Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can Congress Steal Your Constitutional Freedoms?
Fox News ^ | 12/1/11 | Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Posted on 12/01/2011 9:18:11 PM PST by Kartographer

Can the president use the military to arrest anyone he wants, keep that person away from a judge and jury, and lock him up for as long as he wants? In the Senate’s dark and terrifying vision of the Constitution, he can.

Congress is supposed to work in public. That requirement is in the Constitution. It is there because the folks who wrote the Constitution had suffered long and hard under the British Privy Council, a secret group that advised the king and ran his government.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Seems many are concerned, but I have always found that Judge Napolitano to be a level heads constitutionalist and and not one to over state a situation.
1 posted on 12/01/2011 9:18:15 PM PST by Kartographer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

To those who say “it can’t happen here”,the reply should be “open your eyes—it already is.”


2 posted on 12/01/2011 9:23:47 PM PST by liberalism is suicide (Communism,fascism-no matter how you slice socialism, its still baloney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snowrip

I stand by my position that this is bad law and could make it very easy for citizens to be declared as being ‘at war’ with the United States especially those who stand against this administration and what it stands for.

In this article ( http://news.yahoo.com/obama-lawyers-citizens-targeted-war-us-154313473.html ) Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson says: “Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.”

And they are declaring the Homeland to be a battlefield.


3 posted on 12/01/2011 9:24:16 PM PST by Kartographer ("We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberalism is suicide

I have already heard from several from FR who tell me my concern over this move by the Senate to strip us on some of our rights is over blown, but I agree with you they don’t want to believe what they are seeing with their own eyes.


4 posted on 12/01/2011 9:26:59 PM PST by Kartographer ("We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer
When Lincoln tried to deny this during the Civil War, the Supreme Court rejected him and held that the Constitution guarantees its protections to everyone that the government restrains, no matter the crime, no matter the charge, no matter the evidence, no matter the danger.

Where to start with the inaccuracies in this paragraph?

First, the judge implies the Supremes reversed Lincoln's position during the war. This is inaccurate. The case he is referring to wasn't decided till 1866.

Second, the Court nowhere says that the government must give such protections to all people everywhere. It said military courts could not be used to try civilians in those areas where the civilian courts were functioning. Obviously, military courts would continue to function for military personnel, including enemy combatants, everywhere. And military courts could continue to be used to try civilians in areas where civilian courts were not functioning. IOW, in combat zones. Or, as in the South during the war, in areas where the US courts were not functioning due to insurrection and rebellion.

Finally, the Court has never said " the Constitution guarantees its protections to everyone that the government restrains, no matter the crime, no matter the charge, no matter the evidence, no matter the danger." If it did, legal enemy POWs would have full constitutional rights, and they just don't.

And by any reasonable definition, illegal enemy combatants should have fewer rights than honorable legal POWs.

I have read the text of the Act in question. It specifically says it doesn't apply to US citizens anywhere in the world, or to legal residents within the USA.

5 posted on 12/01/2011 9:31:01 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer
It seem the judge has said if passed and it did pass today and with that we now live in a police state similar to what we fought the cold war for. If they can kill a citizen in a foreign country and kill his 16 year old son and 17 year old cousin what will stop them from doing it here? The red scare of the 50’s has now become the anti American terrorist of today. Once branded a terrorist just like being branded a communist of the 50’s but today they will haul you off without a trial and keep you indefinitely in undisclosed place. Welcome to Amerika.
6 posted on 12/01/2011 9:34:59 PM PST by guitarplayer1953
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer
“Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.”

Just curious. Do you seriously contend battlefield targeting decision should be made by court decision and subject to appeal? Don't you think that would be about the best conceivable way to lose the battle?

Let us consider a nearly worst-case scenario, a Mumbai-style assault on a US city. Does anyone seriously contend US military should not respond to such an attack? That only civilian police can fight back against an enemy attack n American soil?

7 posted on 12/01/2011 9:35:16 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

An outright declaration of martial law is just too much of a frontal attack. I think they know they have to work gradual, pick off any dissent one by one. To do that they have to get around posse commitatus.


8 posted on 12/01/2011 9:36:28 PM PST by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! You can vote Democrat when you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953

Are you aware many US citizens fought in the German, Italian and Japanese armies against America?

Do you think US soldiers asked them for their citizenship status and ID before shooting those who were fighting them?


9 posted on 12/01/2011 9:38:41 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

We are talking about here at home the FAA has just relaxed it’s rules on unmanned drones on US soil. What did Janet N say all returning vets are potential terrorist. Read the writing on the wall. This SB1868 is not good for your or I.


10 posted on 12/01/2011 9:46:38 PM PST by guitarplayer1953
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

Could The Messiah implement a Wealth Tax in his second term and make it stick even in the face of a Republican controlled House and Senate? With his Czars, it’s very possible, especially if he has a DOJ head who is part of the same crime family as the Prez!

Once it occurred to me that Obama’s second term is likely to include a Wealth Tax, my level of worry went way up!


11 posted on 12/01/2011 9:48:08 PM PST by Rembrandt (.. AND the donkey you rode in on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

Congress is turning into an unaccountable politburo gang.


12 posted on 12/01/2011 9:49:25 PM PST by Republic_of_Secession.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953

Andrew McCarthy addresses the issue much more effectively than I can.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/284393/andrew-napolitano-s-mistake-andrew-c-mccarthy?pg=1


13 posted on 12/01/2011 9:54:33 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
I will read article but remember Waco they roared in their and how many women and children got torched by an over reactive government agency?
14 posted on 12/01/2011 9:57:49 PM PST by guitarplayer1953
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953

The law does not refer to “terrorists” as the group to which it applies. It specifically references those fighting on behalf of named organizations such as al Qeada.

Does anyone seriously contend that the US military cannot defend Americans against terrorists if the attack is made on American soil? Really? Where is that found in the Constitution?


15 posted on 12/01/2011 9:59:14 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan
To do that they have to get around posse commitatus.

Posse comitatus is an act of Congress, not part of the Constitution. It prohibits the Army and Air Force, but not the Navy or Marines, from enforcing the civilian laws except as authorized by Congress.

This may or may not be a wise law, but it doesn't violate either the PC or the Constitution.

16 posted on 12/01/2011 10:03:21 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953

The assault at Waco was made by the FBI, not US military.


17 posted on 12/01/2011 10:05:16 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

Check out this thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2815004/posts

U.S. Congress enacts laws to hold civilians under indefinite military detention without trial


18 posted on 12/01/2011 10:10:59 PM PST by TEXOKIE (... and Merry Christmas to all FREEPERS EVERYWHERE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I never said it did violate the Constitution. I just said they were trying to get around posse commitatus.

The devil in these details is, as I understand it, formally declaring the CONUS as a battlefield. All else is distraction.

Bottom line is to open the door for the govt to take you away, hold you in secret, have secret trials, and throw away the key in secret prisons all under the dark umbrella of nat’l security. You and your family can spend the rest of your life and fortune. trying to free you, if there’s even a process allowed for that or they even admit they have you.

The govt knows it’s at the end game. What they have left is basically a bluff. Doesn’t matter whether it’s legal or not. It’d be like IBM stealing your patent and you can’t even prove they did - in the end you don’t have the money or resources to prove it much less beat them in court. They’ll drag it out forever and make 10X money off your invention than they’ll ever pay out to you, if you ever gather enough evidence to get a court to listen to you.

That’s what this law is about.


19 posted on 12/01/2011 10:20:44 PM PST by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! You can vote Democrat when you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

He’ll definitely try it. He’ll do literally ANYTHING in his pursuit of absolute power.


20 posted on 12/01/2011 10:27:41 PM PST by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan

Don’t you think the citizens of NYC on 9/11 might have recognized the enemy made the CONUS a battlefield?

What makes us think the enemy will honor our designation of the CONUS as not a battlefield? Isn’t the battlefield wherever the enemy chooses to attack?


21 posted on 12/01/2011 10:28:46 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan

>>>An outright declaration of martial law is just too much of a frontal attack. I think they know they have to work gradual, pick off any dissent one by one. To do that they have to get around posse commitatus.<<<

I’ve written this before, but I’ve spent most of my adult in the media and schools, so I’m familiar with the mindset of the American fascist.

In fact, I think it’ll be worse than we imagine. I don’t think we’ll see the gulags and the killing fields and the camps. It’ll be, as you say, “one by one.” And it will be subtle, coy, underhanded. For most people, all it will take is a visit from a friendly stranger in a crisp suit with a quiet reminder about what is appropriate to say at work or in public. You can keep your guns and call Rush and Mark and Sean. Complain all you want, but be aware that we have diverse, multiple viewpoints, all of which deserve a voice, and if your opinion creates a hostile workplace, or a hostile community, or a hostile family, please quiet down according to the regulations concerning this kind of speech. Maybe there will be a fine for malcontents, or a calmly worded dismissal from your job. Keep your gun. Who are you going to shoot, anyway, some guy in a cubicle just following rules from another guy in a cubicle based on a 4,000-page law? Go to church if you want, just don’t pray openly, since it might annoy someone. Still a troublemaker? You’ll be required to attend a weekend workshop at a posh hotel with a continental breakfast, concluding with a signed agreement to reform behavior or speech. Of course, every once in a while there will a show trial, which should be enough to make everyone else cower in fear. Let a thousand flowers bloom, according to the species list guidelines from the Department of Agriculture’s Soil and Water Conservation Service, with pest management from the EPA, using water based on usage rates provided by the Department of Commerce, and carbon credits applied from the Department of Energy to balance your footprint of greenhouse gases. No invasive species, either; the Fish and Wildlife Service guy will be over to look over the blossoms to make sure the environment is safe. Smiling, kind, and, of course, unrelenting help from the state. And remember, as long as you follow the rules, it’s your property.

I think I’m right about this, too. I hope I’m just a nut who needs a tin-foil hat. God help us.


22 posted on 12/01/2011 10:30:34 PM PST by redpoll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama

ping!


23 posted on 12/01/2011 10:33:50 PM PST by basil (It's time to rid the country of "gun free zones" aka "Killing Fields")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TBP

That’s exactly it. Naysayers are trying to define this in the context of law and judicial process. This is the mother-of-all poker bluffs on a pair of deuces. On this and on every other front they are engaged in the Final Solution, the Ultimate Gambit, or even the Muslim Checkmate if you will.

Basically it is one of the 3:

1. Get this country under their control, or

2. Scorched earth/burn it all down, or

3. Die trying and take as many with them as they can.


24 posted on 12/01/2011 10:34:46 PM PST by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! You can vote Democrat when you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Buddy, seriously, what is your agenda here?

Did you read anything I wrote?


25 posted on 12/01/2011 10:36:10 PM PST by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! You can vote Democrat when you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

First, we have no “Constitutional Rights.” We have some that are “guaranteed” by the Constitution but like an old car, the guarantee is limited.

Congress has just notified us that the guarantee has expired. Like that old car, if we want to keep things going the way we’re used to we’ll have to do the dirty work and pay the bill ourselves.

Good uck folks.


26 posted on 12/01/2011 10:51:59 PM PST by oldfart (Obama nation = abomination. Think about it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oldfart

It’s late. That was supposed to read “Good luck folks.” I’m off to bed.


27 posted on 12/01/2011 10:53:39 PM PST by oldfart (Obama nation = abomination. Think about it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan
Doesn’t matter whether it’s legal or not. It’d be like IBM stealing your patent and you can’t even prove they did - in the end you don’t have the money or resources to prove it much less beat them in court. They’ll drag it out forever and make 10X money off your invention than they’ll ever pay out to you, if you ever gather enough evidence to get a court to listen to you.

Indeed.

28 posted on 12/02/2011 12:06:22 AM PST by Talisker (History will show the Illuminati won the ultimate Darwin Award.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

sounds great... suffer one year with 0failure messing around...

then four years to utilize such a ‘law’ by rounding up all libs and escorting them to bases in antarctica and alaska


29 posted on 12/02/2011 12:46:25 AM PST by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Isn’t that what the national guard is for?


30 posted on 12/02/2011 2:11:35 AM PST by muddler (Diligentia, Vis and Celeritas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

Only if the USSC goes to sleep.

Meanwhile, if Obama gets another four years, he’ll certainly see to it that the USSC is filled with idiots or somnambulists.


31 posted on 12/02/2011 4:32:06 AM PST by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

,,,,,, let’s see ,,,,, I think it’s been going on for about 40 years now . . .

Next question ;


32 posted on 12/02/2011 4:46:19 AM PST by Lionheartusa1 (-: Socialism is the equal distribution of misery :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oldfart

Good uck to us all.

the biggest problem we’ll have is when we approach to right the wrongs of the government, 1 of 2 people will be on the side of the big government.

it will be troubled times indeed.

t


33 posted on 12/02/2011 4:48:01 AM PST by teeman8r (Armageddon won't be pretty, but it's not like it's the end of the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
The assault at Waco was made by the FBI, not US military.

The original assault was ATF. The FBI finished it with the help of the US Army, specifically Delta Force from Ft Hood. Clinton waived Posse Commitatus.

34 posted on 12/02/2011 4:48:19 AM PST by NEPA (Give me liberty, not debt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

Congress has stolen our Constitutional freedoms— as the
Hillsdale College First Friday lectures demonstrate.However the Rights recognized in the bill of Rights as adopted by Congress in Sept.1789 and Ratified by the States Dec.1791 are fundamental Rights gifted by God that cannot be stolen -they can only be neglected -or forgotten.... or infringed upon.
the thief cannot come in to steal from a strong man unless he binds the strong man first ,as it is written. IMO we have left
our door open and have allowed the thief enter at will believing It cannot happen in America.While we slept it has.


35 posted on 12/02/2011 5:22:19 AM PST by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer
"What luck for rulers that men do not think."
Adolf Hitler [1889-1945], German Nazi dictator
Prior to his coming to power.

36 posted on 12/02/2011 5:33:46 AM PST by Logic n' Reason (N/A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
-- I have read the text of the Act in question. It specifically says it doesn't apply to US citizens anywhere in the world, or to legal residents within the USA. --

Not exactly. It describes HOW the law will apply. That military detention is not required when the detainee is a US citizen.

Does the NDAA Authorize Detention of US Citizens? - Lawfare (Robert Chesney) December 1, 2011

Section 1032 is the supposedly-mandatory military detention provision--i.e., the idea that a subset of detainable persons ("covered persons" in the lingo of the statute) are not just detainable in theory, but affirmatively must be subject to military detention (though only until one of several disposition options, including civilian custody for criminal trial, is selected). Section 1032 then goes on, in subpart (b), to state expressly that US citizens are exempt from this "mandatory detention" requirement (though lawful permanent residents are not).

This obviously rules out the idea of a mandatory military detention for US citizens. But note that it tends to rule in the idea that the baseline grant of detention authority in 1031 does in fact extend to citizens. Otherwise there would be no need for an exclusion for citizens in section 1032, since the 1032 category is a subset of the larger 1031 category.


37 posted on 12/02/2011 5:45:14 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Just curious, but where were you on 9/11? I don’t recall New York City coming under Martial Law, did I miss something?


38 posted on 12/02/2011 6:09:59 AM PST by Kartographer ("We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Does anyone seriously contend US military should not respond to such an attack?


If so, then can we disband the federally-funded militarized law enforcement agencies around the nation? Those unionized standing armies are the Standing Army our Founders feared.


39 posted on 12/02/2011 7:07:02 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Author of BullionBible.com - Makes You a Precious Metal Expert, Guaranteed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Let's consider Mumbai - should it happen here, should one of our government executives be able to declare the city of Dallas a 'battlefield' and hold anybody and everybody in that city in indefinite detention without access to courts?

The legislation is too broad.

A Forever War with Oceania is a great way to subordinate all our rights to the executive branch of government, especially if the battlefield is defined as anywhere and everywhere the executive decides to declare a battlefield.

40 posted on 12/02/2011 7:25:19 AM PST by slowhandluke (It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
It specifically references those fighting on behalf of named organizations such as al Qeada.

Not quite. It specifically references those declared by the government to be fighting on behalf of those organizations.

We have courts to decide if such declarations of guilt have any basis in fact.

The courts do not work on real battlefields during a firefight. But even the German saboteurs on US soil during WW2 got at least a military trial in fairly quick order.

41 posted on 12/02/2011 7:29:17 AM PST by slowhandluke (It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: slowhandluke; Sherman Logan

Is there anyone here who does not believe that there is a contingent within the present Administration that would gladly, eagerly and with a feeling of moral justification wishes to declare that members of the ‘Tea Party’ or even ‘Freepers’ are fighting against the lawful government and would gladly if not have us detained at least have us visited in our homes and given a frank attitude adjustment back by the threat of detention?

Yes the court could over turn such a thing, but how long would you be in detetion before you would get release? Hell how long would it take legal representitives to even find you? And even then what are the chances that you might have an accident while in custody?


42 posted on 12/02/2011 8:13:59 AM PST by Kartographer ("We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

WTF?


43 posted on 12/02/2011 8:31:12 AM PST by KansasGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberalism is suicide

Of coure you are right. Its happening in the Senate this week and all but 2 Republicrats voted for it. Including Jim DeMint for God’s sake. The police state is upon us.


44 posted on 12/02/2011 9:22:14 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
where did the fbi get the tanks from?
45 posted on 12/02/2011 2:59:40 PM PST by guitarplayer1953
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
Including Jim DeMint for God’s sake.

Just remember that these people are not friends of liberty. Friends of liberty are the ones Republicans and Democrats alike call "nuts".

46 posted on 12/02/2011 2:59:55 PM PST by Mr. Jeeves (CTRL-GALT-DELETE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
this law will allow them to do so. Up to this point the US military has not and can not be used against citizens of the USA. This law ill allow them to do so now.
47 posted on 12/02/2011 3:03:50 PM PST by guitarplayer1953
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Under the AUMF and McCain-Levin, detention and trial under the laws of war are narrowly prescribed only for those fighting with or aiding and abetting the enemy.

He contends that this is not just any enemy but mark my words some president will interpret this to be groups of people in the USA. How many have thought that the SC could give the right to kill a baby in the womb under the commerces clause, or forcing people to buy insurance under the commerce clause. If this did not give any new powers to the president then why write the bill to do so? Let say that in 2012 that BO is defeated and masss rioting breaks out in large cities do you think that they will set back and let the locals handle it while the cities burn? No they will call in the military.

48 posted on 12/02/2011 3:13:20 PM PST by guitarplayer1953
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953; Sherman Logan
"where did the fbi get the tanks from?"

From the GSA motor pool? You know how it is once you give something to one Governmental department they all want one and you know like the EPA, Department of Education, IRS.......
49 posted on 12/03/2011 4:51:00 AM PST by Kartographer ("We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson