Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Holder on Banning Home Schooling


  • Please log in to reply
169 replies to this topic

#121    WoIverine

WoIverine

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,719 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:08 PM

View Postaztek, on 14 February 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

you can't really brainwash home schooled kids that don't go to public school, all the wonderfull things they are tought in schols, like calling 911 if parents are punishing you. among other things. what will happen to our country if a missbehaving kids looses his right to be imune from punishment, omg.
my friend's kid called cops 3 times on them cuz he was not getting what he wanted, nasty litte f..ck. he was thought that in school,  and the sadest part is, no one tells him it is wrong, even cops, so he keeps doing it, and feels like he won, and has power over parents, and it is true

Parents should just call DCF themselves and stick his little ass in a foster home for a while. They can even have him committed to a psych ward, via the baker act. He can't legally sign himself out until 18. After a month or two of there...his ways will change. Sometimes kids do need tough love when they get that far out of line. They need a dose of the real world because they don't appreciate how good things actually are while living with mom and dad.

Edited by WoIverine, 19 February 2013 - 05:14 PM.


#122    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,001 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 19 February 2013 - 11:51 PM

View Postpreacherman76, on 19 February 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

Ha. Youd have to be under the assumption that the SC is always interested in upholding the constitution. No branch of government is really interested in obeying the constitution anymore.

In your opinion. Mine - not so much.

If all three independent branches of government really are out to get you, then you're pretty stuffed, I'd imagine. Best of luck with that.


Quote

The constitution is pretty basic. The only ones who say otherwise are the folks who dont like what it has to say.

I think it's obvious from just this thread that people's interpretation of the constitution into a legal framework wildly differs, regardless of how basic it is.


Quote

Unless of course those state regulations are unconstitutional. And of course they are.

I'm intrigued - why do you think that all three independent branches of government as well as the fifty states,are knowingly acting unconstitutionally?


Quote

Then bring on the opressed. Or even better, maybe its time to go to war with Germany like we do with all the other freedom haters. Oh wait, they dont have any oil.

I still suspect imminent preemptive regime change. I've recently seen several top secret CIA reports that German public school kids have rulers, protractors and compasses - which are all, obviously, weapons of Maths Construction.


"What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" - Tiggs vs PA - Did Jesus Really exist? - The Formal Debate:
HERE
Posted Image


#123    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Humble Servent

  • Member
  • 10,756 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Parts Unknown

Posted 20 February 2013 - 11:57 AM

View PostTiggs, on 19 February 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

In your opinion. Mine - not so much.

If all three independent branches of government really are out to get you, then you're pretty stuffed, I'd imagine. Best of luck with that.

I wish it was a matter of opinion. Today our government can spy on you, torcher you, indefinitly detain you, strike your home with a drone, and out right put a bullet in your head with no due process. Not only cant you show me in the constitution where they are granted these powers, but I can show you directly where it says they cant. And lets not even get into all the countries we bomb daily with no clear threat to Americans and no declaration of war provided by congress. Youd have to have a pretty wild imagination to believe the constitution is ok with any of this. And we are only scratching the surface.

Quote


I think it's obvious from just this thread that people's interpretation of the constitution into a legal framework wildly differs, regardless of how basic it is.

They have spent a great deal of time and effort to shape those differeing opinions. Thats cause they dont want you to believe it says what it says. I challange you to show me in the constitution how any single one of the points Ive made here where opinions can differ upon reading it. Best of luck with that.





Quote


I'm intrigued - why do you think that all three independent branches of government as well as the fifty states,are knowingly acting unconstitutionally?
The constitution restrains government power. They dont want to be restrained while flexing thier authority over the people. Much in the same way a dog doesnt want to be held back by a leash. Even though the leash helps to protect everyone around the animal. Power corupts, everytime, without fail.





Quote


I still suspect imminent preemptive regime change. I've recently seen several top secret CIA reports that German public school kids have rulers, protractors and compasses - which are all, obviously, weapons of Maths Construction.
Touche, LOL

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#124    keithisco

keithisco

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,740 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rincon de Loix, Benidorm

Posted 20 February 2013 - 01:20 PM

View PostTiggs, on 17 February 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

No. It's something that the States have individually agreed to allow, to greater or lesser degrees. In California, for example, you need to be a registered private school, preferably with a teaching credential issued by the State of California.

Besides which - people are missing the point entirely.

Holder has two choices - either defend the position that homeschooling is not a fundamental human right or rubberstamping the entire population of Germany's eligibility for legal asylum within the US on the basis that their government's restrictions on home schooling are a human right's violation.

Plus every other country in the world following the German model.

It's all fun and games until 500 million immigrants arrive, citing homeschooling human right's violation as to why they can not be denied US residency.

Not strictly accurate Tiggs (although I agree with the thrust of the rest of your arguments)

You can Home-School in the UK, but there are checks and balances to ensure that the kids are reaching an expected level of education. It is banned (probably but unclear) in Spain, but that ban didn't stop me and my wife from home - schooling our daughter whilst between schools, had any attempt been made to do so then I certainly WOULD have threatened to bring a Violation of Human Rights case before the courts. In fact 24 European Countries allow homeschooling based on specific Regulations (as there should be).

I think that long - term home - schooling is more to do with Parents' own Ego and self - importance, much less to do with the welfare of their children, and even less to do with their Children integrating into a Society.

Is this the best thing for a child? In exceptional circumstances then most certainly it is, but for the vast majority of home - schooled kids then NO. IMO

Edited by keithisco, 20 February 2013 - 01:25 PM.


#125    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,001 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 20 February 2013 - 01:42 PM

View Postpreacherman76, on 20 February 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

I wish it was a matter of opinion. Today our government can spy on you, torcher you, indefinitly detain you, strike your home with a drone, and out right put a bullet in your head with no due process. Not only cant you show me in the constitution where they are granted these powers, but I can show you directly where it says they cant.

...

They have spent a great deal of time and effort to shape those differeing opinions. Thats cause they dont want you to believe it says what it says. I challange you to show me in the constitution how any single one of the points Ive made here where opinions can differ upon reading it. Best of luck with that.

Challenge accepted. Let's start with infinite detention:

Article One Section Nine Clause Two:

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

I read that as infinite detention is legal under the constitution under certain conditions. It was suspended during the civil war, for example, and immediately after Pearl Harbor.

Opinions can obviously differ as to whether a sustained terror campaign would count as a case of invasion. I don't recall the Japanese landing troops at Pearl Harbor, for example.


Quote

The constitution restrains government power. They dont want to be restrained while flexing thier authority over the people. Much in the same way a dog doesnt want to be held back by a leash. Even though the leash helps to protect everyone around the animal. Power corupts, everytime, without fail.

Interesting. So - basically - you believe all forms of American government, from Federal to State - are corrupt.

If that were true, then the Constitution's checks and balances have failed. I believe otherwise.

In the specific case of homeschooling, for example, I believe that the State is enforcing a child's right to receive a basic education, which protects them from the type of parents who have absolutely no intention of teaching their children anything.

You'll find that a child's right to education appears in all of the State constitutions.


"What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" - Tiggs vs PA - Did Jesus Really exist? - The Formal Debate:
HERE
Posted Image


#126    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,001 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 20 February 2013 - 02:21 PM

View Postkeithisco, on 20 February 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

Not strictly accurate Tiggs (although I agree with the thrust of the rest of your arguments)

You can Home-School in the UK, but there are checks and balances to ensure that the kids are reaching an expected level of education. It is banned (probably but unclear) in Spain, but that ban didn't stop me and my wife from home - schooling our daughter whilst between schools, had any attempt been made to do so then I certainly WOULD have threatened to bring a Violation of Human Rights case before the courts. In fact 24 European Countries allow homeschooling based on specific Regulations (as there should be).

Whoops. Bad phrasing on my part - I wasn't attempting to argue that every other country followed the German model - but that the US would leave itself open to asylum applications from every other country that did have heavy restrictions on home schooling, i.e., the German model.


Quote

I think that long - term home - schooling is more to do with Parents' own Ego and self - importance, much less to do with the welfare of their children, and even less to do with their Children integrating into a Society.

Is this the best thing for a child? In exceptional circumstances then most certainly it is, but for the vast majority of home - schooled kids then NO. IMO

To be honest - I don't really know enough about it to draw any solid conclusions. My gut feel is that it'll be widely different from country to country and from family to family.

I worry that children may miss out on general socialization, and that the pool of knowledge found within a group of teachers is far greater than that within the average married couple. On the other hand - there's the Internet - and the ability of a parent to give a child focused individual attention is much better than the attention they would get from a teacher handling a class of students.

Plus, you're going to have a hard time getting the "My dog ate the homework" excuse past your mum, I guess.


"What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" - Tiggs vs PA - Did Jesus Really exist? - The Formal Debate:
HERE
Posted Image


#127    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Humble Servent

  • Member
  • 10,756 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Parts Unknown

Posted 20 February 2013 - 02:28 PM

View PostTiggs, on 20 February 2013 - 01:42 PM, said:

Challenge accepted. Let's start with infinite detention:

Article One Section Nine Clause Two:

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

I read that as infinite detention is legal under the constitution under certain conditions. It was suspended during the civil war, for example, and immediately after Pearl Harbor.

Opinions can obviously differ as to whether a sustained terror campaign would count as a case of invasion. I don't recall the Japanese landing troops at Pearl Harbor, for example.


I wasnt aware martial law had been declared, and the suspention of constitutional rights had been implemented? Certainly nothing as grand as a civil war or a pearl harbor situation has happened. And I certainly dont understand what Americans have to do with some islamic extremists in caves thousands of miles away that aledgely attacked us 12 years ago? They certainly havent brought forth any proof that there is a clear and present danger from our fellow citizans. Article One Section Nine Clause Two of the constitution in no way could be considered relevent to what is happening right now. And if it was there would be no need for the revision of NDAA, which gives the president these new powers in spite of the fact that habeas corpus has not official been declared suspended. Again, you might feel the government is with its powers to denie a person due process, but you are flat out wrong. And that is not a opinion, that is a fact. To be honest, coming from a person who is suppose to understand a individuals right to freedom, im litteraly horrified you find this acceptable. I mean what if for some reason they decided YOU are the new terrorist. Even though you have done nothing wrong what so ever. You dont think it would be a injustice to the extreme if you couldnt even have your day in court? They just grab you in the middle of the night, throw you in a cell, and throw away the key. They dont even have to explain to your family where you are, why you were taken, or that they even know anything about you at all. You honestly believe that should be the guildlines, or the standard we have for the country?

Quote


Interesting. So - basically - you believe all forms of American government, from Federal to State - are corrupt.

If that were true, then the Constitution's checks and balances have failed. I believe otherwise.

In the specific case of homeschooling, for example, I believe that the State is enforcing a child's right to receive a basic education, which protects them from the type of parents who have absolutely no intention of teaching their children anything.

You'll find that a child's right to education appears in all of the State constitutions.

But I agree that a child has a right to be educated. Like any freedom, if one is found to not be responcible with thier right to home school, then that right should be removed. Not for the collective, but for the individual. A state has the authority to make sure kids are being educated. But they dont hold a monopoly on providing it.

Edited by preacherman76, 20 February 2013 - 02:31 PM.

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#128    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 20 February 2013 - 02:30 PM

Now thanks to the NDAA amendment, we no longer need to argue about what Habeas means or whether there has been an invasion or rebellion.  By fiat, the government has suspended Habeas.

Nor do we need to worry about exactly what "due process" means, as our trusty Attorney General has redefined it for modern america, and has declared that it does NOT require a judge.  He has told us that the Unitary Executive can provide due process, rather as Nixon was trying to say.  If the President does it, it is legal.


#129    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,001 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 20 February 2013 - 04:38 PM

View Postpreacherman76, on 20 February 2013 - 02:28 PM, said:

I wasnt aware martial law had been declared, and the suspention of constitutional rights had been implemented? Certainly nothing as grand as a civil war or a pearl harbor situation has happened. And I certainly dont understand what Americans have to do with some islamic extremists in caves thousands of miles away that aledgely attacked us 12 years ago? They certainly havent brought forth any proof that there is a clear and present danger from our fellow citizans. Article One Section Nine Clause Two of the constitution in no way could be considered relevent to what is happening right now.
In your opinion. In mine - not so much.

The dead from 9/11 actually outnumber the dead from Pearl Harbor. I see them both as being surprise declarations of war.

You obviously don't. Same clause, different perceptions.


Quote

And if it was there would be no need for the revision of NDAA, which gives the president these new powers in spite of the fact that habeas corpus has not official been declared suspended.
The new powers which the President specifically disavowed in his signing statement. The new powers which the judiciary are already working on suspending.

The system of government has inbuilt checks and balances.


Quote

Again, you might feel the government is with its powers to denie a person due process, but you are flat out wrong. And that is not a opinion, that is a fact. To be honest, coming from a person who is suppose to understand a individuals right to freedom, im litteraly horrified you find this acceptable. I mean what if for some reason they decided YOU are the new terrorist. Even though you have done nothing wrong what so ever. You dont think it would be a injustice to the extreme if you couldnt even have your day in court? They just grab you in the middle of the night, throw you in a cell, and throw away the key. They dont even have to explain to your family where you are, why you were taken, or that they even know anything about you at all. [/size][size=4]You honestly believe that should be the guildlines, or the standard we have for the country?
Quite obviously, no-one in their right mind would want to be disappeared.

However - the suspension of Habeas Corpus is obviously Constitutional under certain circumstances, regardless of how much anyone might personally find it unacceptable.  Given that that's the case - it's those circumstances that we're discussing, not it's general acceptability.


Quote

But I agree that a child has a right to be educated. Like any freedom, if one is found to not be responcible with thier right to home school, then that right should be removed. Not for the collective, but for the individual. A state has the authority to make sure kids are being educated. But they dont hold a monoploy on providing it.

Which, you'll possibly be glad to hear, is also the Supreme Court's position.

However - none of that would stop the Federal government from limiting home schooling further if it deemed it necessary to perform it's enumerated powers, however ridiculously unlikely that would be.


"What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" - Tiggs vs PA - Did Jesus Really exist? - The Formal Debate:
HERE
Posted Image


#130    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Humble Servent

  • Member
  • 10,756 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Parts Unknown

Posted 20 February 2013 - 06:52 PM

View PostTiggs, on 20 February 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

In your opinion. In mine - not so much.

The dead from 9/11 actually outnumber the dead from Pearl Harbor. I see them both as being surprise declarations of war.

You obviously don't. Same clause, different perceptions.


That was 12 years ago. And martial law was never declared cause of it. And on top of that, the detention of Japanese Americans is considered a dark page in American history that should have NEVER been done. Its right up there with slavery. Considering the Japanese people where forced into labor camps, its not only right up there with slavery, it is on par. Even the evil scum bag GWB was making those detention centers in to museum's so we never forget the injustice commited to those people. You obviously have no problem stripping Americans of thier freedoms cause of a outside threat that had nothing to do with us. Me not so much.



Quote


The new powers which the President specifically disavowed in his signing statement. The new powers which the judiciary are already working on suspending.

The system of government has inbuilt checks and balances.
LOL, yea this man actualy thinks we (aparently some of us are) are dumb enough to believe him when he disavowed the new powers, thinking we had already forgoten that he was specificaly calling for those powers long before this new version of NDAA came out. Even said he wanted these powers, to detain torcher and or kill Americans "with in the rule of law". Even Rachel Maddow of all people was amazed at his odacity. No we had checks and balances when a man was given due process. That Sir has been thrown out the window.



Quote


Quite obviously, no-one in their right mind would want to be disappeared.

However - the suspension of Habeas Corpus is obviously Constitutional under certain circumstances, regardless of how much anyone might personally find it unacceptable.  Given that that's the case - it's those circumstances that we're discussing, not it's general acceptability.

But habeas corpus hasnt been suspended. Nor has martial law been declared. Yet our president can take out anyone he wants to without having to answer to anyone.




Quote


Which, you'll possibly be glad to hear, is also the Supreme Court's position.

However - none of that would stop the Federal government from limiting home schooling further if it deemed it necessary to perform it's enumerated powers, however ridiculously unlikely that would be.

Well lets just lay it out on the table then. Its your belief that the federal government can do what ever it wants, when ever it wants to? That it isnt by and for the people, but more that they are our over lords. They are royalty above any and all laws meant to protect us from them. That might be just fine with you. Me, not so much.

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#131    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 20 February 2013 - 07:32 PM

Quote

The dead from 9/11 actually outnumber the dead from Pearl Harbor. I see them both as being surprise declarations of war.

9/11 turned out to be a blank check to do what we want in any country we choose..Suprising we were attacked by mostly radical Saudis but chose to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Very fuzzy war thats turned out to be....which since has been expanded to over a dozen countries by my best estimate.

Pearl Harbor was a Declaration of War against us that led to America entering WW2 on the side of the Allies.


#132    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,001 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 20 February 2013 - 08:34 PM

View Postpreacherman76, on 20 February 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:

That was 12 years ago. And martial law was never declared cause of it.
What make's you think that Martial Law and Habeas Corpus are necessarily linked?


Quote

You obviously have no problem stripping Americans of thier freedoms cause of a outside threat that had nothing to do with us. Me not so much.
So it wasn't people who were living in America flying those planes into the Towers?

What do you believe the fundamental difference is between  a terrorist living in America on a green card and a terrorist who's had a green card for two years and has become an American citizen?

Because I don't see that there is one.


Quote

LOL, yea this man actualy thinks we (aparently some of us are) are dumb enough to believe him when he disavowed the new powers, thinking we had already forgoten that he was specificaly calling for those powers long before this new version of NDAA came out. Even said he wanted these powers, to detain torcher and or kill Americans "with in the rule of law". Even Rachel Maddow of all people was amazed at his odacity. No we had checks and balances when a man was given due process. That Sir has been thrown out the window.
Interesting. Perhaps you could evidence your claim that the Obama administration has specifically asked Congress for the necessary power to torture American citizens, as I'm certainly unaware of any such requests.

While you're looking for that - perhaps you could also evidence some known instances of American Citizens that have actually been held under the NDAA legislation? Again - as far as I'm aware, there's not a single attested case.


Quote

But habeas corpus hasnt been suspended. Nor has martial law been declared. Yet our president can take out anyone he wants to without having to answer to anyone.
The President is as impeachable as he's ever been. Nor are missile strikes against terrorist targets a new thing. I'm fairly sure that the F11's sent in to Libya weren't carrying Nerf guns back in the Reagan days, either.

Quote

Well lets just lay it out on the table then. Its your belief that the federal government can do what ever it wants, when ever it wants to?
No. I believe that the Federal government's powers are necessarily limited to those enumerated within the US Constitution. I believe the chances of Congress successfully legislating a ban against homeschooling by directly linking homeschooling with impeding it's ability to perform one of those powers is roughly as probable as all of the oxygen molecules in a room landing up in a single corner.

However - if we're talking theoretically - and we are - then, theoretically, sure.


"What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" - Tiggs vs PA - Did Jesus Really exist? - The Formal Debate:
HERE
Posted Image


#133    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 21 February 2013 - 08:05 PM

The Unitary Executive is going to ASK Congress for torture power?  :w00t:   That's very funny.


#134    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Humble Servent

  • Member
  • 10,756 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Parts Unknown

Posted 22 February 2013 - 03:15 PM

View PostTiggs, on 20 February 2013 - 08:34 PM, said:

What make's you think that Martial Law and Habeas Corpus are necessarily linked?

What makes you think they are not? You need serious muscle to impose martial law. I highly doubt they will just hope that the people lay down for them.


Quote


So it wasn't people who were living in America flying those planes into the Towers?

What do you believe the fundamental difference is between  a terrorist living in America on a green card and a terrorist who's had a green card for two years and has become an American citizen?

Because I don't see that there is one.

None of the highjackers were citizans. On top of that, they were being watched. Heck 2 of them had a FBI informant for a land lord. If the cost of immigrants becoming citizans meas I have to have fewer rights, then the answer to that is obvious. Dont allow them to be here.



Quote


Interesting. Perhaps you could evidence your claim that the Obama administration has specifically asked Congress for the necessary power to torture American citizens, as I'm certainly unaware of any such requests.


He asked for the power to indefinitly detain Americans. Exactly what he said he'd never do after NDAA came out.


Which of course lead to NDAA where he can torcher,and or kill anyone.




Quote


While you're looking for that - perhaps you could also evidence some known instances of American Citizens that have actually been held under the NDAA legislation? Again - as far as I'm aware, there's not a single attested case.

This would prove to be much more difficult as any arrest made would fall under national security, and we little people are not priviledged enough to know about such things. In fact that was the entire point. They can now eliminate anyone they want, without having to answer to anyone.



Quote


The President is as impeachable as he's ever been. Nor are missile strikes against terrorist targets a new thing. I'm fairly sure that the F11's sent in to Libya weren't carrying Nerf guns back in the Reagan days, either.
If he was impeachable, he would have been for engaging in war undeclared by congress. Hell we were on the side of the terrorist in Lybia, and AlCIAda flies thier flag on government buildings in Lybia today.




Quote


No. I believe that the Federal government's powers are necessarily limited to those enumerated within the US Constitution. I believe the chances of Congress successfully legislating a ban against homeschooling by directly linking homeschooling with impeding it's ability to perform one of those powers is roughly as probable as all of the oxygen molecules in a room landing up in a single corner.

However - if we're talking theoretically - and we are - then, theoretically, sure.

According to your thoery, which part of the constitution would allow for them to ban home schooling?

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#135    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,001 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 22 February 2013 - 08:12 PM

View Postpreacherman76, on 22 February 2013 - 03:15 PM, said:

What makes you think they are not?
Other than they're totally legally unrelated and, historically, one has not required the other?


Quote

None of the highjackers were citizans. On top of that, they were being watched. Heck 2 of them had a FBI informant for a land lord. If the cost of immigrants becoming citizans meas I have to have fewer rights, then the answer to that is obvious. Dont allow them to be here.
So - you want to ban all future immigrants to the United States and presumably revoke anyone's permanent residency or citizenship granted during the last decade and deport us?

All 24 million of us (including myself)? That's your plan, is it?

Newsflash. Terrorists are not limited by their nationality, regardless of how much that might impact on your convenience to identify them.


Quote

He asked for the power to indefinitly detain Americans. Exactly what he said he'd never do after NDAA came out. Which of course lead to NDAA where he can torcher,and or kill anyone.
The NDAA doesn't grant the power to torture or kill anyone.

Again - the Obama administration has never asked Congress for the necessary power to torture American citizens, nor has it been granted it.


Quote

This would prove to be much more difficult as any arrest made would fall under national security, and we little people are not priviledged enough to know about such things. In fact that was the entire point. They can now eliminate anyone they want, without having to answer to anyone.

Last time I checked, freedom of the press was still guaranteed, regardless of whether or not something was deemed by the Government to be a national security issue.

So. Do you have any instances, or not?


Quote

If he was impeachable, he would have been for engaging in war undeclared by congress.

The President is impeachable. However, you'll need to find an actual legitimate reason to do so. Enforcing a no-fly zone which the US Senate had previously and unanimously passed a resolution asking the UN to create - probably not so much.


Quote

According to your thoery, which part of the constitution would allow for them to ban home schooling?

Article 1, Section 8, clause 18. That, and over two hundred years of legal case history, starting with George Washington.

Edited by Tiggs, 22 February 2013 - 08:13 PM.


"What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" - Tiggs vs PA - Did Jesus Really exist? - The Formal Debate:
HERE
Posted Image





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users