Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
OverSword

Holder on Banning Home Schooling

170 posts in this topic

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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]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.

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8J_lcHwkvc

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

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.

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.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you think they are not?

Other than they're totally legally unrelated and, historically, one has not required the other?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George Washington set a wonderful example of hypocrisy as our first President. Thank the Gods for John Adams.

http://www.ttb.gov/public_info/whisky_rebellion.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than they're totally legally unrelated and, historically, one has not required the other?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

Sir, the Obama administration has clearly demonstrated that it embraces completely the notion of The Unitary Executive, as defined and exemplified by the Bush Administration. Within the powers usurped by that specious notion is what John Yoo and his liked to call Enhanced Interrogation Techniques.

Thus, Bush did not ask Congress IF it could practice such techniques, it just did as it pleased, in accordance with the Unitary Executive.

So, if Obama through NDAA can hold somebody in violation of Habeas, they can damn well practice such techniques. That is part of the UE mantra. The Executive branch don't need no stinkin' congressional OR judicial oversight. We live in the era of the enlightened and beneficent Unitary Executive. :yes:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sir,

At which point - I lost all interest in reading the rest of your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Tiggs but I gotta call you out on that one. Thats a bit closed minded for a discussion forum. Like has been brought up to myself even by other mods we are here to discuss which includes listening. If you had nothing to say regarding a post I imagine nothing could have been said.

But thank you Im going to consider the modicum of decorum when it comes to responding to posters we may not agree with or dislike and use that to carry forward with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Tiggs but I gotta call you out on that one. Thats a bit closed minded for a discussion forum. Like has been brought up to myself even by other mods we are here to discuss which includes listening.

I think that the usage of "sir" as a honorific in this day and age - and in particular - in this place - is obviously mocking.

I'm rather tired of being constantly flamebaited by those who disagree with me, and I completely reserve the right to end discussion with anyone not willing to hold a civil conversation.

If you had nothing to say regarding a post I imagine nothing could have been said.

In a civil discussion, I'd have pointed to Obama's second executive order - the one that specifically gave instructions to override any prior authorization of enhanced interrogation techniques issued by the Bush Administration.

It should be blindingly obvious to everyone that just because another president authorized those techniques in the past is no indication that every president following after him will do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm rather tired of being constantly flamebaited by those who disagree with me, and I completely reserve the right to end discussion with anyone not willing to hold a civil conversation.

I absolutely agree and have done so myself for the sake of remaining civil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than they're totally legally unrelated and, historically, one has not required the other?

Since you took my comment out of context, I would have to ask just how the US could declare martial law without the millitary?

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.

If we are going to do things your way where immigrants become more important then constitutional rights, then yes without hesitation.

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.

They never asked permition to torcher or kill anyone, yet they still do it. Even to Americans

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?

What good is freedom of the press, when no one bothers to inform them? You really think 0bama is going to run to the press every time he illegaly detains someone?

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.

How about aiding known terrorist? Oh since you brought it up, when did bombing Lybia into oblivion equal "Enforcing a no-fly zone"?

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

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Again, show me where in the constitution that this government can ban homeschooling? This only says laws can be created with in the constitutions confines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you took my comment out of context, I would have to ask just how the US could declare martial law without the millitary?

We're apparently having two completely different conversations. I have no idea what position you're trying to reach, but the initial starting point of the discussion was the suspension of Habeas Corpus, which doesn't require Martial Law to implement. Quite why you think that this a conversation about Martial law, I have no idea.

If we are going to do things your way where immigrants become more important then constitutional rights, then yes without hesitation.

Again. Terrorists are not restricted by Nationality. Anwar al-Awlaki, for example, was a natural-born US citizen.

Given that, perhaps you can tell us exactly how far back and over how many generations those deportations of immigrants should go. Because, personally, I think if you're going to deport immigrants to the United States, then going back to the 15th Century should roughly cover it.

They never asked permition to torcher or kill anyone, yet they still do it. Even to Americans

Then evidence, please, that Americans are being currently tortured under the Obama administration.

What good is freedom of the press, when no one bothers to inform them? You really think 0bama is going to run to the press every time he illegaly detains someone?

The press isn't just drip fed information directly from the Government. It has many investigative journalists, all of whom would love to land a story such as this.

Also - spelling the President's name with a zero is deliberately flame baiting. Please desist.

How about aiding known terrorist?

Libya's current Prime Minister is Ali Zeidan, who was formerly a human rights lawyer from Geneva.

Obviously, feel free to provide evidence of the acts of terrorism that he's been accused of.

Oh since you brought it up, when did bombing Lybia into oblivion equal "Enforcing a no-fly zone"?

When those bombs are aimed at their air defenses.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Again, show me where in the constitution that this government can ban homeschooling? This only says laws can be created with in the constitutions confines.

The answer is still that clause.

If, after reading it, you're still unable to understand that that clause allows the government to make all necessary and proper laws that allows them to execute their Powers - the basis for the majority of legislation that's passed through Congress, ever - then I really don't know what else to tell you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiggs

If I may, have you ever considered the possibility that on certain constitutional or governmental questions you might be wrong? Like any other man?

For example, perhaps suggesting that Executive Orders are something akin to the Word Of God? Or that Executive Orders supercede Public Laws in authority? Or that the notion of Unitary or Supreme Executive is bogus?

It seems to me your position on this is remarkably close to Nixon's notorious statement that when the President does it, it's legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may, have you ever considered the possibility that on certain constitutional or governmental questions you might be wrong? Like any other man?

Sure. All the time and twice on Tuesdays.

For example, perhaps suggesting that Executive Orders are something akin to the Word Of God? Or that Executive Orders supercede Public Laws in authority? Or that the notion of Unitary or Supreme Executive is bogus?

I don't recall making any of those claims within this thread. Perhaps you'd like to show me where you think that I have.

It seems to me your position on this is remarkably close to Nixon's notorious statement that when the President does it, it's legal.

It seems to me that the only time I've mentioned an executive order within this thread is to refute your claim that the Obama administration is currently practicing torture.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're apparently having two completely different conversations. I have no idea what position you're trying to reach, but the initial starting point of the discussion was the suspension of Habeas Corpus, which doesn't require Martial Law to implement. Quite why you think that this a conversation about Martial law, I have no idea.

Sure ya do. Im simply saying the two go hand in hand. Again, how can you have martial law without military intervention?

Again. Terrorists are not restricted by Nationality. Anwar al-Awlaki, for example, was a natural-born US citizen.

Given that, perhaps you can tell us exactly how far back and over how many generations those deportations of immigrants should go. Because, personally, I think if you're going to deport immigrants to the United States, then going back to the 15th Century should roughly cover it.

Great example. AaA wasnt even accused of anything spacific. The white house refused to bring any evidence against the man at all. And cause he was deprived due process, he lost his life and his sons life and no one seems to know why. The press tryed to ask, but were stonewalled. Even if he was quilty of something, why abandon the court system? I have no problem with immigrants staying. Im just not willing to give up constitutional rights for it. Its sad that you think we cant have both.

Then evidence, please, that Americans are being currently tortured under the Obama administration.

Do you have evidence AaA deserved to be murdered? Or are you holding me to a different standard?

The press isn't just drip fed information directly from the Government. It has many investigative journalists, all of whom would love to land a story such as this.

Also - spelling the President's name with a zero is deliberately flame baiting. Please desist.

LOL, yea government could never keep anything hidden from the press. What world are you living in? Heck the NYT just did a article asking if the government was going to start killing reporters with drones. Ive been spelling 0bamas name with a 0 since I first started talking about him. Cause its directly how I feel regarding his administration. Im not saying you have to like it, but it is what it is.

Libya's current Prime Minister is Ali Zeidan, who was formerly a human rights lawyer from Geneva.

Obviously, feel free to provide evidence of the acts of terrorism that he's been accused of.

Seriously? AlCIAda flies thier flag over libya's buildings, search it. It isnt hard to find. Its been openly admitted the rebels consisted of many from AlCIAda. Who we armed and trained. The same people are in Syria right now.

When those bombs are aimed at their air defenses.

What about the bombs that leveled entire city blocks? Cause those pics are real easy to find too.

The answer is still that clause.

If, after reading it, you're still unable to understand that that clause allows the government to make all necessary and proper laws that allows them to execute their Powers - the basis for the majority of legislation that's passed through Congress, ever - then I really don't know what else to tell you.

Just tell me how this claws, which just says laws can be made within the confines of the constitution can be construde to mean they can take away the right to home school? Cause all this claws does it point back at the constitution and says the only laws that can be made are with in its confines. So again, which part of the constitution gives the federal government the power to ban home schooling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure. All the time and twice on Tuesdays.

I don't recall making any of those claims within this thread. Perhaps you'd like to show me where you think that I have.

It seems to me that the only time I've mentioned an executive order within this thread is to refute your claim that the Obama administration is currently practicing torture.

Thank you for making my point. It is what your posts suggest, what I infer from them (perhaps incorrectly) that I was talking about.

For example, no matter the existence of any given EO that Obama has signed regarding torture, IN FACT his administration practiced torture against Bradley Manning as he was being held in pre trial confinement in violation of UCMJ at Quantico.

So, no matter the existence of the EO, it is the reality of the situation, the actions of the government, that really matter, and in this case the actions of the C-in-C in military matters. A lofty and noble sounding EO means nothing if it is violated by the same office that wrote it.

And to reiterate, EO is not superior in authority to PL, assuming the PL is valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure ya do. Im simply saying the two go hand in hand.

I'm simply saying that the two don't go hand in hand. Neither legally or historically.

Great example. AaA wasnt even accused of anything spacific. The white house refused to bring any evidence against the man at all. And cause he was deprived due process, he lost his life and his sons life and no one seems to know why. The press tryed to ask, but were stonewalled.

From the article I linked:

A senior administration official in Washington said the killing of Mr. Awlaki was important because he had become one of Al Qaeda’s top operational planners as well as its greatest English-language propagandist.

Even if he was quilty of something, why abandon the court system?

Because it was otherwise impossible to capture him to bring him to trial.

I have no problem with immigrants staying. Im just not willing to give up constitutional rights for it. Its sad that you think we cant have both.

The suspension of Habeas Corpus has nothing to do with allowing immigrants to live in the United States. It has everything to do with the US being subject to terrorist attacks.

Do you have evidence AaA deserved to be murdered? Or are you holding me to a different standard?

From his Wikipedia article:

In March 2010, a tape featuring al-Aulaqi was released in which he urged Muslims residing in the U.S. to attack their country of residence. In the video, he stated:

To the Muslims in America, I have this to say: How can your conscience allow you to live in peaceful coexistence with a nation that is responsible for the tyranny and crimes committed against your own brothers and sisters? I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad (holy struggle) against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding upon every other able Muslim.

Not to mention that whole buying plane tickets for the 9/11 hijackers thing, too.

LOL, yea government could never keep anything hidden from the press. What world are you living in? Heck the NYT just did a article asking if the government was going to start killing reporters with drones.

And yet, the press are in possession of over 500 of the names of the Guantanmo detainees.

Ive been spelling 0bamas name with a 0 since I first started talking about him. Cause its directly how I feel regarding his administration. Im not saying you have to like it, but it is what it is.

Please read the PM I'll be sending you shortly.

Seriously? AlCIAda flies thier flag over libya's buildings, search it. It isnt hard to find. Its been openly admitted the rebels consisted of many from AlCIAda. Who we armed and trained. The same people are in Syria right now.

I found a single instance, back in 2011, of a flag with the Shahada over the Benghazi courthouse. Here's Mother Jone's take on it.

What about the bombs that leveled entire city blocks? Cause those pics are real easy to find too.

Now all you have to prove is that it was caused by an American bomb. As opposed to, say, a bomb from any other member of the UN coalition, such as the French.

Just tell me how this claws, which just says laws can be made within the confines of the constitution can be construde to mean they can take away the right to home school? Cause all this claws does it point back at the constitution and says the only laws that can be made are with in its confines. So again, which part of the constitution gives the federal government the power to ban home schooling?

As far as the courts are concerned, the answer is, and will continue to be, that clause.

To quote Madison "No axiom is more clearly established in law or in reason than wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power for doing it is included."

Edited by Tiggs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for making my point. It is what your posts suggest, what I infer from them (perhaps incorrectly) that I was talking about.

For example, no matter the existence of any given EO that Obama has signed regarding torture, IN FACT his administration practiced torture against Bradley Manning as he was being held in pre trial confinement in violation of UCMJ at Quantico.

Interestingly, I wasn't aware of the Manning allegations prior to your post.

So, no matter the existence of the EO, it is the reality of the situation, the actions of the government, that really matter, and in this case the actions of the C-in-C in military matters. A lofty and noble sounding EO means nothing if it is violated by the same office that wrote it.

If it's purposefully violated - if it's legislation with a wink, then sure.

What evidence do you have that that's the case, as opposed to, say, an overzealous military?

And to reiterate, EO is not superior in authority to PL, assuming the PL is valid.

I've never claimed otherwise. As far as I'm concerned, EO's are constrained by PL.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.