or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by foregoneconclusion

 If the central government had really been intended to be "weak", then how do you explain the central government buying and/or conquering such large amounts of territory following the original revolution? Or the fact that the Constitution has always said that federal law supersedes state law? Or the Civil War for that matter? 
 The oppressive government that they threw off was a feudal monarchy that based political power on wealth and land holdings. So the founding fathers were likely opposed to the new government catering to the rich at the expense of the average citizen, correct?
 Congress has passed bills that were signed into law and later ruled to be unconstitutional. Does that by itself prove that Congress as an institution is trying to oppress U.S. citizens? No. The same is true of an organization like the NSA. Yes, the FISA court ruled that they had likely violated Constitutional rights back in 2006 regarding the setup for a CIA/FBI database, but that doesn't prove anything regarding an intent to oppress U.S. citizens. In fact, since it was...
Even if you don't care for the Department of Homeland Security, they have such a wide range of scope that it's hard to see the overall department as existing as a conspiracy against U.S. citizens. IMO, the main problem is that it doesn't really seem to be an obvious improvement on the systems that existed before, at least not to the average citizen. The Patriot Act has always had a lot of problems, but it's also a publicly available document and a law that was passed by...
 Nope. This was my original response to your 4th amendment comment: "Sure. It's proof of the rights that U.S. citizens have regarding search and seizure. That's why the FISA court ruled back in 2006 that the NSA had failed to correctly redact personal information from a database that the FBI/CIA were allowed to access. However, that's the only proven constitutional violation from the entire Snowden document dump, and it was the NSA itself that provided the proof from an...
 Some of the research is secret. Some of it isn't. But the organization itself is not secret.
 I see. Your argument basically consists of a complete double-standard. When you make a generalized reference to the 4th amendment, that's NOT a textbook reference to government. But when I make a generalized reference to the Constitutional powers of the executive branch, that IS a textbook reference to government. How convenient... Anyway, go back in the thread and reread the response I made regarding the Snowden document dump. That was the original response to your 4th...
 That's a bit of a whopper coming from someone who posted a response earlier in the thread that simply said "The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution is proof."
LOL…already resorting to the tactic of claiming that I'm not making a valid argument? 
The President is part of the executive branch which has constitutional powers and responsibilities that are not subject to the approval of Congress. That's the "separate but equal" part of the Constitution.
New Posts  All Forums: