constitution

I have friends who support President Obama's order to execute Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan as a matter of practical necessity. Their claim is that it would have been impossible to arrest these criminals and bring them to trial. They say that in order to protect the lives of innocent Americans it is sometimes necessary to bend if not break the law, even the highest law of the land which is our Constitution.

Dear Daily Paul readers and posters please beware the increasing call for Direct Democracy, it is a trap. Instead we need to return to the original idea of the United States government, A Constitutional Republic. The founding fathers created “a republic, if you can keep it,” as Ben Franklin said, when asked in Philadelphia what kind of government they had given us.

The founding fathers understood that democracy was a trap,

1973 US Senate Report 93-549

Today is the ten year anniversary of the U.S.'s invasion and occupation of Afghanistan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqAlM74-02o

On the ten year anniversary of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, let's take a moment to think about who we're fighting and why.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VLKjl...

The United States Constitution is the law of the land. Our nation’s founding charter was intended to reflect our British common law heritage, the lessons of Greek democracy, and the principles of the Roman Republic. It contains historic civil liberties protections that date back to the Magna Carta.

Apparently, even Supreme Court Justices admit in public that they would like to undermine our republic of law with "democracy."

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/RoleofJ

Justices Breyer and Scalia testified on the role of judges in the American republic and democratic systems within the U.S. Question topics included the politicization of the judicial confirmation process, cameras in the courtroom, the role of juries, and the 14th Amendment.

I am about to write a blistering rebuttal to a neocon, Bush kool-aid drinking diatribe that acts as though the Bush years never happened, and only under Obama was the Constitution subverted. As usual, these neocons totally ignore the incredibly destructive, unconstitutional, treasonous actions of the Bush Admin and only complain about what has happened in the past three years, as if they were in a coma till January, 2009. I cannot at this time disclose the document I am rebutting, but I will post it, along with my rebuttal, after I am done.

Please help me by adding your top ten list (or top 20!) of Bush Admin crimes against the Constitution.

I think I already have a pretty decent list, but let me know if I am missing anything.

My top ten list of Bush Admin crimes against Constitution:

1. Lawyers make money by litigating rather than settling.
2. The way to encourage litigation is to put the most assets and property possible at legal risk, or at least to fool people into thinking they are at risk.
3. There are two main ways to get the average person to put their assets at legal risk:

The more Herman Cain picks up in the polls, the more it concerns me greatly. The gains come from those he siphoned off Perry and their support is only in the 2nd degree. I say 2nd degree, because they are not dedicated to any candidate and therefore, their switch is not pre-meditated (1st degree). It's done in the moment and with only an emotion driving it. No thought or research has thoroughly gone into him or other candidates. The reason I am concerned is because it shows the amount of 2nd degree voters/supporters who go for catch phrase politics and not solid truths.

Oct 3, 2011 - Judge Napolitano explains why the President did not have the authority to kill Anwar Al-Awlaki

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvERwChURow

Jay said, "They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it's worked for over 200 years, and [heck], we're not using it anymore."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkdSbN5ov8w

Felt like digging up some good ol' fashioned hypocrisy. A Q&A with Boston.com has plenty of it. Here's some highlights:

"The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional."

However, KILLING them is fine. Just don't detain them.

"Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlKcPNcQlSc
Be sure to spread the word about the October 19th Money Bomb! Let's see the media "Black THIS Out!" Please share this video!

Pledge Site: http://www.blackthisout.com/
Facebook Event: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=181997088537471

In May, Herman Cain told the Atlantic, "I don't believe that the president of the United States should order the assassination of citizens of the United States. That's why we have our court system, and that's why we have our laws."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/herman-c...

Then, this past weekend, right after Anwar al-Awlaki was assassinated, he praised Obama for his actions. Hot Air reported, "Cain told the crowd that he fully supported Barack Obama’s decision to strike Anwar al-Awlaki."

I have been called unrealistic and “a little nuts” for suggesting that Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, should have been charged and convicted before he was assassinated on September 30, 2011, in a U.S. drone attack in Yemen. It’s hardly an unrealistic position, considering that Awlaki has been on the CIA’s hit list since April 2010. That’s 17 months the Obama Administration had to assemble and present evidence to a court in order to charge and convict Awlaki.

In any case, I would like to hear from people. Which of these four points do you disagree with, and why?