Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Democrats Today Will Kill Any & All Chance to Impeach Bush
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 368904" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p><span style="color: black">Disagree Tie! The 4th amendment was written to protect the citizens of this country from gov't abuse. The men who wrote the 4th amendment had themselves been victimized by the British crown in this very area and understood the nature and power of unchecked gov't. IMHO saying the 4th amendment was written for criminals and therefore it should be done away with is like saying the 2nd amendment is to protect criminals so they can have access to guns so we should do away with that. </span></p><p></p><p>Today, the muslim faith is a growing religion so maybe we should modify or let's just eliminate the 1st amendment protections for freedom of religion. To many people say unkind things about other people and the way they live, some of these people have alternate lifestyles that mean and evil people publically condemn. Freedom of speech protects these evil people when they speak out so we should do away with the freedom of speech.</p><p></p><p>Tie, be very careful in the box that you are so swift to open.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: black">Also we are looking at this issue from a personal basis but there is another side of it that we should consider what it's ramifications longterm might be.</span></p><p></p><p><strong><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20081202142024/http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/itsonlyfair/latimes0390.html" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20081202142024/http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/itsonlyfair/latimes0390.html</a></strong></p><p></p><p><span style="color: black">Tie, if Clinton and his gang had this surveil power back in there day, what do you think would have happened to much of what wrongs were exposed about them? You've got to look longterm and consider that down the road there will be politicians elected that them having these powers may not be a good thing after all. It's called unintended consequences.</span></p><p></p><p>Jones said:</p><p></p><p></p><p>Good point Jones and this is exactly where Congress really violated their oath. Art. 1 Sec. 9 of the US Consitution sez that Congress "SHALL NOT" make any ex poste facto law. This means you can't criminalize an act yesterday when the commission of such as was legal but at the same time you can't take a criminal act yesterday and retroactive make it legal today. Art. 1 Sec. 10 makes it unconstituitonal for the States to make Ex Poste Facto law as well.</p><p></p><p>As for Gov't and Corp. being in league, many here from both sides would condemn the one while defending the other depending on the issue and I've tired to point out this fallcy from both sides and that under the guise of old European Merchantilism that now grips America, bothsides are co-equal partners and this Telecom immunity is again just the latest proof.</p><p></p><p>You many not like Murray Rothbard and I appreciate that but on this matter of Gov't-Business Partnetship I hope you will take a few minutes and read the article at the link on this very issue in light of this Telecome legislation.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://mises.org/econsense/ch51.asp" target="_blank">http://mises.org/econsense/ch51.asp</a></p><p></p><p>Jones, I consider you one of the few people here that even though you may not agree in total, you'll still get it.</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 368904, member: 2189"] [COLOR=black]Disagree Tie! The 4th amendment was written to protect the citizens of this country from gov't abuse. The men who wrote the 4th amendment had themselves been victimized by the British crown in this very area and understood the nature and power of unchecked gov't. IMHO saying the 4th amendment was written for criminals and therefore it should be done away with is like saying the 2nd amendment is to protect criminals so they can have access to guns so we should do away with that. [/COLOR] Today, the muslim faith is a growing religion so maybe we should modify or let's just eliminate the 1st amendment protections for freedom of religion. To many people say unkind things about other people and the way they live, some of these people have alternate lifestyles that mean and evil people publically condemn. Freedom of speech protects these evil people when they speak out so we should do away with the freedom of speech. Tie, be very careful in the box that you are so swift to open. [COLOR=black]Also we are looking at this issue from a personal basis but there is another side of it that we should consider what it's ramifications longterm might be.[/COLOR] [B][URL]https://web.archive.org/web/20081202142024/http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/itsonlyfair/latimes0390.html[/URL][/B] [COLOR=black]Tie, if Clinton and his gang had this surveil power back in there day, what do you think would have happened to much of what wrongs were exposed about them? You've got to look longterm and consider that down the road there will be politicians elected that them having these powers may not be a good thing after all. It's called unintended consequences.[/COLOR] Jones said: Good point Jones and this is exactly where Congress really violated their oath. Art. 1 Sec. 9 of the US Consitution sez that Congress "SHALL NOT" make any ex poste facto law. This means you can't criminalize an act yesterday when the commission of such as was legal but at the same time you can't take a criminal act yesterday and retroactive make it legal today. Art. 1 Sec. 10 makes it unconstituitonal for the States to make Ex Poste Facto law as well. As for Gov't and Corp. being in league, many here from both sides would condemn the one while defending the other depending on the issue and I've tired to point out this fallcy from both sides and that under the guise of old European Merchantilism that now grips America, bothsides are co-equal partners and this Telecom immunity is again just the latest proof. You many not like Murray Rothbard and I appreciate that but on this matter of Gov't-Business Partnetship I hope you will take a few minutes and read the article at the link on this very issue in light of this Telecome legislation. [URL='http://mises.org/econsense/ch51.asp'][COLOR=red][/COLOR][/URL] Jones, I consider you one of the few people here that even though you may not agree in total, you'll still get it. :wink2: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Democrats Today Will Kill Any & All Chance to Impeach Bush
Top