Ron Paulbarians Are At GOP's Gate...

[Dr.Drock]

Some of us understand the conditions under which the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall be suspended, and other are just whiny young Libertines.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Attainder
attainder n. The loss of all civil rights by a person sentenced for a serious crime.

Ex post facto
ex post facto adj. Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively.


I can't make things any more clear than that.

You didn't even notice the relevant part of Article 1, section 9, dumbass, as it applies to conditions under which the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall be suspended.

Have we been invaded, have we declared war, are we in a state of national emergency?

 

[SFC Ollie]

You do understand that war has been declared against us?

 

[Contumacious]

To this day, I have trouble believing that we have a Government that claims this power against American citizens and has exercised that power and aggressively defended it –
.

Article1, Section 9. United States Constitution.

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.

A resolution passed by the New York ratifying convention made clear its understanding that the Clause not only protects against arbitrary suspensions of the writ but also guarantees an affirmative right to judicial inquiry into the causes of detention. See Resolution of the New York Ratifying Convention (July 26, 1788), in 1 Elliot's Debates 328 (noting the convention's understanding "[t]hat every person restrained of his liberty is entitled to an inquiry into the lawfulness of such restraint, and to a removal thereof if unlawful; and that such inquiry or removal ought not to be denied or delayed, except when, on account of public danger, the Congress shall suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus"). Alexander Hamilton likewise explained that by providing the detainee a judicial forum to challenge detention, the writ preserves limited government. As he explained in The Federalist No. 84


Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S.Ct. 2229, 171 L.Ed.2d 41 (U.S. 06/12/2008)

.

 

[SniperFire]

To this day, I have trouble believing that we have a Government that claims this power against American citizens and has exercised that power and aggressively defended it –
.

Article1, Section 9. United States Constitution.

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.

A resolution passed by the New York ratifying convention made clear its understanding that the Clause not only protects against arbitrary suspensions of the writ but also guarantees an affirmative right to judicial inquiry into the causes of detention. See Resolution of the New York Ratifying Convention (July 26, 1788), in 1 Elliot's Debates 328 (noting the convention's understanding "[t]hat every person restrained of his liberty is entitled to an inquiry into the lawfulness of such restraint, and to a removal thereof if unlawful; and that such inquiry or removal ought not to be denied or delayed, except when, on account of public danger, the Congress shall suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus"). Alexander Hamilton likewise explained that by providing the detainee a judicial forum to challenge detention, the writ preserves limited government. As he explained in The Federalist No. 84


Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S.Ct. 2229, 171 L.Ed.2d 41 (U.S. 06/12/2008)

.

Sorry, but the New York 'signing statement' has no weight.

 

[SniperFire]

You do understand that war has been declared against us?

I think this kid is about 19, so he may not even have been old enough to know that.

 

[Dr.Drock]

You do understand that war has been declared against us?

By which country's gov't?

 

[SniperFire]

You do understand that war has been declared against us?

By which country's gov't?

Enemy combatants need not be affiliated with a flag.






dumbass.

 

[Contumacious]

So try another one where the courts have allowed an American to be denied their rights......

OK Fucktard, that would be US CITIZEN JOSE PADILLA

Padilla Jury Opens Pandora's Box

by Paul Craig Roberts

José Padilla's conviction on terrorism charges on August 16 was a victory, not for justice, but for the US Justice (sic) Department's theory that a US citizen can be convicted, not because he committed a terrorist act but for allegedly harboring aspirations to commit such an act. By agreeing with the Justice (sic) Department's theory, the incompetent Padilla Jury delivered a deadly blow to the rule of law and opened Pandora's box.

Anglo-American law is a human achievement 800 years in the making. Over centuries law was transformed from a weapon in the hands of government into a shield of the people from unaccountable power. The Padilla Jury's verdict turned law back into a weapon.

The jury, of course, had no idea of what was at stake. It was a patriotic jury that appeared in court with one row of jurors dressed in red, one in white, and one in blue (Peter Whoriskey, Washington Post, August 17, 2007). It was a jury primed to be psychologically and emotionally manipulated by federal prosecutors desperate for a conviction for which there was little, if any, supporting evidence. For the jury, patriotism required that they strike a blow for America against terrorism. No member of this jury was going to return home to accusations of letting off a person who has been portrayed as a terrorist in the US media for five years.

The "evidence" against Padilla consists of three items: (1) seven intercepted telephone conversations, (2) a 10-year old non-relevant video of Osama bin Laden, and (3) an alleged application to a mujahideen (not terrorist) training camp with Padilla's fingerprints. We will examine each in turn


.

 

[Dr.Drock]

You do understand that war has been declared against us?

By which country's gov't?

Enemy combatants need not be affiliated with a flag.






dumbass.

I see, so anytime a collection of random thugs declares war on the United States we should start suspending american's rights.

Are you still pretending people different than you are the authoritarians or is that game over?

 

[SniperFire]

By which country's gov't?

Enemy combatants need not be affiliated with a flag.






dumbass.

I see, so anytime a collection of random thugs declares war on the United States we should start suspending american's rights.

Bifurcation logical fallacy is the best you can do, son?

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Now, reasonable people can argue as to whether or not a particular situation warrants, justifies or merits suspension of a persons privilege to Writ of Habeas, but only delusional narco-Libertarians can pretend the Constitution does not make provision for it.

Now, reasonable people can argue as to whether or not a particular situation warrants, justifies or merits suspension of a persons privilege to Writ of Habeas, but only delusional state supremacist can pretend Jose Padilla deserved to have his right suspended.

.

 

[SniperFire]

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.

Now, reasonable people can argue as to whether or not a particular situation warrants, justifies or merits suspension of a persons privilege to Writ of Habeas, but only delusional narco-Libertarians can pretend the Constitution does not make provision for it.

Now, reasonable people can argue as to whether or not a particular situation warrants, justifies or merits suspension of a persons privilege to Writ of Habeas, but only delusional state supremacist can pretend Jose Padilla deserved to have his right suspended.

.

That is your opinion, of course. At least you now know where to find the Constitutional proviso for it

 

[Contumacious]

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Attainder
attainder n. The loss of all civil rights by a person sentenced for a serious crime.

Ex post facto
ex post facto adj. Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively.


I can't make things any more clear than that.

You didn't even notice the relevant part of Article 1, section 9, dumbass, as it applies to conditions under which the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall be suspended.

Have we been invaded, have we declared war, are we in a state of national emergency?

Yes, the welfare/warfare party has declared war on the Constitution (1787). Fascists and Socialists rejoice.

.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Enemy combatants need not be affiliated with a flag.






dumbass.

I see, so anytime a collection of random thugs declares war on the United States we should start suspending american's rights.

Bifurcation logical fallacy is the best you can do, son?

I would advise learning what that term means before using it.

After you've learned it, you'll realize how stupid it was for you to say that.

Because the sentence I typed in my previous post is exactly what you kids are advocating for.

Now, be sure to delete chunks of my post. Then when a mod gets here and you get in trouble, cry foul and pretend to be a victim.

 

[Contumacious]

Article1, Section 9. United States Constitution.

Thank you for posting the section of the Constitution being violated.

We already knew that, but maybe you're coming around.

Some of us understand the conditions under which the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall be suspended, and other are just whiny young Libertines.

Under the welfare/warfare state Constitution, the Right can be suspended whenever the Fuhrer is in the mood, right?

.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Thank you for posting the section of the Constitution being violated.

We already knew that, but maybe you're coming around.

Some of us understand the conditions under which the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall be suspended, and other are just whiny young Libertines.

Under the welfare/warfare state Constitution, the Right can be suspended whenever the Fuhrer is in the mood, right?

.

Only if it's a fuhrer I voted for!

 

[Contumacious]

Article1, Section 9. United States Constitution.

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.

A resolution passed by the New York ratifying convention made clear its understanding that the Clause not only protects against arbitrary suspensions of the writ but also guarantees an affirmative right to judicial inquiry into the causes of detention. See Resolution of the New York Ratifying Convention (July 26, 1788), in 1 Elliot's Debates 328 (noting the convention's understanding "[t]hat every person restrained of his liberty is entitled to an inquiry into the lawfulness of such restraint, and to a removal thereof if unlawful; and that such inquiry or removal ought not to be denied or delayed, except when, on account of public danger, the Congress shall suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus"). Alexander Hamilton likewise explained that by providing the detainee a judicial forum to challenge detention, the writ preserves limited government. As he explained in The Federalist No. 84


Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S.Ct. 2229, 171 L.Ed.2d 41 (U.S. 06/12/2008)

.

Sorry, but the New York 'signing statement' has no weight.

Isn't it true that from the fascists/socialists standpoint , the Constitution (1787) has no weight?

.

 

[SniperFire]

Thank you for posting the section of the Constitution being violated.

We already knew that, but maybe you're coming around.

Some of us understand the conditions under which the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall be suspended, and other are just whiny young Libertines.

Under the welfare/warfare state Constitution, the Right can be suspended whenever the Fuhrer is in the mood, right?

.

Nobody is making such a claim.

Again, you fail with logical fallacy.

BIFURCATION: (either-or, black or white, all or nothing fallacy)
Fallacy List

'Dr. Drock is a 19 year old kid and doesn't know any better. What is your excuse?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Was Padilla tried in a court of law?

Case closed.............

 

[Dr.Drock]

Some of us understand the conditions under which the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall be suspended, and other are just whiny young Libertines.

Under the welfare/warfare state Constitution, the Right can be suspended whenever the Fuhrer is in the mood, right?

.

Nobody is making such a claim.

Again, you fail with logical fallacy.

BIFURCATION: (either-or, black or white, all or nothing fallacy)
Fallacy List

'Dr. Drock is a 19 year old kid and doesn't know any better. What is your excuse?

I'm 27 and employed, unlike some of the lazy bums who post on this forum. Can you think of any?

You and your buddy are advocating suspending american's rights because a group of people not affiliated with a country have declared war on us.

Do you agree that's your stance or would you like to flip flop and make up a new one?