Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum...
    You are currently logged out and viewing our forum as a guest which only allows limited access to our discussions, photos and other forum features. If you are a 12ozProphet Member please login to get the full experience.

    If you are not a 12ozProphet Member, please take a moment to register to gain full access to our website and all of its features. As a 12ozProphet Member you will be able to post comments, start discussions, communicate privately with other members and access members-only content. Registration is fast, simple and free, so join today and be a part of the largest and longest running Graffiti, Art, Style & Culture forum online.

    Please note, if you are a 12ozProphet Member and are locked out of your account, you can recover your account using the 'lost password' link in the login form. If you no longer have access to the email you registered with, please email us at [email protected] and we'll help you recover your account. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum (and don't forget to follow @12ozprophet in Instagram)!

American People Are Losing Their Rights.

Discussion in 'Channel Zero' started by chicken bone, Apr 12, 2003.

  1. chicken bone

    chicken bone Guest

    -
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108...:H.J.RES.11.IH:

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual... (Introduced in House)

    HJRES 11 IH


    108th CONGRESS

    1st Session

    H. J. RES. 11
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.


    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    January 7, 2003
    Mr. SERRANO introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    JOINT RESOLUTION
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.


    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

    `Article--

    `The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.'.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    - http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0316/hentoff.php

    Nat Hentoff
    Vanishing Liberties
    Where's the Press?
    April 11th, 2003 12:00 PM

    If Americans win a war (not just against Saddam Hussein but the longer-term struggle) and lose the Constitution, they will have lost everything. —Lance Morrow, Time, March 17

    On March 18, the Associated Press reported that at John Carroll University, in a Cleveland suburb, Justice Antonin Scalia said that "most of the rights you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires" because "the Constitution just sets minimums." Accordingly, in wartime, Scalia emphasized, "the protections will be ratcheted down to the constitutional minimum."

    I checked with the Supreme Court for a text of this ominous speech and was told Scalia didn't use a text that night, but the quotation appeared to be accurate. I said, would Justice Scalia let me know? My question was relayed, but I've heard nothing since.

    Most of the radical revisions of the Constitution that I and others have been writing about will ultimately be ruled on by the Supreme Court. Scalia indicates he will come down on the side of Bush and Ashcroft. A few days after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that as a result, we would have to give up some of our liberties. That's two of nine justices we are not likely to be able to depend on.

    And in his 1998 book, All the Laws but One: Civil Liberties in Wartime (Knopf/Vintage), the chief justice of the United States, William Rehnquist, admiringly quoted Francis Biddle, Franklin D. Roosevelt's attorney general: "The Constitution has not greatly bothered any wartime president." And Rehnquist himself, who will be presiding over the constitutionality of the Bush-Ashcroft assaults on the Constitution, wrote in the same book:

    "In time of war, presidents may act in ways that push their legal authority to its outer limits, if not beyond." (Emphasis added.) And writing of Lincoln's suspending habeas corpus during the Civil War, Rehnquist said, "It is difficult to quarrel with this decision."

    Reacting to Rehnquist's deference to the executive branch in previous wars, Adam Cohen, legal affairs writer for The New York Times, wrote: "The people whose liberties are taken away are virtually invisible" in the pages of Rehnquist's book.

    Meanwhile, in an invaluable new report by the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, "Imbalance of Powers: How Changes to U.S. Law and Policy Since 9/11 Erode Human Rights and Civil Liberties" (available by calling 212-845-5200), a section begins: "A mantle of secrecy continues to envelop the executive branch, largely with the acquiescence of Congress and the courts. [This] makes effective oversight impossible, upsetting the constitutional system of checks and balances."

    So where is the oversight going to come from? If at all, first from the people pressuring Congress—provided enough of us know what is happening to our rights and liberties. And that requires, as James Madison said, a vigorous press, because the press has been, he noted, "the beneficent source to which the United States owes much of the light which conducted [us] to the ranks of a free and independent nation."

    But the media, with few exceptions, are failing to report consistently, and in depth, precisely how Bush and Ashcroft are undermining our fundamental individual liberties.

    For example, in writing here about the Justice Department's proposed sequel to the Patriot Act (titled inoffensively the Domestic Security Enhancement Act), I noted that it had been kept secret from Congress. A week before it was leaked by an understandably anonymous member of Ashcroft's staff, a representative of the Justice Department even lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee about its very existence.

    A few sections in that chilling 86-page draft were briefly covered in some of the media. But as I predicted after providing more details here ("Ashcroft Out of Control" and "Red Alert for the Bill of Rights"), these invasions of the Constitution were only a one- or two-day story in nearly all of the media.

    How many Americans know that if the bill is passed (and Bush certainly won't veto it), they can be stripped of their citizenship if charged with giving "material support" to a group designated by the government as "terrorist"? Sending a check for the outfit's lawful activities—without knowing why it landed on Ashcroft's list—could make you a person without a country and put you behind bars here indefinitely. As Chief Justice Earl Warren said, "you lose the right to have rights" when you lose your citizenship.

    How many Americans know that the FBI can get a warrant from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and go to a library or bookstore to find out what books you read or borrow if you are somehow, according to the FBI, connected to "terrorism"?

    In the First Amendment Center's "Legal Watch" newsletter (March 11-17), Charles Haynes writes that "a warning sign greets patrons entering all 10 of the county libraries in Santa Cruz, California." It says: "Beware, a record of the books you borrow may end up in the hands of the FBI. And if the FBI requests your records, librarians are prohibited by law from telling you about it." The message to the readers ends: "Questions about this policy should be directed to Attorney General John Ashcroft, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530."

    Librarians—and bookstore owners—are also forbidden by this section of the law from telling the press of these visits by the FBI to inform John Ashcroft of what people on the list of suspects are reading.

    I've checked with the American Library Association and am told that very few other libraries are warning their patrons to be cautious about which books they ask for. Shouldn't the press spread the news of this risk more widely?

    And I've seen little in the media about a bill, "The Freedom to Read Protection Act of 2003," introduced in the House by Bernie Sanders (Independent, Vermont) that prevents the government from "searching for, or seizing from, a bookseller or library . . . materials that contain personally identifiable information concerning a patron of a bookseller or library." Under the bill, a higher standard than mere FBI suspicion will be required.

    How many of you know the answer Assistant Attorney General Daniel J. Bryant sent Democratic senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont about our expectation of privacy in bookstores and libraries?

    "Any [such] right of privacy," says the Justice Department, "is necessarily and inherently limited since . . . the patron is reposing that information in the library or bookstore and assumes the risk that the entity may disclose it to another."

    Have you ever assumed that the librarian or bookstore owner has a right to bypass your First Amendment right to read what you choose by telling "another" (the FBI) whether you read, for example, the Voice? Senator Leahy's office made that Justice Department letter available to the press. Have you seen it before now?
     
  2. seeking

    seeking Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: May 25, 2000 Messages: 32,277 Likes Received: 234
    im moving to switzerland, fuck yall sheep.
     
  3. oldenglish

    oldenglish Banned

    Joined: Apr 3, 2003 Messages: 1,308 Likes Received: 0
  4. oldenglish

    oldenglish Banned

    Joined: Apr 3, 2003 Messages: 1,308 Likes Received: 0
    read the link.

    thoughts anyone?
     
  5. Smart

    Smart Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: Apr 14, 2000 Messages: 17,017 Likes Received: 175
    well, I didn't read it all but there seems to be some issue with this... I'll read it later to find out exactly how this is a bad thing that will erode my rights but... Term limits for Presidents have only been in effect since the end of WWII or so...
     
  6. chicken bone

    chicken bone Guest

  7. Smart

    Smart Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: Apr 14, 2000 Messages: 17,017 Likes Received: 175
    well, I still can't figure out the problem with not having term limits is but... I've said since it's inception that the Homeland Security act was the blueprint for a policestate, so I don't see how that's news either, but maybe some of these Anti-war protesters could put their effort towards this issue, instead of letting the US Govt decend into the shadow dictatorship they are so quick to accuse it of already being...
     
  8. chicken bone

    chicken bone Guest

    Did you read the Village Voice article below it as well? It covers a different topic.
     
  9. Smart

    Smart Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: Apr 14, 2000 Messages: 17,017 Likes Received: 175
    nope... are you seeing the inherent problems involved with starting a thread about 3 topics?
     
  10. chicken bone

    chicken bone Guest

    :( dude, you should read it anyway..
     
  11. Smart

    Smart Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: Apr 14, 2000 Messages: 17,017 Likes Received: 175
    Well, I don't care if they know what I read... it won't be a problem until they start using it against me. A bookstore is not a lawyer or a doctor, there is no right to privacy there and never has been. I am more concerned with the larger picture, when they are tracking all of your spending. This gives them the IRS as another weapon in their arsenal, as well as more fodder to paint a broad picture of any 'terrorist' sympathy.
     
  12. Kes_One_HTFD

    Kes_One_HTFD Member

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002 Messages: 659 Likes Received: 0
    this means that Bill Clinton (the closest thing to a black president were gonna have) can come back!!! Anybody knows whatever happened to that show Thats My Bush on comedy central? that was a dope show.
     
  13. willy.wonka

    willy.wonka Guest

    which of the american presidents said "its good for a country to have a revolution every once in a while." ?
     
  14. Smart

    Smart Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: Apr 14, 2000 Messages: 17,017 Likes Received: 175
    I dunno... but I have recently been trading quotes with a friend of mine via email...

    The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any. - Alice Walker

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote! - Benjamin Franklin

    He who allows oppression, shares the crime. - Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles Darwin

    The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. - Winston Churchill

    People always have been and they always will be stupid victims of deceit and self-deception in politics. - V. I. Lenin

    Justice will only exist where those not effected by injustice are filled with the same amount of indignation as those offended. - Plato

    It is not only for what we do that we are held responsible, but also for what we do not do. - Moliere

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies. - Groucho Marx

    Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been - Winston Churchill
     
  15. chicken bone

    chicken bone Guest

    That would be Thomas Jefferson if I'm not mistaken.
     
Top