Goodbye Bill of Rights

http://rt.com/usa/news/indefinite-detention-bill-senate-905/

Hello, Martial Law. Why in the world would Congress pass this and Obama not veto it?

Congress passed it because they thought it was good law, and evidently Obama either A) felt the same or B) felt that a veto would be a futile gesture. It's up to the Supreme Court to decide if it's unconstitutional.

Fuck this country.

Deh fuck? How did this happen?

RON PAUL 2012

FUCK OBAMA. How could he not veto this?

It passed because the senate is full of assholes that do not know what this country was built upon!

Did Obama pass this yet?

ahlycotc wrote:Did Obama pass this yet?

He revoked his warning to veto it.

This probably means he will not veto it.

The Supreme fucking Court better shoot this shit down, it is unconstitutional beyond all BELIEF.

Habeas corpus is GONE.

Rolo, what are your thoughts on Ayn Rand?

polska. wrote:Rolo, what are your thoughts on Ayn Rand?

She was selfish, I support left-wing anarchy, not right-wing anarchy.


I believe in no government but social justice and cooperation.

Ché Guayaba wrote:

Good times, good times.

This is retarded. I'm not one to believe in the "It's in a constitution from hundreds of years ago so we should stick by it now" kind of thing....but this still isn't right.

Don't understand how they can justify this seriously. Their explanations and point of view are unbelievable.....for a human being yet alone someone with so much power.

What does this mean?

Has it passed the House? If so by what margin?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Has it passed the House? If so by what margin?

Yes, 283 to 136.

More than 2/3 in each house then, maybe you people who are advocating the veto should read the Constitution once in a while.

If the President vetos it, it has to go back to the house and senate. It's more likely to get lower votes the second time. There is also the possibility of a pocket veto.

So, Obama signed it.

ahlycotc wrote:So, Obama signed it.

However, as I said in the Chat Thread, he declared that at least his administration will not use the added provision.

However, the fear is the future administrations.

As I also said, Ron Paul is the only one I completely trust to not ever use this provision.

What's the point of putting such provision if you aren't going to use it? There should never be any time when a US citizen is held captive without due process.

What difference will it make, I don't even know what this shit is.

ahlycotc wrote:What's the point of putting such provision if you aren't going to use it? There should never be any time when a US citizen is held captive without due process.

I completely agree with you, I'm just saying that there is that last glimmer of hope.

ahlycotc wrote:What's the point of putting such provision if you aren't going to use it? There should never be any time when a US citizen is held captive without due process.

He did not draft this law, and he cannot stop it. He is the President, he is not a Prime Minister.

What the fuck..

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:What's the point of putting such provision if you aren't going to use it? There should never be any time when a US citizen is held captive without due process.

He did not draft this law, and he cannot stop it. He is the President, he is not a Prime Minister.

I wasn't talking about Obama. I was talking in general.

ahlycotc wrote:What's the point of putting such provision if you aren't going to use it? There should never be any time when a US citizen is held captive without due process.

Might be stacked with earmarks that Obama wanted but could not pass on their own.

ahlycotc wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

He did not draft this law, and he cannot stop it. He is the President, he is not a Prime Minister.

I wasn't talking about Obama. I was talking in general.

What do you mean, "in general"? The law is intended by the legislature to be used at some point if necessary, but Obama says that his administration will not use it. It's perfectly consistent.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

I wasn't talking about Obama. I was talking in general.

What do you mean, "in general"? The law is intended by the legislature to be used at some point if necessary, but Obama says that his administration will not use it. It's perfectly consistent.

My point is that it shouldn't be used at all. What's the point of adding the provision? Even the Congress has vowed to not abuse it.

kyro7 wrote:What difference will it make, I don't even know what this shit is.

Basically yeah.