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