Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Republicans vote against restoring Constitutional Rights.

Posted by   + Show Post

 H.R 4310, also known as the National Defense Authorization Act recently went up to be amended to ensure that the Consitutional rights of due process and trial by jury were upheld for American citizens.

Here is the voting record thus far.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll270.xml

 

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 270
(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)


      H R 4310      RECORDED VOTE      18-May-2012      9:45 AM
      AUTHOR(S):  Smith of Washington Amendment No. 46
      QUESTION:  On Agreeing to the Amendment

Ayes Noes PRES NV
Republican 19 219   3
Democratic 163 19   8
Independent        
TOTALS 182 238   11


As the record shows, Republicans voted no on this Amendment to the Act effectively voting against ensuring that citizens Constitutional rights are protected.

What say you?

by on May. 27, 2012 at 6:19 AM
Replies (31-35):
norwegianwood
by Member on May. 28, 2012 at 4:58 PM

 There were more than one acts of sedition in this country AND you may think oh..they had to prove it in a court of law is some kind of great thing..in point of fact, you could be held a LONG TIME before it was ever heard, and you could be questioned--there was no such animal as miranda back then--which is also no different here. The fact is that unless caught OFF of US soil, americans 'accused' here have been given ALL their rights...it's another wedge issue meant to get people all riled up and focused on something OTHER than what the looming major threat to ALL our futures happens to be...and THAT is the debt and spending.

P

Quoting mehamil1:

And they never ever have. I just posted about the Sedition Act of 1798 which does what the NDA Act does only a critical component is missing: Proving it in the court of law. That's huge. 

Quoting Friday:

I don't think either party or the majority of politicians give a rip about the Constitution. They care about gaining and keeping power and making money. It's not about what's right, wrong or Constitutional. It's about doing whatever they believe necessary to retain power.

 

 

mehamil1
by on May. 28, 2012 at 5:36 PM
2 moms liked this

Eh, I disagree on the big looming thing. Our money isn't backed by anything and the fed just keeps on printing it. That'll bite them in the ass in one way or another. The debt or surplus is something that is beyond our control (by our I mean us peasants). The elite control that and use it how they see fit the same way everything else is used to control and manipulate. 

Let me explain my stance on the whole court thing. I do not believe many people get a fair trial in this country. If you do not have the money for a decent lawyer who is part of a firm with access to resources, chance are you aren't going to get a fair trial. That is just my opinion based on a lot of reading I had to do for college justice studies classes. So just because the Sedition Act required a court to prove it, doesn't mean justice was carried out. Corruption, trumped up charges against someone who wouldn't shut up, a kangaroo court, and endless waiting for a trial. It happens all the time. My point is that even if the court was a farce, it was still a somewhat of a trial and still followed some kind of procedure. Even if it was just for show. With the NDA Act, they are doing away with that altogether. They aren't even going to bother to pretend. They'll just kill you even if they don't have a shred of actual solid evidence against you. That worries me. That is a very slippery slope. 

Oh, and your screen name now has me listening to Norwegian wood on repeat. This is going to be stuck in my head all day. THANKS. 

Quoting norwegianwood:

 There were more than one acts of sedition in this country AND you may think oh..they had to prove it in a court of law is some kind of great thing..in point of fact, you could be held a LONG TIME before it was ever heard, and you could be questioned--there was no such animal as miranda back then--which is also no different here. The fact is that unless caught OFF of US soil, americans 'accused' here have been given ALL their rights...it's another wedge issue meant to get people all riled up and focused on something OTHER than what the looming major threat to ALL our futures happens to be...and THAT is the debt and spending.

P

Quoting mehamil1:

And they never ever have. I just posted about the Sedition Act of 1798 which does what the NDA Act does only a critical component is missing: Proving it in the court of law. That's huge. 

Quoting Friday:

I don't think either party or the majority of politicians give a rip about the Constitution. They care about gaining and keeping power and making money. It's not about what's right, wrong or Constitutional. It's about doing whatever they believe necessary to retain power.


 


norwegianwood
by Member on May. 28, 2012 at 6:19 PM

 I don't get why you bring up the fed as I didn't mention it or the value of our money or spending etc...

So, you're basically arguing that they ought to at least do it 'for show????' LOL I prefer a straight forward approach. In issues of war or of those we deemed to be a threat to our security, it is not the Sedition Act that is even the comparison. Interment camps not just for Japanese but also of Germans, who were American citizens, would be the comparison. When we were involved in a civil war would be another...I believe habeous corpus was suspended.

hahaha Sorry about the song. The sn has a triple meaning for me: it's one of the few Beatle songs that I like, and I am half norwegian...then there's the play on wood/would...so, I just thought it the perfect fit. : )

P

Quoting mehamil1:

Eh, I disagree on the big looming thing. Our money isn't backed by anything and the fed just keeps on printing it. That'll bite them in the ass in one way or another. The debt or surplus is something that is beyond our control (by our I mean us peasants). The elite control that and use it how they see fit the same way everything else is used to control and manipulate. 

Let me explain my stance on the whole court thing. I do not believe many people get a fair trial in this country. If you do not have the money for a decent lawyer who is part of a firm with access to resources, chance are you aren't going to get a fair trial. That is just my opinion based on a lot of reading I had to do for college justice studies classes. So just because the Sedition Act required a court to prove it, doesn't mean justice was carried out. Corruption, trumped up charges against someone who wouldn't shut up, a kangaroo court, and endless waiting for a trial. It happens all the time. My point is that even if the court was a farce, it was still a somewhat of a trial and still followed some kind of procedure. Even if it was just for show. With the NDA Act, they are doing away with that altogether. They aren't even going to bother to pretend. They'll just kill you even if they don't have a shred of actual solid evidence against you. That worries me. That is a very slippery slope. 

Oh, and your screen name now has me listening to Norwegian wood on repeat. This is going to be stuck in my head all day. THANKS. 

 

 

 

Carpy
by Platinum Member on May. 28, 2012 at 7:09 PM

What about the democrats that voted that way?

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

The majority of them voted that way because the party is corrupt by nature

They sign a pledge to an unelected man / criminal - Norquist

They could not care less about the Constitution...it's about their party


Quoting bluespagan:

 I wouldn't say that about ALL of them.  Blanket generalizations is what gets us all into trouble.  But this is telling when  a majority of them voted this way.


Quoting sweet-a-kins:

They are liars and crooks

The Constitution means nothing to them

 


sweet-a-kins
by Ruby Member on May. 28, 2012 at 7:17 PM
1 mom liked this
You would have to ask them, since it wasn't the majority voting that way, it speaks to the individual and not the party itself

Quoting Carpy:

What about the democrats that voted that way?

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

The majority of them voted that way because the party is corrupt by nature



They sign a pledge to an unelected man / criminal - Norquist



They could not care less about the Constitution...it's about their party




Quoting bluespagan:

 I wouldn't say that about ALL of them.  Blanket generalizations is what gets us all into trouble.  But this is telling when  a majority of them voted this way.



Quoting sweet-a-kins:

They are liars and crooks

The Constitution means nothing to them


 


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)