SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Sorry, Mr. Obama, the Constitution, not negotiable
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1371179823

Message started by Midnightrider on 06/13/13 at 20:17:03

Title: Sorry, Mr. Obama, the Constitution, not negotiable
Post by Midnightrider on 06/13/13 at 20:17:03

Sorry, Mr. Obama, the Constitution is not negotiable
By Sen. Rand Paul / Published June 12, 2013 / FoxNews.com

In the United States, we are supposed to have a government that is limited with its parameters established by our Constitution. This notion that the federal government can monitor everyone’s phone data is a major departure from how Americans have traditionally viewed the role of government.

If this is acceptable practice, as the White House and many in both parties now say it is, then there are literally no constitutional protections that can be guaranteed anymore to citizens.

In the name of security, say our leaders, the Constitution has become negotiable.

This is what the White House is saying when it defends the National Security Agency’s gathering of Verizon’s client data en masse, or what President Obama calls a “modest encroachment” on our rights, as he assures us that “Nobody is listening to your phone calls.”

Anytime we give up our liberty—we lose.

Perhaps he can also assure us that nobody at the Internal Revenue Service is targeting political dissidents.

Perhaps he can assure us that nobody at the Justice Department is seizing reporters’ phone records.

Sorry, Mr. President, but “trust me” is not good enough.

President Obama says, “You can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience.” But we couldn’t have 100 percent security even if we turned America into a total police state—something too many seem eager for—because there’s no such thing as a risk free society.

When balancing liberty against security, the American tradition has always been to err on the side of liberty. Targeting potential terror suspects by obtaining a warrant is an “inconvenience” the Founders’ intentionally put upon the government in order to protect the privacy of citizens.

Now this president turns this core constitutional principle on its head.

There are also Republicans who seem to want more power for government and less for citizens. One senator, a particularly zealous defender of the surveillance state, has said that he would be fine with “censoring the mail” if “necessary” to keep us safe.

This senator would open citizens’ mail, detain them indefinitely if he decided they were dangerous, claw his way through their trash, peek in their bedrooms if he decided they were an enemy, and then if they dared to ask for a lawyer, he would bark: "Shut up! You don’t get a lawyer!"

Such arrogance and tone deafness!

A government as omnipotent as this may be powerful enough to spy on all of its citizens all of the time, but doesn’t seem to be able to even stop terrorists like the Boston Marathon bombers and the “underwear bomber” – both of whom set off warnings before they were noticed.

Instead of monitoring billions of phone calls and spying on law-abiding Americans, perhaps we should have been done more targeted monitoring of the Boston bombing suspects, one of whom traveling to Chechnya, largely undetected.

Clutching desperately for relevance, some Republican Senators point wildly at the Boston Marathon bombing and grit out, "See, I told you so! America is too part of the battlefield.”

Duh! No one is arguing that our enemies won’t attack us here and that we shouldn't defend ourselves. Constitutionalists simply argue that we can defend the homeland and the Bill of Rights simultaneously, and to relinquish concrete liberties for an illusive security is a fool's errand.

I can remember not so long ago, when the war caucus—and we don’t need to name any names—were all saying “we have to fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here.”

Now, they are saying we have to give up our liberties to fight them here? Who is winning this battle?

Regardless, anytime we give up our liberty—we lose.

National security is the federal government’s top priority. We have always balanced liberty with common sense security precautions. There are unquestionably exceptions to every rule.

But those who continue to defend the National Security Agency’s actions are essentially saying that something that would be controversial even as an exception—blanket phone trolling by the government—is now the new rule. They are saying it’s OK to spy on citizens’ phone data without a warrant, not just one time or a few times, but all the time.

They are saying that suspending the Bill of Rights is now the new normal.

In my world, the Constitution still applies.

Title: Re: Sorry, Mr. Obama, the Constitution, not negoti
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/13/13 at 20:20:15

Here, he is right, I didnt read word for word, but I didnt see where he thinks droppin a drone on someones hat is okay,, Maybe he has had time to think,,.

Title: Re: Sorry, Mr. Obama, the Constitution, not negoti
Post by Paraquat on 06/14/13 at 06:13:18

Heh. Stolen from a movie, one of my favorite things I say often is "I don't negotiate with terrorists."
Of course when I say it it's for things like being out of cheddar cheese and being offered American cheese instead.
I suppose it still applies here though.

--Steve

Title: Re: Sorry, Mr. Obama, the Constitution, not negoti
Post by Serowbot on 06/14/13 at 09:00:17

Wait...
"Sorry Mr.Obama?"....
Republicans are once again outraged at "Obama's" overreach,.. for continuing a Bush admin policy...

I guess it just takes 6 or 8 years for the outrage to build up?...
Most of them voted for it... ;D...
Republican are leading their constituents by the nose...

Title: Re: Sorry, Mr. Obama, the Constitution, not negoti
Post by srinath on 06/14/13 at 09:16:37

Yes both parties need to lead the constitution by the nose.

Cool.
Srinath.

Title: Re: Sorry, Mr. Obama, the Constitution, not negoti
Post by oldNslow on 06/14/13 at 10:16:24

Quote:

Yes both parties need to lead the constitution by the nose.

Not exactly sure what you mean by that.

At any rate, what both parties need to do is to start following the constitution instead of trying to figure out more ways to circumvent it.

As far as I'm concerned the drones ought to be circling the Capital and the White House. That's where the traitors be.

Title: Re: Sorry, Mr. Obama, the Constitution, not negoti
Post by Pine on 06/14/13 at 10:53:49

0C32333F2D31305E0 wrote:

Quote:

Yes both parties need to lead the constitution by the nose.

/agree!

Title: Re: Sorry, Mr. Obama, the Constitution, not negoti
Post by Midnightrider on 06/14/13 at 11:04:05

41787F74657E63110 wrote:

[quote author=0C32333F2D31305E0 link=1371179823/0#5 date=1371230184]
Quote:

Yes both parties need to lead the constitution by the nose.

/agree!

[/quote]
So do I

Title: Re: Sorry, Mr. Obama, the Constitution, not negoti
Post by Pine on 06/14/13 at 11:05:04

3D2B3C21392C213A4E0 wrote:

/agree

can I agree twice in a row...

I smell something fishy...
First this is OLD news... and theres no way "many" didn't know about it.
Second, getting lists of phones numbers dialed, when and how long is a far cry from making a copy of every email and keeping it indefinitely, which, as I understand is the current thing tht IS being done, or is wanted by the NSA.
Thirdly, pfffffffffffffffffftttt.. its still so much fluff. I am much more concerned with the new internet tax than these "privacy rights". Why? because the internet tax bypasses the rights of all states to independently derive their own tax structure. That "state independence" must be waived in lieu of a federal mandated tax structure. At some point the ability and right of the state to set taxes will be meaningless. Where goes money goes power. Once the Fed can over-ride the states ability to tax (at all) chops the balls off state government, local government, any government other than Washington....oh wait... aren't we pretty much there now?

Point being what better way to take the citizens mind off the internet tax than by staging a mock protest of actions by the NSA? "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

Title: Re: Sorry, Mr. Obama, the Constitution, not negoti
Post by oldNslow on 06/14/13 at 11:29:19

Quote:

First this is OLD news... and theres no way "many" didn't know about it.

I'm not so sure about that. Might be OLD news to some of us, but don't underestimate the number of folks who aren't paying attention and don't have a clue what's going on right under their noses until Diane Sawyer or George Stephawhateverthehellhisnameis decides to tell them about it. :(

Title: Re: Sorry, Mr. Obama, the Constitution, not negoti
Post by srinath on 06/14/13 at 11:30:45

516F6E62706C6D030 wrote:

Quote:

Yes both parties need to lead the constitution by the nose.

Yup, and the Illegal mexicans and their anchor babies are making sure we follow the constitution as well. In fact they are counting on it.
Cool.
Srinath.

Title: Re: Sorry, Mr. Obama, the Constitution, not negoti
Post by oldNslow on 06/14/13 at 11:51:29

Quote:

Yup, and the Illegal mexicans and their anchor babies are making sure we follow the constitution as well. In fact they are counting on it.

I agree that that's a real problem. But nuts-canning the constitution because ILLEGALS are taking advantage of a provision in it isn't a rational answer. Deal with the ILLEGALS - something our so-called represenatives in DC are unwilling to do.

And there is a process for amending the constitution. And amending it so that only children born to people here legally - or even actual citizens - is pretty high on my list of needed amendments.

Title: Re: Sorry, Mr. Obama, the Constitution, not negoti
Post by oldNslow on 06/14/13 at 11:54:55

Quote:

nuts-canning

:o :o

Hey ! That's not what I typed. Some kind of auto-censorship going on here? >:(

Title: Re: Sorry, Mr. Obama, the Constitution, not negoti
Post by srinath on 06/14/13 at 12:27:55

013F3E32203C3D530 wrote:

Quote:

Yup, and the Illegal mexicans and their anchor babies are making sure we follow the constitution as well. In fact they are counting on it.

Right right right, and you want to amend that ... and some other people want to amend this, and yet those other people want to amend the other thing, and some more people like me want to impose english unless you like speaking mexican ... y'know that list goes on and on ...

Cool.
Srinath.

Title: Re: Sorry, Mr. Obama, the Constitution, not negoti
Post by oldNslow on 06/14/13 at 13:01:33

Quote:

Amending the constitution is very difficult -as it should be. The framers knew that there was a possibility that from time to time changes might be necessary. That's why a mechanism for making those changes was included. And they made sure it wasn't easy, so that any changes were carefully considered.

That's far different from what's going on today. Today the constitution is simply being ignored by the very people who took an oath to abide by it. Having a government that operates within the constraints of the constitution is the only way this country can survive as a home for free people. When the law of the land is simply whatever the folks in Washington say it is - regardless of who elected them - then the US is finished.

Arguing about "the dems did this and the repubs did that" is nonsense.
The last couple of federal elections(and the campaigns leading up to them) in this country have been more like the voting on American Idol or Dancing with the Stars, than elections conducted by serious, thoughful people who actually care about the future of the country they live in.

Title: Re: Sorry, Mr. Obama, the Constitution, not negoti
Post by srinath on 06/14/13 at 13:14:23

4876777B6975741A0 wrote:

Arguing about "the dems did this and the repubs did that" is nonsense.

True ... and that's why as soon as someone remotely appears to implicate any one who even sounds like Oba ... I bring out the point that its both sides who need to take the blame for this and how we should all feel guilty or do this or do that ...

Cos it seems to work very well when the blame is for Cheney/Bush ...

Cool.
Srinath.

Title: Re: Sorry, Mr. Obama, the Constitution, not negoti
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/14/13 at 14:10:15

If we continue to forgive todays criminal because of yesterdays criminal getting away with their crimes, we will suffer a fatal crime wave,

Someone needs to be first in line to PAY.

Title: Re: Sorry, Mr. Obama, the Constitution, not negoti
Post by Trippah on 06/14/13 at 19:30:41

Aaahhh, government by the people, for the people....only if you are a multimillionaire and in the never ending arms/intelligence business.
Frankly, nuke Tehran, and all along the fertile crescent up to Ankara.
Then when the surviors twoheaded chillen slither out from under their everglow rocks, hit em with drone based missels.
As fr as DC, the capital should be moved to Kansas ..lets see them legislate an end to tornadoes. ;D

I am so glad we are now sending weapons to Syrian rebels..that means we will have to screw the veterans once again to pay for it.

Title: Re: Sorry, Mr. Obama, the Constitution, not negoti
Post by Starlifter on 06/14/13 at 20:08:34

"I am so glad we are now sending weapons to Syrian rebels."

Well sure, with our other wars kind of winding down, we need a new crises to keep the military industrial corporate complex cranking out killing machines.

Got to keep the 'money train' they all ride rolling doncha know.

Title: Re: Sorry, Mr. Obama, the Constitution, not negoti
Post by oldNslow on 06/15/13 at 10:08:37

Quote:

we are now sending weapons to Syrian rebels.

Yup. The guys that just pledged their allegiance to Al-Qaeda. What could possibly go wrong?

I find it a bit ironic that our government is willing do GIVE weapons(probably automatic weapons at that) to folks who have said repeatedly that their mission is to kill Americans, but that same government insists that I, who have never threatened to kill anyone, need a background check if I decide I'd like to buy a new shotgun to shoot skeet with. ::)

Title: Re: Sorry, Mr. Obama, the Constitution, not negoti
Post by Midnightrider on 06/15/13 at 12:01:34

4E584F524A5F52493D0 wrote:

I really don't consider Rand Paul a Republican. He has common sense and tells it like it is, not like the babbling baffoon that ran last time. He believes in leaving the constitution alone which is my #1 priority.We drastically need a 3rd party or no party at all. Obama and all the congresspeople took an oath to protect and uphold the constitution. Over half of them are traitors and should be treated as such.