Guest chicken bone Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 - 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for ratification: `Article-- `The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.'.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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 im moving to switzerland, fuck yall sheep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldenglish Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 http://www.theweeklyinformant.com/stfcover.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldenglish Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 read the link. thoughts anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chicken bone Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chicken bone Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Did you read the Village Voice article below it as well? It covers a different topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 nope... are you seeing the inherent problems involved with starting a thread about 3 topics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chicken bone Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 :( dude, you should read it anyway.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Originally posted by chicken bone "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? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes_One_HTFD Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest willy.wonka Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 which of the american presidents said "its good for a country to have a revolution every once in a while." ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chicken bone Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Originally posted by willy.wonka which of the american presidents said "its good for a country to have a revolution every once in a while." ? That would be Thomas Jefferson if I'm not mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaBar Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 If I am not mistaken, what Thomas Jefferson actually wrote is: "The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time by the blood of tyrants and patriots." I agree that our Constitutional liberties are at grave risk. I think it's pretty amazing that teenagers and young people on a GRAFFITTI WRITERS' MESSAGE BOARD are interested and concerned about it. The Constitutionalist movement has been screaming bloody murder about this ever since the Homeland Security Administration began talking about backing bills permitting greater legal leeway for domestic surveillance. READ THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS. I think our rights are worth fighting for. We still live in a Constitutional republic. We must hold our elected officials responsible politically for the decisions they make and the political actions they do. I do not believe that the HSA needs to abrogate the Bill of Rights to hunt terrorists. Make your voice heard, and be effective. Cursing and acting crazy will not help. Be responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLIK$ Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 funny you bring that website up, i had to do a fucking term paper on a bill from that site for a government course. Check out HR 356... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chicken bone Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Hmm I agree with you. And about the quote, I know it was either Jefferson or Adams or one of those guys involved with the constitution. Maybe Lincoln. Anyhoo the quote was half-remembered from some vague US History class where I was quite possibly (and most likely) falling into daydreams. Well a year ago anyways... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldenglish Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 if your responding to my post, please go in detail about the bill your speaking of. i read that website and dont really know how to react. Originally posted by Glik0 funny you bring that website up, i had to do a fucking term paper on a bill from that site for a government course. Check out HR 356... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLIK$ Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 The bill I was speaking of is named The Terrorist Elimination Act of 2003. The bill is designed to give the intelligence agencies and armed forces the ability to more "quickly, accurately, and effectively" eliminate a terrorist threat to the United States of America by revoking executive orders issued by past presidents... They're talking about giving government the right to assassinate whomever they perceive as a terrorist threat... oh aslong as no other actions can take care of the matter. You can thank Congressman Terry Everett of Alabama's Second District for this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldenglish Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 huh, so they are trying to make it legal to execute people within certian agencys. great. i so want to get the fuck out of this country for the next 10 years. seriously, either we are gonna get taken over like some bitches or there is going to be a bloody civil war real soon. did anybody else read the 24 chapters off the link? or do you just prefer to remain bentover while we get it up the ass with no lube real unfriendly like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldenglish Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 oh and by the way, out of no where prejiduce w. butcher has decidided to support assault rifle bans. wheres kabar on this one? i was told by a freind a while ago that shit is about to pop off. personally, i dont give a fuck, i mean i do cause our goverment has sunk to the level of killing its own citizens, but what the fuck is going on? ok. im out. peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLIK$ Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Originally posted by oldenglish huh, so they are trying to make it legal to execute people within certian agencys. No theyre TRYING to make it legal for the armed forces and intelligence agencies to assassinate foreingers who pose a threat to US security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_gooch Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 http://www.erikssonstunnbrod.se/max/seal3.jpg'> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fondles Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 according to my local police , i didn't have any rights to lose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iloveboxcars Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Originally posted by Kes_One_HTFD 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. sigh, what this means is, if this passes, Bush is going to be the president for the rest of his natural born life. he got into office illegally and im sure he could find a way to stay there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.