Spy on Your Neighbors for Homeland Security

[marharth]

Our 'In house' Constitutional 'Scholar' Excerpt

"The third amendment protects against housing soldiers in a house without the owners consent (which I am almost postitive has been done in Iraq and Afgan). This is not only for US citizens seeing as it states "ANY HOUSE.""

 

 

LMAO, the US Constitution applies ONLY to to the United States, the concept that the founding fathers would create a document that had legal weight in the internal affairs of a foreign country is ridiculous. If thats what your Civics teacher taught you...demand a refund .

Of course it only applies to the USA, but US soldiers shouldn't legally be able to forcefully reside in someones house seeing as it would apply to them.

 

You have to follow the war laws put together in any country you are in.

 

Wouldn't make much sense to follow war laws of the country you are attacking would it?

 

 

So all those soldiers in England during WW2 were violating the Constitution? Can you site a source where US soldiers are staying in houses against the owners will? I haven't heard about that and it doesn't make much sense.

lol...of course it doesn't make much sense..retrofitting your statements to fit the debate rarely does. So if am am to take Martharth's line of reasoning down the road..when GB needed American troops in order to invade Europe we did not have the consent of their population to be quartered in their fields and local country manors without a constitutional mandate....that will be one hell of a surprise to my mum who did just that. Give up Martharth your line of reasoning make no sense, the Constitution only applies to US not foreign countries. When US troops overran German positions throughout France, Belgium, Italy etc we set up command in the local establishments all the time whether the owner liked it or not, it's called war, the difference being is that we paid the owner for the use of his facilities and by and large they were happy to have us being that we were a vast improvement over their prior tenants.

I would like to have a debate without you being rude for once.

 

I might of been wrong, but the other points I addressed are completely valid.

 

If you pay the owner to let you stay, that means they are giving you consent by the way.

[Aurielius]

Our 'In house' Constitutional 'Scholar' Excerpt

"The third amendment protects against housing soldiers in a house without the owners consent (which I am almost postitive has been done in Iraq and Afgan). This is not only for US citizens seeing as it states "ANY HOUSE.""

 

 

LMAO, the US Constitution applies ONLY to to the United States, the concept that the founding fathers would create a document that had legal weight in the internal affairs of a foreign country is ridiculous. If thats what your Civics teacher taught you...demand a refund .

Of course it only applies to the USA, but US soldiers shouldn't legally be able to forcefully reside in someones house seeing as it would apply to them.

 

You have to follow the war laws put together in any country you are in.

 

Wouldn't make much sense to follow war laws of the country you are attacking would it?

 

 

So all those soldiers in England during WW2 were violating the Constitution? Can you site a source where US soldiers are staying in houses against the owners will? I haven't heard about that and it doesn't make much sense.

lol...of course it doesn't make much sense..retrofitting your statements to fit the debate rarely does. So if am am to take Martharth's line of reasoning down the road..when GB needed American troops in order to invade Europe we did not have the consent of their population to be quartered in their fields and local country manors without a constitutional mandate....that will be one hell of a surprise to my mum who did just that. Give up Martharth your line of reasoning make no sense, the Constitution only applies to US not foreign countries. When US troops overran German positions throughout France, Belgium, Italy etc we set up command in the local establishments all the time whether the owner liked it or not, it's called war, the difference being is that we paid the owner for the use of his facilities and by and large they were happy to have us being that we were a vast improvement over their prior tenants.

I would like to have a debate without you being rude for once.

 

I might of been wrong, but the other points I addressed are completely valid.

 

If you pay the owner to let you stay, that means they are giving you consent by the way.

If you promise to stop misinterpreting the Constitution then I promise not to ridicule those statements.The owners in question had no say, their abodes were commandeered as per the customs of war, we paid compensation as per the custom of the US military. Did you want me to address all the other points that you raised in Constitutionality? I had thought that would be unnecessarily unfair, so I refrained.

Edited April 16, 2011 by Aurielius

[Kendo 2]

*passes Aurielius glass of single malt and a fine macanudo chub*

 

Good show, old boy. Don't take any guff.

 

*sits back as Aurielius mops the floor with the opposition*

 

The Constitution, lack-luster document that it is these days, promises rights and equalities to AMERICANS on AMERICAN soil. What our lustful GIs do in occupied countries does not factor in.

 

"We are Jolly Green Giants walking the Earth...with guns."

-Full Metal Jacket

[marharth]

Our 'In house' Constitutional 'Scholar' Excerpt

"The third amendment protects against housing soldiers in a house without the owners consent (which I am almost postitive has been done in Iraq and Afgan). This is not only for US citizens seeing as it states "ANY HOUSE.""

 

 

LMAO, the US Constitution applies ONLY to to the United States, the concept that the founding fathers would create a document that had legal weight in the internal affairs of a foreign country is ridiculous. If thats what your Civics teacher taught you...demand a refund .

Of course it only applies to the USA, but US soldiers shouldn't legally be able to forcefully reside in someones house seeing as it would apply to them.

 

You have to follow the war laws put together in any country you are in.

 

Wouldn't make much sense to follow war laws of the country you are attacking would it?

 

 

So all those soldiers in England during WW2 were violating the Constitution? Can you site a source where US soldiers are staying in houses against the owners will? I haven't heard about that and it doesn't make much sense.

lol...of course it doesn't make much sense..retrofitting your statements to fit the debate rarely does. So if am am to take Martharth's line of reasoning down the road..when GB needed American troops in order to invade Europe we did not have the consent of their population to be quartered in their fields and local country manors without a constitutional mandate....that will be one hell of a surprise to my mum who did just that. Give up Martharth your line of reasoning make no sense, the Constitution only applies to US not foreign countries. When US troops overran German positions throughout France, Belgium, Italy etc we set up command in the local establishments all the time whether the owner liked it or not, it's called war, the difference being is that we paid the owner for the use of his facilities and by and large they were happy to have us being that we were a vast improvement over their prior tenants.

I would like to have a debate without you being rude for once.

 

I might of been wrong, but the other points I addressed are completely valid.

 

If you pay the owner to let you stay, that means they are giving you consent by the way.

If you promise to stop misinterpreting the Constitution then I promise not to ridicule those statements.The owners in question had no say, their abodes were commandeered as per the customs of war, we paid compensation as per the custom of the US military. Did you want me to address all the other points that you raised in Constitutionality? I had thought that would be unnecessarily unfair, so I refrained.

Your trying to say every point I brought up is wrong?

 

I would love to see you try to say that gitmo is perfectly constitutional, so go ahead.

 

Also at the post above me, I do not understand how you can agree with someone proving me wrong if you didn't even read my post before you said what you did. I already admitted to being wrong about that, I just think some people here should start being a bit more polite.

 

This is not a debate about housing soldiers, this is a debate about issues with rights and privacy, more specifically issues with a certain program.

Edited April 16, 2011 by marharth

[RZ1029]

Alright ladies and gentlemen, we're going to break this down, article-by-article, from the Preamble to the last Amendment. I was told to say that Gitmo is perfectly constitutional, so I'm going to.

 

Article 1-

About the only that matters here is Section 8 and 9:

 

SECTION 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Gitmo would probably fall under common defense.

 

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

 

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

 

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

 

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

 

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

 

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

 

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

 

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

 

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

 

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

I'd call the detainment of prisoners a rule.

 

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

 

To provide and maintain a Navy;

 

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

 

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

 

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

 

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

SECTION 9

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

 

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

UNLESS... yep, condition met. Legality achieved.

 

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Hmm... they're just being detained, they aren't being punished. There's a difference, and blowing up civilian targets has been illegal for a while now, in case you were curious.

 

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

 

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

 

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

 

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

 

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

 

 

Article II:

The Presidential pecking order more or less, nothing of consequence.

 

Article III:

Section 3-

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

This deals with friendlies aiding the enemy, which isn't the case and this section doesn't affect inmates, but I thought it was something to note.

 

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

 

Article IV:

State rules and such.

 

Article V:

For amending this document.

 

Article VI:

Transitioning from the CSA to the USoA and allowances therein.

 

Article VII:

How to make this document official. (Ratification)

 

Now, on to the Ammendments:

1-12 deal with the rights of citizens.

13th-

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

 

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I don't think we're forcing the detainees to work in the cotton fields or anything. Let me know if I'm wrong.

 

14th and 15th- The detainees still aren't citizens, nothing to see here.

 

16th-

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

 

I doubt they're making money in Gitmo, but if they are, I'm sure the IRS will get their share.

17th- They don't vote, it's cool.

18th- We already repealed that.

19th- I doubt many (if any) are women, and they still aren't citizens, so no voting for them.

20th- Formality issues.

21th- 18th was a stupid idea after all, apparently.

22nd- Some administrative stuff for the Prez. I don't think they plan to run for office any time soon.

23rd- Adds DC to the electoral college... still not voting.

24th- No moar poll taxes... too bad they still can't vote.

25th- Presidential succession defined.

26th- National voting age of 18, too bad they still aren't citizens and can't vote.

27th- Congress can't give themselves on-the-spot pay raises... guess the detainees can't raise their own pay when they get elected.

 

Done. Gitmo is constitutional. Any more questions?

Edited April 16, 2011 by RZ1029

[Aurielius]

Your trying to say every point I brought up is wrong?

I would love to see you try to say that gitmo is perfectly constitutional, so go ahead.

This thread unless I miss my guess is about Homeland Security, if you want to debate that fine. I thought that by now you had enough of constitutional corrections, if that is what you want then start a thread on the Constitution and I will be amused to come and read your revisionist views. As much as it is a droll experience to provide civic lessons, I had thought that even you would be tired of the tutorials.

 

As far as Guantanamo goes I am unaware that there has been a ruling by the Supreme Court declaring it unconstitutional unless of course you would like to cite the case law as it stands in federal circuit court to prove your assertion. Unless and until the Supreme Court chooses to take on the issue it remains constitutional, otherwise this and past administrations have seriously misinterpreted the rulings of the Attorney Generals in both relevant administrations.

 

And no, not every point is wrong just the preponderance of constitutional interpretations, where you make a subjective point that is different..it's your opinion not a fact, so cannot be wrong. For some reason beyond my understanding I seem to be anvil that you want to beat your head against in almost every thread that I post in, oh well c'est la vie.

[WizardOfAtlantis]

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

UNLESS... yep, condition met. Legality achieved.

 

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Hmm... they're just being detained, they aren't being punished. There's a difference, and blowing up civilian targets has been illegal for a while now, in case you were curious.

Two problems, though I agree with the fact that extrapolating American conditions off American soil is just not possible to do.

 

The first is that the US isn't under the case of either rebellion or invasion.

 

The second is that those prisoners (in Guantanamo, right?) are being tortured often enough, from some accounts (documentaries) I've seen, and they're not just being detained. And regardless, they're not prisoners of war because first you have to have an actual war and you can't declare a war on nobody, and that's what the "War on Terror" is. It's a war on nobody, or anybody that's handy. Take your pick. So, since there is no war, those aren't prisoners of war. Technically speaking, of course, and as far as I understand it.

[RZ1029]

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

 

I would call 9-11 an invasion.

 

I also never called them prisoners of war, nor does that excerpt say anything about prisoners of war.

 

They are criminals in the fact that they were conspirators in the planning or execution of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon, including the failed attempt at the White House.

 

And as they are NOT prisoners of war, as you stated, the Geneva Convention does not apply and we are not bound by it, legally, at any rate.

[marharth]

Your trying to say every point I brought up is wrong?

I would love to see you try to say that gitmo is perfectly constitutional, so go ahead.

This thread unless I miss my guess is about Homeland Security, if you want to debate that fine. I thought that by now you had enough of constitutional corrections, if that is what you want then start a thread on the Constitution and I will be amused to come and read your revisionist views. As much as it is a droll experience to provide civic lessons, I had thought that even you would be tired of the tutorials.

 

As far as Guantanamo goes I am unaware that there has been a ruling by the Supreme Court declaring it unconstitutional unless of course you would like to cite the case law as it stands in federal circuit court to prove your assertion. Unless and until the Supreme Court chooses to take on the issue it remains constitutional, otherwise this and past administrations have seriously misinterpreted the rulings of the Attorney Generals in both relevant administrations.

 

And no, not every point is wrong just the preponderance of constitutional interpretations, where you make a subjective point that is different..it's your opinion not a fact, so cannot be wrong. For some reason beyond my understanding I seem to be anvil that you want to beat your head against in almost every thread that I post in, oh well c'est la vie.

My entire point was that if you start allowing the government to take away certain rights it will lead to them taking away more.

 

Everything I said was my interpretation, and was a matter of opinion.

 

 

@ RZ1029

 

That is referring to spending tax money, and gitmo would not be justified by that.

 

9-11 was not a invasion, it was a signle attack. There is a large difference between a single attack and a invasion.

 

Also I find it hard to beleive anyone can say that things that happen in gtimo are not cruel and unusual punishment.

 

Also many of the people in gitmo were captured without being a armed enemy combatant.

Edited April 16, 2011 by marharth

[RZ1029]

@ RZ1029

 

That is referring to spending tax money, and gitmo would not be justified by that.

Providing for the common defense. It's in the Preamble.

9-11 was not a invasion, it was a signle attack. There is a large difference between a single attack and a invasion.

It was four attacks, three were successful. And 9-11 was not the first time, the WTCs were attacked before without success.

 

Also I find it hard to beleive anyone can say that things that happen in gtimo are not cruel and unusual punishment.

I didn't say it wasn't. I'm also not saying I have a problem with it.

 

Also many of the people in gitmo were captured without being a armed enemy combatant.

Orly? And pray tell, where did you find the list of the inmates and their alleged lack of involvement? And besides, the armed ones aren't the dangerous ones, it's the head of the snake that does the most damage.

Edited April 16, 2011 by RZ1029