Chilling words by Judge Andrew Napolitano
Posted by Non_mooching_artist 9 years, 11 months ago to Government
This is chilling, and should be the news story of precedence. Every action by the NSA is 100% antithetical to the Constitution, to the 4th amendment, to the very foundations of what the founders built.
This country needs men and women who are unafraid of these vermin. To rip out this cancer because it's killing what was once a beacon of freedom.
This country needs men and women who are unafraid of these vermin. To rip out this cancer because it's killing what was once a beacon of freedom.
If the flames of panic approachs works with the public, the comeback should be this: Renew it with strict rules that it can only be used in cases of extremist who pose a threat to national security. Law enforcement will have to be careful if they accidentally use it to catch a kidnapper, drug dealer, common murderer, etc, b/c they won't be able to use any evidence they got through spying powers. They can only break out these powers against something like extremists trying to biuld a dirty bomb or something.
This is all a game b/c the people who want those powers don't want them for one specific crime. Politiclaly motivated murder (i.e. "terrorism") are just a good way to sell more gov't power.
Of all the things Bush's cabinet did, this is one thing I cannot forgive him or them for.
We are operating under tyranny. Politicians and Kangaroo courts are destroying the protections that are our natural birthright and enumerated in our Constitution... supposedly the highest law of the land. I hate to hear anyone say "there ought to be a law." But, we the people, need to have the power to arrest and prosecute those that undermine the Constitution. Throw out the bums!
Run them out of town on a rail after tar and feathering.
What is wrong with people? er... um, sheople apparently.
And the agents writing their own warrants? The judge should know why that is never necessary. He remembers being on call twenty-four hours a day to approve warrants.
Let's also remember how the people could stop sabotage and mass murder cold, if the government let them arm themselves.
It is almost as if they are intentionally using the media and legislation to overcome the Constitution, beginning with trivial but wrong actions, and seeking these precedents for more grotesque acts. The wimpy populace will look back in wonder through the cloudy veil of undocumented abuse and wonder why 2084 is 1984, the popular but banned book.
They should just the kids the facts: the establishment and most of your parents do not want you to read this book.
A morbid mind game would be to figure out the stages of this horrid transformation.
Socialist philanthropy runs rampant
China calls part of the debt
Individual and corporate taxes increase
Economy drops and layoffs amass
Media and Government blame greedy, uncontrolled corporations
Government steps in to fix
Economy collapses
Some media blames government
Government takes over media
1984
We merge with China
Is Big Brother watching us?
erican voters (by and large) deserve it. Because
they insisted on voting in statist politicians who
offered to give them the power to force their hands
into other people's pockets. But those not old
enough to vote do not deserve it. Well, we still
have to fight.
As for Snowden, I was quick to state when it first came out that he would either be viewed as a true patriot, or a treasonous traitor. From what has come out that I can evaluate, I lean towards patriot, as does the Judge. Time will tell.
The problem is that people have looked at the data without warrants, and the additional problem is that the secret court gives rather blanket warrants.
The data that is captured and stored could be extremely useful in solving crimes, in tracking terrorists, and in gathering actionable intelligence. The authorizing authority needs to be moved back into the regular court system, however, and the warrants need to be specific enough to produce court-admissible evidence.
The programs that gather and index the data need to be written such that the computers will not allow access to the data without a court-issued warrant. I believe that would solve the problems that people see with the NSA system.
It would appear it wasn't Jefferson that shredded the Constitution but it was Congress. But moreover, there just was no provision in the Constitution providing for the acquisition of new territory. Shredding may be a bit of a harsh characterization when action was needed to protect the nation from a foreign threat (Napoleonic France on the Mississippi). Interesting piece of history.
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resourc...
Because of Napolean's great need of money, he offered a huge area that included land to or near tnear the Canadian border, an area that more than doubled the size of the USA at the time ... for $15,000,000. There was no way to contact Congress, no trans-Atlantic cable, no wireless technology, no long-flight carrier pigeons. Napoleon would not keep that offer open to wait for ships to cross the Atlantic twice, plus time for Congress to debate the issue. Jefferson accepted the offer, yes, unconstitutionally. Excellent decision, I think,.
I know that the Equal Footing Doctrine is explicitly written into the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848 and the Enabling Act of 1864 for my home State - Nevada.
I wonder if the Louisiana Purchase Treaty has it in there. Oh, boy, more homework.
But Napoleon had plans to re-establish the French empire in North America. In 1801, America learned that Spain had agreed to return Louisiana to France. Jefferson had always looked upon France as a friend in the world, but he knew this was a potential crisis. The new nation depended on New Orleans for its economic survival.
Jefferson drafted an amendment that would authorize the purchase of Louisiana retroactively. But Jefferson’s cabinet members argued against the need for an amendment, and Congress disregarded his draft. The Senate ratified the treaty in October of 1803.
Thomas Jefferson
I would be interested to see references to support your disparaging opinion.
My information about Jefferson I unearthed by accident when researching for my upcoming historical novel: "If Abe Had Been Honest." I document the Louisana Purchase there.
Most domestic objections were politically settled. One problem, however, was too important to argue down convincingly: did Napoleon have the right to sell Louisiana to the United States?
The sale violated the 1800 Third Treaty of San Ildefonso in several ways. Furthermore, France had promised Spain it would never sell or alienate Louisiana to a third party. Napoleon, Jefferson, Madison, and the members of Congress all knew this during the debates about the purchase in 1803. Spain protested strongly, and Madison made some attempt to justify the purchase to the Spanish government, but was unable to do so convincingly. So, he tried continuously until results had been proven remorsefully inadequate.
Spain's argument that Napoleon did not have a right to sell Louisiana was explicated by the historian Henry Adams, who wrote: "The sale of Louisiana to the United States was trebly invalid; if it were French property, Bonaparte could not constitutionally alienate it without the consent of the Chambers; if it were Spanish property, he could not alienate it at all; if Spain had a right of reclamation, his sale was worthless."
The sale of course was not "worthless"—the US actually did take possession. Furthermore the Spanish prime minister had authorized the U.S. to negotiate with the French government "the acquisition of territories which may suit their interests." Spain turned the territory over to France in a ceremony in New Orleans on November 30, a month before France turned it over to American officials.
Also part of the problem with this thesis is that Napoleon had taken both executive and legislative power in 1799. He could do what he wanted. Uncomfortably close to a certain Obummer today.
And apparently the transfer was made effective from Spain to France in October of 1802, and was actually signed into agreement in April of 1801. At least a year or more before transferring it to the United States.
So, all the machinations between France and Spain aside, none of this casts aspersions on Jefferson's presidency. It appears the two biggest political situations in his presidency was the Purchase in his first term and the Embargo issue in his second term. The Purchase makes absolute sense - don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Sure, there was nothing providing for this in the Constitution, but nothing preventing it either. While the later embargo issue may or may have not been a mistake or bad policy, it was duly passed by Congress - no usurpation of power here either.
I see nothing yet justifying characterizing Jefferson as a dictator. Napoleon, yes, Hitler, yes, Stalin, yes, Obama, yes, Jefferson - no.
And go back to your original post, every elected president since Jefferson's "precedent" has sought to increase dictatorial powers.
Again, I think your characterization of Jefferson is off the mark.