years ago, and you doubt the Constitution is under attack by the legislative process????

By that statement, you seem rather in denial of reality in this country.

Diane Feinstein has proposed legislation that allows the DOJ to declare anybody a suspect for terrorism without any judicial oversight and you doubt the Constitution is under attack?

I hope I am misunderstanding your point.

You're not, because the legislature is not cannibalistic.

 

[Beaudreaux]

How come Feinstein sat that one out?

Not sure? Maybe she was in the ladies room or passed out drunk in the cloakroom.

 

[Thoreau72]

You're not, because the legislature is not cannibalistic.

Nor is it patriotic. In failing to uphold their oath of office, their attack on the US Constitution is treasonous.

 

[Celebrity]

Nor is it patriotic. In failing to uphold their oath of office, their attack on the US Constitution is treasonous.

No, it's not, because they're not attempting to overthrow the government. They are the government. Publicly elected officials make up the legislature.

 

[Thoreau72]

No, it's not, because they're not attempting to overthrow the government. They are the government. Publicly elected officials make up the legislature.

Are you familiar with the Federal Oath Of Office?

 

[Celebrity]

Are you familiar with the Federal Oath Of Office?

I don't find that to be relevant to this discussion in any way other than misfeasance.

 

[Thoreau72]

I don't find that to be relevant to this discussion in any way other than misfeasance.

It is about as relevant as your point that somebody or not was trying to overthrow the government. :doh

 

[Celebrity]

It is about as relevant as your point that somebody or not was trying to overthrow the government. :doh

Well, it's not an attack on the Constitution when a bill is passed by lawmakers who represent the interests of their constituents, now, is it?

 

[Thoreau72]

Well, it's not an attack on the Constitution when a bill is passed by lawmakers who represent the interests of their constituents, now, is it?

Yes it is, if the law written and passed violates the US Constitution, the document they swore to uphold and defend in their oath of office. If words mean what they say, and they did in 1787, "Supreme Law of the Land" as described in Article VI of the document, means something.

Laws that violate it are null and void. No citizen is bound in conscience to obey such legislative garbage.

If you really think our elected officials represent the interests of their constituents, your Rose Colored Glasses work really really well.

 

[American]

What ever happened to the Orlando terrorist's wife?

 

[Lafayette]

That's the thing about living in a free country, you don't get to pick and choose the rights you want protected. Either they're all protected, or none of them are.

In a truly free country I'll complain about whatever I want, particularly in a public forum, where the freedom of speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Especially the patent conservative political nonsense that plagues the nation presently regarding Income Disparity - just one of so much drivel from that quarter of public opinion ...
____________

 

[Lafayette]

More attacks on the US Constitution and the peoples rights. Tyranny comes in many forms, and disguises... one day it's identifiable as a Democrat, the next day a Republican... on this day, it's both.

For your edification, the definition of tyranny =

cruel and oppressive government rule; unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.

Just were do you see that in America today, particularly in a public forum where you rail against it?

Buy a dictionary - you need one ...
_____________________

 

[Beaudreaux]

For your edification, the definition of tyranny =

Just were do you see that in America today, particularly in a public forum where you rail against it?

Buy a dictionary - you need one ...
_____________________

Your position seems confused. You may want to read the thread title and OP again, then re-read the latter portion of your definition, then compare those to the protections from government power secured in the US Constitution for the fundamental rights of man.

It would appear that it is you sir, that doesn't understand the manifestations of tyranny today.

 

[Lafayette]

Your position seems confused. You may want to read the thread title and OP again, then re-read the latter portion of your definition, then compare those to the protections from government power secured in the US Constitution for the fundamental rights of man.

It would appear that it is you sir, that doesn't understand the manifestations of tyranny today.

I say it again, whatever the bee in your bonnet, it is not "tyranny".

Get right, will you? Call it whatever you like, then we might discuss it.

But "tyranny" (cruel and oppressive rule) in America? It has never happened generally and your exaggeration is meaningless. You do not live, you did not live, in either Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia, or Mao Tse Tung's China - countries that actually experienced tyranny. Or North Korea today.

(The closest the US have ever come to a "tyranny" is the treatment of slaves in some southern states prior to their emancipation and the Indians in western states.)

You have no idea whatsoever of the meaning of the word "tyranny" - and your misuse of the it is a scabrous exaggeration ...
__________________________________

 

[matchlight]

If someone believes this proposed law would be unconstitutional for some reason, please cite the relevant Supreme Court decisions. Looks OK to me. As a Supreme Court justice is once supposed to have observed, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. and Muslim jihadist sons of whores cannot be left free to plot the mass murders of Americans.

 

[Thoreau72]

For your edification, the definition of tyranny =

Just were do you see that in America today, particularly in a public forum where you rail against it?

Buy a dictionary - you need one ...
_____________________

An awareness of current events might be more important than a dictionary.

Do you know what Habeas Corpus means? Do you understand the significance of judicial oversight as described in the Fourth Amendment?

Do you know that the elected officials in our government have nullified both those constitutional principles by way of illegitimate legislation?

Wake up and smell the tyranny.

That people are free to move about and go shopping does not mean there is no tyranny.

 

[Lafayette]

An awareness of current events might be more important than a dictionary. Do you understand the significance of judicial oversight as described in the Fourth Amendment? Do you know that the elected officials in our government have nullified both those constitutional principles by way of illegitimate legislation?

Nice bit of inference, but just an opinion and no supposition of tyranny is proven.

You are stating as fact what is simply an interpretation of not only the law but how it is applied by authorities.

Moreover, were there any contradiction between the law's application (by authorities) and the Constitution, it is not for you to decide but the Supreme Court.

So, let's just wait for the opportunity of that august body to have its say in the matter. Shall we ... ?
_____________________

 

[Thoreau72]

Nice bit of inference, but just an opinion and no supposition of tyranny is proven.

You are stating as fact what is simply an interpretation of not only the law but how it is applied by authorities.

Moreover, were there any contradiction between the law's application (by authorities) and the Constitution, it is not for you to decide but the Supreme Court.

So, let's just wait for the opportunity of that august body to have its say in the matter. Shall we ... ?
_____________________

That august body has already had its say--silence. Though early on there were several decisions against the USA Patriot Act by that august body, but in the end the Legislative and Executive Branches brought us new Patriot Acts, and new FISA II acts.

So now today National Security Letters have taken the place of judicially approved search warrants per Fourth, and indefinite detention by the Executive has been tacitly approved by that august body.

With Kelo and Citizens United, that august body has made it pretty clear how stupid and venal it can be.

Perhaps tyranny is somehow like beauty, and very much in the eye of the beholder?

Personally, I'm all for definitions and dictionaries, and by those standards and terms what we have today in this country is very much like tyranny, the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Lafayette]

Personally, I'm all for definitions and dictionaries, and by those standards and terms what we have today in this country is very much like tyranny, the tyranny of the majority.

Not all is rosy in America, but I disagree with your appreciation of its legal functioning (as tyrannical).

Anyway, the Replicants could screw-up a free lunch. They screwed up the economy with flat-rate upper-income taxation. They screwed up the war over in the sandbox, that Obama was unable to end. (ISIS is the direct descendant of Saddam Hussein's Sunnite officers, who - as soon as they were let out of prism - started ISIS and skedaddled off to Syria.)

They got a Supreme Court to unleash megabucks upon the body-politic to pay for TV commercials - and it seems most Americans cannot come to an opinion without watching the "BoobTube" (which is why it is called in that manner).

Civics is now taught as a high-school degree course-requirement in only 8 states in order to graduate?

Have we got a long way to go ...
_______________________