Story Comments
Posted by: StevieGee 8 months, 1 week ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
100%
StevieGee8 months, 1 week ago
-
100%
Progressive8 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And you don't need to be a neocon to respect the second amendment. There's no way Obama would ever try to do to it what Bush did to the first amendment.
Reply
In addition to never having said, implied or hinted at any desire to take all guns away from private citizens in this country, such a policy wouldn’t even be in Obama’s best political interest — which most of us can agree is a top priority for politicians.
http://www.lsureveille.com/relax-baton-rouge-obama...-
0%
nostalgia8 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So how does the left get the gun control that many on the left want?
Reply
They can't get it at the ballot box
They can't get it through the Congress - especially the House
They have been unsuccessful in the Supreme Court
So what is the only possible course of action - an international treaty
Why do you think Obama said in Mexico he wants to see the Senate ratify CIFTA - an international way to circumvent US law and second amendment rights?
Why is it needed since there are already laws on the books making it illegal to traffic in firearms across the Mexican border - laws in the US and Mexico?
Several provisions in CIFTA (among others) which should cause you to pause:
1. No provision in this Convention shall be construed as preventing the States Parties from engaging in mutual cooperation within the framework of other existing or future international, bilateral, or multilateral agreements, or of any other applicable arrangements or practices.
2. States Parties may adopt stricter measures than those provided for by this Convention if, in their opinion, such measures are desirable to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.
Any dispute that may arise as to the application or interpretation of this Convention shall be resolved through diplomatic channels or, failing which, by any other means of peaceful settlement decided upon by the States Parties involved.-
100%
Progressive8 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I see no logic in presuming foreign policy can be used to circumvent amendments protecting domestic rights, especially since the Democrats have been so vocal in condemning Bush's trashing of the First Amendment in his "War on Terror".
Reply
It's just right-wing fear mongering. Not gonna happen.
http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/49907.htm-
100%
Endoscopy8 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You ignore the constitution.
Reply
Article 3 section 2
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made,"
Treaties become the law of the land until revoked. The protection here is that the Senate is supposed to ratify a treaty hopefully preventing a treaty to change our laws. What happens if 60 Senators favor gun control and sign on to a treaty that mandates that the US has to clamp down on gun ownership. The same with any issue.-
-
100%
Progressive8 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"What happens if 60 Senators favor gun control and sign on to a treaty that mandates that the US has to clamp down on gun ownership."
Reply
The Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms (CIFTA) would not be ratified if interpreted as the NRA would have you believe.
You won't find 60 Senators who favor abrogating the second amendment the way the right fears they might. -
-
-
0%
nostalgia8 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"especially since the Democrats have been so vocal in condemning Bush's trashing of the First Amendment in his "War on Terror"."
Reply
Seems you aren't speaking loud enough or your fearless leader is ignoring you
It's Actually Possible... The Patriot Act Gets Worse
Last Friday evening, in a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA, EFF's litigation against the National Security Agency for the warrantless wiretapping of countless Americans, the Obama Administration's made two deeply troubling arguments.
First, they argued, exactly as the Bush Administration did on countless occasions, that the state secrets privilege requires the court to dismiss the issue out of hand. They argue that simply allowing the case to continue "would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security." As in the past, this is a blatant ploy to dismiss the litigation without allowing the courts to consider the evidence.
It's an especially disappointing argument to hear from the Obama Administration. As a candidate, Senator Obama lamented that the Bush Administration "invoked a legal tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court." He was right then, and we're dismayed that he and his team seem to have forgotten.
Sad as that is, it's the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes.
This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one — not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration — has ever interpreted the law this way.
http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/111477.html-
100%
Progressive8 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"First, they argued, exactly as the Bush Administration did on countless occasions, that the state secrets privilege requires the court to dismiss the issue out of hand."
Reply
This disappointed me, too, but I am more confident in Obama's understanding of national security than Bush's and am not concerned that he would abuse the "state secrets" privilege in the same manner that W did.
"This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented."
...which is why I don't think it will stand.-
0%
nostalgia8 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"which is why I don't think it will stand"
Reply
Who is going to stop it?
MSNBC
N.S.A.’s intercepts exceed limits set by Congress
Officials: Agency involved in ‘overcollection’ of communication by Americans
The National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year, government officials said in recent interviews.
Several intelligence officials, as well as lawyers briefed about the matter, said the N.S.A. had been engaged in “overcollection” of domestic communications of Americans. They described the practice as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional.-
100%
Progressive8 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Who is going to stop it?"
Reply
My comment was in reference to the DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes.
That does not mean the Obama administration will not provide better oversight of the NSA to prevent the type of "overcollection" engaged in under the previous administration.-
-
100%
Progressive8 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year, government officials said in recent interviews."
Reply
Good...the fact that "government officials" are now bringing this out in interviews is already an improvement on the previous administration.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (6)
Ratskii
Newenglander
fsev41
Goppy
SpareChange
ProgressivePeople Who Didn't Like This Comment (0)
No one voted this comment negatively.
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.