Letter: Tea Party is not racially motivated

Advertisement

To the editor:

I would like to thank you for the great article on the local tea party here in Craig.

As a member of our local group since the beginning, I’ve found it interesting to watch the knee-jerk reaction by some people in our country, especially the politically correct.

Members of the government, from Barack Obama to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, to Hollywood know-it-alls, major media outlets and news channels, to college and university campuses all without exception have called the tea party movement vile names and labeled it as “dangerous,” “racially motivated,” and wanting to overthrow the government.

None of that is true, and there is a $100,000 reward still unclaimed for anyone with proof of any racial overtones at any tea party rally anywhere.

Now let’s talk about the Occupy Wall Street movement.

The president, Pelosi, Reid, Hollywood, news outlets, colleges, unions, the presidents of Iran, Russia, China, and Communist and Socialist parties around the world have all praised and promoted OWS.

What does the OWS movement stand for? Visit the website. The movement wants free everything: housing, schooling, forgiveness of school loans, health care, a four-day work week, forced union membership, and on and on it goes to total complete socialism/communism.

How does OWS plan to accomplish its goals? With complete and total chaos and anarchy in the streets, with destruction of property, both public and private. Protesters have been urinating and defecating on and in everything, including churches, some of which are national historic buildings.

Pelosi calls this type of behavior youthful indiscretions. I call them heathenism.

OWS also wants to destroy Wall Street and free market capitalism. (Where is your 401K and retirement plan?).

To date, OWS has caused $28 million in damages nationwide that we the taxpayers get to pay. How much damage has the tea party caused? Zero.

Most people believe the OWS movement is over, but it is just getting started.

OWS is calling for a summer of fire, and is being funded to the tune of millions and millions by unions, especially the teacher’s union, AFL-CIO, and SEIU, just to name a few.

Also, billionaire George Soros (Hillary Clinton’s BFF) is giving millions. Unions are paying people to participate in local movements and colleges and universities are offering “classes” on how to organize OWS movements.

OWS wants a revolution, and not the honorable, good and righteous George Washington revolution fought by people for a just cause against unrighteous control, but the evil French, German Nazi, Bolshevik, chairman Mao kind of revolution.

Interestingly, Joseph Stalin called his OWS people “useful idiots.” They served his purpose and then he killed them.

Study your history and wake up, America. Your country is being destroyed on all sides and the choice is very simple: good vs. evil.

Where do you stand?

Lynne Herring

Click here to have the print version of the Craig Daily Press delivered to your home.

Comments

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago

("Study your history and wake up, America.")

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." And, having done so, it is the people’s right "to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." ~Thomas Jefferson~

Contrast that clear articulation of natural law with Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address, where he flatly rejected the notion that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Instead, Lincoln claimed that, despite the clear wording of the Tenth Amendment, "no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; [and] resolves and ordinances [such as the Declaration of Independence] to that effect are legally void…" King George III agreed.

Lincoln, the fist and, what some consider, greatest Republican president, "The Great Emancipator."

Jefferson, principal author of The U.S. Declaration of Independence, slave owner, with James Madison secretly wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which attempted to nullify the Alien and Sedition Acts and formed the basis of states' rights.

Where do you stand? Which is good, which is evil?

American history is a funny, complicated thing and hardly black and white, good vs. evil. Look up the Utah War some time and cite the article or amendment in the U.S. Constitution that even mentions political parties or the two party system, two parties that rule both federal and state governments and are more alike than different but for rhetoric.

"All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

"At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." ~ Abraham Lincoln

This was in "The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions: Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois" January 27, 1838)

Continuation of government as is, "The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions."

Where do you stand?

0

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago

No one has been able to explain to me why young men and women serve in the U.S. Military for 20 years, risking their lives protecting freedom, and only get 50% of their pay. While Politicians hold their political positions in the safe confines of the capital, protected by these same men and women, and receive full pay retirement after serving one term. It just does not make any sense..

Monday we learned that the staffers of Congress family members are exempt from having to pay back student loans. This will get national attention if news networks will broadcast it. When you add this to the below, just where will all of it stop? This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.

This is an idea that we should address.

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed while citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.

If each person that receives this will share it, in three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message.. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ." By: Patrick J Hunt

0

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago

("Also everyone needs to know that our wonderful so called president just signed into law a bill that makes it a felony to protest.")

A bill created by Congress with almost unanimous approval.

No democracy has survived in the history of the world, don't expect this one to. It started dying the first day it was created. Deal with it....

0

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago

You have no choice and your country is not being destroyed. Blame Obama, blame Bush, blame Lincoln for destroying the 10th Amendment, blame everyone but yourself. Deal with it, just like you will have to deal with your own death. You WILL die as will this government. The country will live on, same as Greece did. It's the government that will die. Jeremiah 10:23 - " I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step." Man-rule is limited by his imperfection and lack of perfect wisdom. But God's kingdom has no such limitations.

0

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago

No doubt you know the history of democracies, such as Greece, much better than I and what freedoms we ACTUALLY have delineated in the U.S. Constitution.... Thanks for enlightening me.

0

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago

Tell me more, tell me about what is in the U.S. Constitution. The Right to a Fair Trial? Innocent until Proven Guilty? The Right to Habeas Corpus? Right to a Jury of Your Peers? The Right to Vote? The Right to Travel? The Right to Marriage? The Right to Procreate? The Right to Privacy? No Taxation Without Representation? Judicial Review? Congressional Districts? God? Tell me more about our Rights and Freedoms... Tell how with a different form of government, even a different form of democracy, this country would be nothing but land...

0

Lynne 2 years, 8 months ago

C. S. Lewis wrote a preface to his book the Screwtape Letters that said "There are two equally serious errors into which a person in our day may fall: To believe there is NO devil, or to have an unhealthy obsession WITH the devil". The Founding Fathers told us that only a morally and virtuous people could hold on to the freedoms they gave us in the constitution and the declaration of independence. In other words if we as a peolpe do not know the difference between good and evil than we are in bondage and it really does not matter what kind of government rules us in Washington. But a majority of the American people DO know what is right and GOOD and what is wrong and EVIL. That is why you see people standing up and putting their voice behind the one or the other. The Tea Party or OWS. Both groups know that Washington is corrupt and and the government is ruled by money not by morality and virtue a government run by men and not by laws. Our choice is are we going to stand up and change government the right way or are we going to allow people to destroy the government in an evil and destructive way as the OWS people are calling for May I suggest that if you do not know good from evil that you find yourself a Bible and read it. That is the belief that THIS country was founded on

0

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago

"the difference between good and evil"

So, which is it? Jefferson's view or Lincoln's view? The people’s right “to institute new Government?" Or Continuation of government as is, “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions?”

("May I suggest that if you do not know good from evil that you find yourself a Bible and read it.")

Neither of those views are in the Bible. The Bible is about the Kingdom of Heaven, the Kingdom of God, not man. Luke 17:20-21: "And when He was questioned of the Pharisees, when the Kingdom of God should come, He answered them and said, The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the Kingdom of God IS WITHIN YOU ..."

0

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago

("That is why you see people standing up and putting their voice behind the one or the other. The Tea Party or OWS.")

Or disavowing both to seek the Kingdom of God and God's perfect rule as opposed to Man-rule, limited by his imperfection and lack of perfect wisdom.

0

Jon Pfeifer 2 years, 8 months ago

The Tea Party is not good and the Occupy Wall Street movement is not evil. That is like using the analytic abilities of a 2 year old. Both movements are seeking to correct societal problems. Those problems are both legitimate. The Tea Party (originally) was seeking to address out-of-control government spending and over-reach by government. The Occupy Wall Street movement (originally) was seeking to address the growing income inequality in the United States at a time when unemployment was high and most Americans were struggling to get by, but corporations were reaping record profits. These are both legitimate concerns. They are clearly at odds with each other as well, because redistribution of wealth is the opposite of constricting government's reach. Viewing the problem as one of good versus evil is ridiculous. Do you really think that there is no balance to be had between both concerns? Should government simply allow the natural constricting of wealth into the hands of the very few and their families in perpetuity? We fought the revolutionary war to get away from that type of society. Should government take over every aspect of people's lives, with all incentives for personal initiative and accountability being obliterated by a system that does not reward such innovation? That's part of what the Cold War was about, and I'm pretty glad that we won that one as well. If you cannot see that there needs to be a balance between these two concerns, then you are either not realizing the problems in a society that ignores the other side or simply naive as to what the end game of what you stand for actually is. Politics is not about good versus evil. It is about coming up with a system of governance that fosters freedom and fairness.

0

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago

("I think when the government makes laws like the seat belt law they are taking away my freedoms.")

Exactly which article or amendment in the U.S. Constitution gives you the right or "freedom" to travel, let alone drive a vehicle? More enlightenment, please. Can't take away a "freedom" you don't have. Driving is a privilege that can be taken away at any time. As much as you, I or anyone else may not like the rules of the state, play by them, don't play by them (don't wear your seat belt, speed, don't obey traffic laws) and suffer the consequences or don't drive.

0

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago

I misread nothing. The only evidence I can show is the Constitution of the United States (the law of the land) U.S. Code and state statutes. If your "pursuit of happiness" is in direct violation of state statute it's illegal. Same as any other person whose "pursuit of happiness" might be contrary to state or federal statutes be they traffic offenders, thieves or murderers. Your "civil rights" don't allow you to break laws. You don't have to agree with me or the law but you do have to obey the law or face the consequences.

0

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago

It is not me you have to agree with. If the law says wear a seat belt when you drive, then either wear a seat belt or break the law. Deal with it...

0

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago

If the law says that those people seeking public assistance must take a drug test, then they must take a drug test whether you or I agree with that law or not. It's a pretty simple concept.

0

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago

Apparently, you have no concept of law, how they are challenged and either upheld by courts, ultimately SCOTUS, or struck down. Educate yourself.... Because I and a couple federal judges consider the Florida law to be unconstitutional doesn't mean it is, YET, it still may be. That law has been blocked by a federal judge, temporarily, until it's decided for good by the Supreme Court of the United States. If that law is upheld by SCOTUS it will be law and has to be followed no matter what I believe. That doesn't mean I agree with or defend it. Defense of the law is up to the state's Solicitor General. I OBEY the law as you SHOULD. If you think the idea of obeying the law, whether you agree with it or not, is a "crazy argument" then when why even live in a nation of laws? Go somewhere else and live in anarchy. I don't defend a certain law, I'm not DEFENDING any law. I OBEY all laws created by state or federal legislature under authority of the Constitutional of the United States. My sworn duty is to uphold and defend the Constitution. I may not think a certain law is Constitutional but that is for neither me nor you to decide. I may not agree with it but have to follow it because it is either federal, state or local statute. SCOTUS just upheld the practice of strip searching anyone brought into a jail facility for any reason, felony or misdemeanor. I and you might consider that to be an invasion of privacy and an impingement on our civil rights, doesn't matter. Seat belt laws are state statutes. If you THINK they infringe upon your civil rights too bad. Either obey them or pay the fine you'll get if caught while driving and not wearing one. If you believe the fine is unconstitutional, don't pay it and have your day in court with a judge. How you or I interpret the Constitution is irrelevant. It is now part of politics and policy that federal courts and ultimately SCOTUS interprets the Constitution If these "points make no sense" to you then get an education. I feel no need to argue with the uneducated, you can't seem to grasp the simple concept of obeying the law.

0

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago

Resorting to name calling in any discussion is indicative of the simple minded....

0

native_craig_guy 2 years, 8 months ago

ranger520: I have to agree with what you have stated on this post. I believe that government interference/involvement with our lives is detrimental to our freedoms.

Airborne: Wow. As a Constitutionalist I am shocked at what I see you posting about. The doctrine of the right to travel is exhibited in a places throughout the various articles. Namely, that citizens have the right to travel uninhibited between the various states in the union. In regards to how that travel is accomplished they did not specifically say, you are right. Driving is a privilege... as are most of the "rights" people commonly misinterpret as being constitutionally protected. Since you brought up SCOTUS and pretty much came out and stated that you are an attorney (or at least masquerade as such) you are aware of the role that Stare Decisis and the Doctrine of Judicial Review play into the interpretation of our legal system. SCOTUS has interpreted Article IV Section 2 Paragraph 1 as being the Freedom of Movement Clause in the Constitution. I really don't know what else to say on that matter. I disagree strongly that we do not have the right to procreate, marry and live life. The Preamble to our Constitution sets forth the reasoning behind the formation of our country.... "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," Blessings of Liberty.... hmmm, I would take that to mean that we are allowed to prosper, enjoy life and pursue happiness. Wait, I have heard that before, oh yes it was in that equally important document called The Declaration of Independence. That document set forth "certain inalienable rights of man" such as, Rights to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness (was property but Thomas Jefferson convinced everyone that PoH sounded better). And there has always been the dichotomy between the individuals rights and societal rights in effect the debate between Natural Rights and Legal Rights. Yes, your pursuit of happiness cannot be found in a 14 year old child bride without legal ramifications.... It has been held true that anytime a decision is made by the government regarding personal freedoms, someone looses out. The rights of the individual must be weighed against the rights of society as a whole. This is not a perfect system, but it was founded on sound principals. You bring up a lot of religious rhetoric in your statements as well.... I find that interesting. You base much of your argument off "sound reason" and legal interpretation, then you turn around and start quoting bible verses? Really? This country was founded on CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS... a large part of which was limited government intrusion and the right for people to choose whatever religion they choose.

0

native_craig_guy 2 years, 8 months ago

The Founding Fathers may have been "Good Christians" but they recognized that in order for a country to have rights and freedoms, people must be given the ability to choose.. To choose their own path in life whilst pursuing life, liberty and happiness. The Founding Fathers knew of the danger of "State Religion" and formed our country around the fact that people would be allowed to choose to believe whatever they want (so far as it does not infringe on the rights of others...). The Founding Fathers were an enlightened group of men who set forth a doctrine, philosophy a way of life that has allowed the creation of the most free society man has ever known. A comparison of our current government to that of Ancient Greece is absurd. Empires rise and fall that is known.... But the baser principals of democracy will ring true... While we may not always be the world superpower in terms of GDP or Economic Growth, we will always be a leader in terms of the freedoms that we offer as a birthright... or even as a visitor to this great country. It is well known that the political system is marginally corrupt... in that lobbyists and Super PACs have more influence than the citizenry. Why else would Congress pass a Health Care Bill that 73% of Americans was against? Because the leaders in this country have forgotten what their roles are... to represent the people, not to decide whats best for us. Lobbyists are always lobbying for their interests, thats what they do. Lobbyists are everywhere, if you belong to a special club, chances are you have lobbyists that are lobbying for you in Congress. The problem is that they often don't have the same budget as lets say, Dutch Royal Shell, or DOW or DuPont.... We are not failing at Democracy, if anything the world is complicated because of human and civil rights. It would be much easier to have a government like Iran does.... No one is special, no one has been "Historically Injusticed" There is no worry about being PC or crossing boundaries.... that is of course unless you are not 100% in line with their policies. But even that is short lived and you won't be a problem for long. So, in conclusion, Democracy is not perfect, our system is not perfect. But the fact that we are all allowed to share our opinions and have the right to believe or not believe in what ever god we chose and we can do so armed to the teeth on our own property with our wife (who we chose) and kids (who we didn't really chose but are stuck with, just kidding) and are allowed to work in a field of our choosing is the greatest "blessing" that we can receive in life. We have it pretty darn good here, despite the efforts of Congress and the Government.

0

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago

Many think that they have a basic right to travel where they want, when they want — but there is nothing in the Constitution about a right to travel. This was no oversight because the Articles of Confederation did list such a right. Several Supreme Court cases have ruled that this basic right exists and that the state can’t interfere with travel. Perhaps the authors of the Constitution thought that the right to travel was so obvious that it didn’t need to be mentioned. Then again, perhaps not. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Heterosexuals seem to take it for granted that they have a right to marry whom they want; there is no such right in the Constitution, however. The Constitution says nothing at all about marriage and the regulation of marriage is left to the states. In theory, a state could ban all marriages, or all interfaith marriages, without violating anything explicitly stated in the Constitution. Equal protection of the laws must be maintained; otherwise, marriage can be restricted in lots of ways. People may also assume that as with marriage, they have a right to have children. Also as with marriage, there is nothing in the Constitution about procreation. If a state banned procreation, required licenses for procreation, or selectively banned procreation for people with mental disabilities, physical disabilities, or other problems, nothing in the Constitution would automatically be violated. You have no explicit Constitutional right to procreate.

("You bring up a lot of religious rhetoric in your statements as well…. I find that interesting")

Isn't it? Can you see how the Bible can be interpreted several different ways much like the Constitution? Ask Fred Phelps who can quote bible verses all day about how God hates practically everyone and hates the U.S.

0

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago

("We have it pretty darn good here, despite the efforts of Congress and the Government.")

Yep, as Will Rogers once said about government, "Things will get better - despite our efforts to improve them."

0

native_craig_guy 2 years, 8 months ago

Airborne- I guess that I do not read the same cases from SCOTUS that you do... I fail to see where the freedom to travel is not a right.... based off the case law and the numerous references in founding documents the ability to cross borders between states was a rather important part in the formation of our "sense of unity" as a nation. I also fail to see where procreation is not a constitutionally protected matter. Pregnancy has stood the test of SCOTUS and prevailed with the right to conceive and birth a child being the right of the mother. (Interestingly enough, I would love to see an equal protection case or better yet a Wrongful Death or Battery civil action brought by a father against a mother who aborted their offspring... Who does the zygote belong to at that point.... interesting thought though) If a mother has a protected right to choose.... then why wouldn't her right to enter into that protected (special) status also be protected? The two kind of go hand in hand... I am pretty sure that limited someone's ability to procreate would be a violation of not only the intent of the Constitution, but they might even have grounds under a violation of the 1st Amendment- Freedom of Religion, i.e. Mormons and Catholics. There are many rights that are not explicitly granted in the Constitution. But that document details the process by which we are allowed to add or retract rights afforded under law. The 21st Amendment gives us the Constitutional right to drink alcohol.... but Block Grant Funding mandates forced states to set an age limit before that right can be taken away. But even that right can be removed, Terms of Probation/Parole for example. Women and Blacks even have the right to vote now. Although, I bet that if you went to a college campus with a petition to "End Women's Suffrage" you would get thousands of signatures :). In order to appreciate the rights that we are afforded as Citizens (or even undocumented visitors or enemies of the state for that matter) you need to look at the totality of the system that was started with the Constitution. The Constitution is the document that all laws and legal decisions are weighed against. It is still the law of the land and protects our rights, even ones that are codified rather than amended. My statement about referencing the bible or any religious doctrine while discussion matters of government was based off the fact that those are two inherently separate theologies and two that should never be combined. You stated that you follow the laws of the land yet you made the comment on the 1st of April about "disavowing both to obey the kingdom of god" and then something about how we are ignorant or stupid. Those two comments do not align... Doesn't it say somewhere in your bible that you need to "follow the laws of man"? Just curious...

I am not even going to touch the gay marriage issue...

0

native_craig_guy 2 years, 8 months ago

I enjoyed reading the dialogue between you and Ranger520 until it got to the point where you lambasted Ranger520 for being uneducated... I fail to see where that matters. Do not make the folly of mistaking Education for Intelligence. I am a highly educated (both formally and well read) individual, but the papers on the wall do not make me the smartest person in the room. The various Mensa events I have attended have taught me one thing... Intelligence is not indicative of education or career achievement. Is it a good indicator? Yes, but not always the case. I have met firefighters and factory workers with off the chart IQs... and I know many PhD, MD and JD professionals who wouldn't qualify for membership in Mensa. Hard work and determination can make up for a short fall in intelligence much easier than a lack of motivation is compensated for by an over abundance of intelligence. Remember that even if you are in the top 1% of the population in intelligence there are still many people out there who are just as smart as you.... See below: Craig Pop: 9,000 1%- 90 CO Pop: 5.2 Million 1%- 52,000 US Pop: 312 million 1%- 3.12 million World Pop: 6.8 billion 1%- 68 million

No one is better than anyone else, we are all simply different. And as far as simply standing by and allowing the government to make decisions without our input... well that's dangerous. Civil disobedience has its time and place in all societies. It is essential to the perseverance of Freedom and Democracy that we exercise our rights (especially free speech) and we continue to make our opinions known to the Government. Our country was founded on the principals of standing for what you believe in and not being afraid to take a stand even when it goes against the majority opinion. Our founding fathers took a stand against the oppressive laws of the land and give great resolve held true to their beliefs and prevailed. Granted, we are not in the same circumstances as we were then, but same principals apply. If a belief held is not worth standing up for, then it is not a belief, it is a mere opinion. I have certain beliefs that I hold very dear to my heart and am willing to take a stand for them, I trust that you are the same (Airborne... Sworn to Defend Constitution... Service Member?) and have probably taken an active role in defending what you believe in. One of my favorite quotes is from Voltaire, "The best form of government is a benevolent tyranny tempered with the occasional assassination". or from Thomas Payne, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." TJ and John Locke also have some great quotes about government ,being a patriot, standing up for what you believe in and something quippy about the Government needing to fear its Citizenry, not the other way around.

0

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago

Education is more than just schooling. As one of my favorite philosophers said, "If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library."

0

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago

("I guess that I do not read the same cases from SCOTUS that you do… I fail to see where the freedom to travel is not a right….")

Could be. The presumed right to travel IS firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. However, as the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress).

Much the same as Judicial Review, firmly entrenched in American law and politics. However, the Constitution does not mention “Judicial Review” and does not explicitly establish the concept.

0

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago

This all might be "nit picky" but can have grave consequences when interpreted by the powers that be. As exemplified by what U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales publicly stated before the Senate Judiciary Committee, “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that." (It simply says the right shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion.) U.S. citizens have been and are still at risk of being held without the centuries old legal principle of habeas corpus as a right.

0

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago

Edit: U.S. citizens have been (incarcerated) and are still at risk of being held without the centuries old legal principle of habeas corpus as a right.

0

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago

And to answer your questions about my background, military and law enforcement. At a time when habeas corpus was considered a basic right and waterboarding torture. When both enemy soldiers and our own soldiers were prosecuted for it as were U.S. law enforcement officials prosecuted for torture because they waterboarded U.S. citizens in their custody. That all changed, not by law, but by legal interpretation, by memo.

0

native_craig_guy 2 years, 8 months ago

Airborne- Obviously this debate is going on and on with no give on either side. We both have some good points and I think that we actually agree with each other without coming right out and saying it. Thanks for the levelheaded discussion and sharing of ideas.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.