TWC Today Forums
Other => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bryan on January 03, 2012, 09:08:37 PM
-
Obama the tyrant. :hammer:
-
It would help if we knew what a Martial Law was and why it's significant...
-
From Wikipeida:
Martial law is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis—(usually) only temporary—when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, and provide essential services), when there are extensive riots and protests, or when the disobedience of the law becomes widespread.
Here are a few points that need to keep in mind:
1) Only a fraction of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 bill contains this, so the whole bill doesn't revolve around martial law.
2) Obama's not exactly thrilled about signing that bill for that exact part.
3) Expect that part of the law to be challenged and taken to the Supreme Court, as there are several arguments that this is a violation of the 4th amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
For those curious, this is the section Bryan is referring to, and the various other parts of the bill regarding increased power within the Executive Branch and the affect on U.S. citizens. I will speak no further on this matter.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may
include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009
(title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent
tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country
of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit
or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United
States.
-
Jeez that sucks
-
Would be nice if he believed in gay marriage...
-
Would be nice if he believed in gay marriage...
Why? And what does that have to do with this bill? :thinking:
-
Would be nice if he believed in gay marriage...
Wasn't that one of his campaign promises?
-
Would be nice if he believed in gay marriage...
Wasn't that one of his campaign promises?
I don't believe so...if anything I think he said he would consider supporting civil unions.
-
Would be nice if he believed in gay marriage...
Wasn't that one of his campaign promises?
I don't believe so...if anything I think he said he would consider supporting civil unions.
I got the impression same-sex merriage is a state issue. But anyway, what does this have to do with martial law?
-
Would be nice if he believed in gay marriage...
Wasn't that one of his campaign promises?
I don't believe so...if anything I think he said he would consider supporting civil unions.
I got the impression same-sex merriage is a state issue. But anyway, what does this have to do with martial law?
Quite frankly I don't see how civil rights should be a state issue. But that aside idk how we got off topic either lol. :dunno:
-
And aren't there more pressing issues than creating a "right" for less than 10% of the population? :wacko:
-
Would be nice if he believed in gay marriage...
Wasn't that one of his campaign promises?
I don't believe so...if anything I think he said he would consider supporting civil unions.
I got the impression same-sex merriage is a state issue. But anyway, what does this have to do with martial law?
Saying marriage is a state issue is like saying we should go back to having each state have their own currency.
-
Saying marriage is a state issue is like saying we should go back to having each state have their own currency.
You're absolutely right. I've always been somewhat okay with other states giving the green light (as long as I don't live in one). But when you really think about it, it's really a bad idea for individual states to change the rules of marriage.
-
And aren't there more pressing issues than creating a "right" for less than 10% of the population? :wacko:
I'm sure people said the same thing in the 1950s and 1960s, seeing as only 13% of the American population is black.
Also seeing as ten's of thousands of Americans don't have a basic right to get on their partners health insurance or visit them while their in the hospital or even claim them on their taxes solely based on some people's bias or religious views, I'd think that the issue would be toward the top of other issues. One issue most of this country seems to be all gun-ho about is voter rights for the supposed "voter fraud" problem we have, when in fact in most states there is next to no voter fruad. Just a waste of money and time creating pointless regulations.
I also agree with Tyler. There are many issues that should be left up to individual states, but marriage is not one of them.
But, I digress
-
And aren't there more pressing issues than creating a "right" for less than 10% of the population? :wacko:
I'm sure people said the same thing in the 1950s and 1960s, seeing as only 13% of the American population is black.
There's three big problems with that. One, being black doesn't hurt anyone, but engaging in homosexual activity does. Two, being black is not a choice, but engaging in homosexual activity is. There are plenty of former homosexuals, but no former blacks. Well, unless you count Michael Jackson. ;) And three, blacks were denied many of their fundamental rights. Currently, homosexuals are not being denied any rights. They have the same rights as the rest of us. What they're asking for are what I like to call "super rights." Rights that only apply to them. Atheists also want super rights. Actually, I think they already have them. There are lots of cases where an atheist got his/her wish of having a religious symbol taken down because it "offended" them, but no cases (that I know of) where a Christian won a case to have a religious symbol put up somewhere because they were "offended" that it wasn't there. :)
Also seeing as ten's of thousands of Americans don't have a basic right to get on their partners health insurance or visit them while their in the hospital or even claim them on their taxes solely based on some people's bias or religious views, I'd think that the issue would be toward the top of other issues. One issue most of this country seems to be all gun-ho about is voter rights for the supposed "voter fraud" problem we have, when in fact in most states there is next to no voter fruad. Just a waste of money and time creating pointless regulations.
One problem with that. Whether you go by God's laws or nature's, there is no universal "right" to health care. To the best of my knowledge, health care is mentioned no where in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. Just because a group of people desire to have something, doesn't make it a "right." If the government said yes to every desire of its citizens it would go broke and society would implode.
Voter fraud is a real problem. It affects both parties (though Democrats seem to be much better at it) and has been going on for decades. There are numerous documented cases where hundreds of votes were made by convicts and/or dead people. Whether you choose to look at the evidence or be ignorant is up to you.
-
I don't know about Nebraska but down here homosexuals have had no harm on heterosexuals. I lived across the street from a gay couple for ten years, I went to school with gays and I've even worked with gays and my life was by no means impacted simply because of one's sexuality. Also I don't know who told you homosexuality is a choice, but it isn't. Just because religion says and half of society thinks that relationships should be between opposite sexes does not make sexuality a choice. As for your 'super rights' only applying to them. It's rights that do not apply only to them. I'm no expert at the constitution and exactly what rights are in it, but I'm sure there are some that gays do not get to enjoy. At the very least it is discrimination. As for Atheists. I myself do not see why it offends some people if God is included in stuff. But at the same time I do not see why it should offend Christians if there are Muslim events or symbols and such. This is America, there are many, many different religions. Instead of hiding them because it offends someone we should just deal with others having different religions, or having no religion at all.
Also, I didn't say voter fraud wasn't a problem in this country, I said in most states it isn't a problem. I know in Kansas, in the past 10 years theres only been about a handful of voter fraud cases. And almost all of them were simply honest mistakes. I myself have no problem showing my ID to vote. And sure, if I wasn't already registered to vote I wouldn't mind spending $15 to get a replacement copy of my birth certificate (since mine was stolen years ago), and then registering to vote. But for some people they do not have that kind of money to get a copy of their birth certificate, or even an ID. If they are going to create these laws they need to provide provisions at no cost and in a way that is easy for the voters and won't deter them.
Anywho lol
:hammer: