Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [NESARA101] THE NDAA ACT IS A DIRECT ATTACK AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION (Explain.)

Expand Messages
  • Karlc VanGuilder
    people alway site those that have this degree or that degree as they have in the past . well the dumding down of america in not undereducation  it s over
    Message 1 of 6 , Jan 30, 2012
      people alway site those that have this degree or that degree as they have in the past . well the dumding down of america in not undereducation  it's over spialization . this how they lose their way and see only what they have been programed to see . that's why the ingnorant people come up with solutions more often than the educated do . their eyes are open to the bazaar and not to blocking or accepting these so called can't do ways of thinking .  so you all need to step up and find and/or make ways to do all you say can't be done .   
       
       .  it's Karl
    • middleeastanalyst
      I m brand new, so I might be stepping in it by responding, but I ve never been overly cautious or concerned about my image. Sooo here it goes, the last
      Message 2 of 6 , Jan 30, 2012
        I'm brand new, so I might be stepping in it by responding, but I've never been overly cautious or concerned about my image. Sooo here it goes, the last amendment to the NDAA basically did away with the right to due process, the Writ of Habeas Corpus...which doesn't just go against the US Constitution, but International Law as well....and all of the US Miranda rights.

        It says that without any oversight, by a court, military tribunal, a judge, Congress, or anyone else, the US President can basically kidnap and detain anyone, anywhere in the world (including US citizens inside US borders), at any time, for however long he wants to...with no trial, lawyers, or other representation, no notification to their family, he doesn't need to provide any proof, or even charge them with a crime.

        But since last year they made it legal to execute anyone (including US citizens), at any time, anywhere, with no due process or oversight...and no one really got too hot & bothered over that, it wasn't all that surprising that this amendment slid right through as well.

        I think the most yelling that was done, this time around, was by the right-wing religious conservatives, who were only concerned that by removing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for the US military, the Amendment had somehow legalized and encouraged US troops to engage in bestiality...

        ~N

        --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, Mikal Haley <chipsterthehipster@...> wrote:
        >
        > i find it sort of funny.
        > amendments can be called treason by deceptive arguers. how does the law
        > stated affect the constitution.
        > first i have heard about it is now. please frame the answer in a context
        > that supports practical application of NESARA if you're serious,
        > it's about information, you don't have to fire back an answer.
        >
        > i could search for myself and i did, but it's better to get info from
        > someone who has living insight
        > -- just looking at text makes my eyes glaze over. what is the new act?
        > how does it go against the constitution?
        >
        > NESARA changes a lot of things on the fundamental level, it itself is like
        > an amendment.
        >
        > the original constitition did not allow women the right to vote,
        > and discussion and WAR and tumult and generations took place before that
        > basic tool was added to the american democratic system.
        >
        > loyalty to unfair systems and structures without deep thought can be called
        > unwise stewardship....
        >
        >
        >
        > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:18 AM, gmacjr@... <
        > gmacjr@...> wrote:
        >
        > >
        > >
        > > *"If you create a law that circumvents the Constitution, you commit
        > > treason."*
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > *-------Original Message-------*
        > >
        > > *From:* Mikal Haley <chipsterthehipster@...>
        > > *Date:* 01/30/12 04:01:37
        > > *To:* NESARA101@yahoogroups.com
        > > *Subject:* Re: [NESARA101] THE NDAA ACT IS A DIRECT ATTACK AGAINST THE
        > > CONSTITUTION (Explain.)
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:35 AM, lawrencelu55 <lawrencelu9@...>wrote:
        > > Posted on January 28, 2012
        > >
        > > ….
        > > THE NDAA ACT IS A DIRECT ATTACK AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION
        > >
        > > can you explain how? why is said act "a direct attack against the
        > > constitution"? how is that bad?
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > [image: FREE Animations for your email - by IncrediMail! Click Here!]<http://www.incredimail.com/?id=619264&did=10500&ppd=2724,201107241500,9,1,820154832617812363&rui=146068913&app_test_id=0&sd=20120130>
        > >
        > >
        >
      • Andres Espino
        Constitutional law is different for every country as each has their own constitution of some sort.  This group has members from nearly 100 countries so
        Message 3 of 6 , Jan 31, 2012
          Constitutional law is different for every country as each has their own constitution of some sort.  This group has members from nearly 100 countries so discussion of the US Constitution in here is unrelatable to many.

          In short "Constitutional Purists" believe the US constitution should never be altered or changed and many resent the changes which have taken place in the past as detracting from its original perfection.

          Like "Archie Bunker" .. a Famous Television Character Bigot, There are still some Americans today who want to define America from their own religious, political or social views.  Prejudice has not been overcome in America, it has only been pushed underground.  There will always be some who do not believe all the races are or should be equal, some who believe that women should be subordinate to men, that wives and children should be the property of the male, and that their way (or religion) is the 'right way' and want to make the country reflect that.  Some try to say it was the 'intent' of the founding fathers to make America their particular way

          To purists, any suggestion of change is a threat against the American Constitution.

          Andres
          (the other Andrew)




          From: Mikal Haley <chipsterthehipster@...>
          To: NESARA101@yahoogroups.com
          Cc: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 4:55 AM
          Subject: [WorldCitizen] Re: [NESARA101] THE NDAA ACT IS A DIRECT ATTACK AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION (Explain.)

           
          i find it sort of funny.
          amendments can be called treason by deceptive arguers.   how does the law stated affect the constitution.
          first i have heard about it is now. please frame the answer in a context that supports practical application of NESARA if you're serious,
          it's about information, you don't have to fire back an answer.

          i could search for myself and i did, but it's better to get info from someone who has living insight
          -- just looking at text makes my eyes glaze over.  what is the new act?  how does it go against the constitution?

          NESARA changes a lot of things on the fundamental level, it itself is like an amendment.

          the original constitition did not allow women the right to vote,
          and discussion and WAR and tumult and generations took place before that basic tool was added to the american democratic system.

          loyalty to unfair systems and structures without deep thought can be called unwise stewardship....



          On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:18 AM, gmacjr@... <gmacjr@...> wrote:


          “If you create a law that circumvents the Constitution, you commit treason.”
           
           
           
           
           
          -------Original Message-------
           
          Date: 01/30/12 04:01:37
          Subject: Re: [NESARA101] THE NDAA ACT IS A DIRECT ATTACK AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION (Explain.)
           
           


          On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:35 AM, lawrencelu55 <lawrencelu9@...> wrote:
          Posted on January 28, 2012

          ….
          THE NDAA ACT IS A DIRECT ATTACK AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION

          can you explain how?  why is said act "a direct attack against the constitution"? how is that bad?
           
           
           
           
          FREE Animations for your email - by IncrediMail! Click Here!




        • Mikal
          thanks for what you say.i am for individual rights -- but seeing the history of slavery, prejudice against women and childrenthat were a given when the
          Message 4 of 6 , Feb 2, 2012
            thanks for what you say.
            i am for individual rights -- but seeing the history of slavery, prejudice against women and children
            that were a given when the constitution was created, i know that many people are against ALL
            FORMS of constitutional politics, and want something new and more all inclusive for the future.

            Plato's world is the world we get constitutional republics from
            a world where women were not citizens and slaves were considered a right.

            obviously there are people who will KILL to stop people from assuming it's their right to have slaves.
            that being said, some will seek ways of achieving fairness for all that are not constitutional at all.

            constitutional governments have ruled over atrocities against humanity.
            they are the PAST. if they are thoughtlessly imposed on the future, then there's no political evolution
            and the same sort of atrocities would be committed and suffered through...rendering any new world citizenship 
            initatives absurd, moot, no different than the, uh, SHIT they suffer through in Egypt and the United States now,
            as well as Greece for that matter.

            Republics tend to look good on paper and yet serve elites and militarians.  I think you're stepping OUT of it by entering this conversation, 
            friend, only through rational debate can newways of living be generated.
            It says that without any oversight, by a court, military tribunal, a judge, Congress, or anyone else, the US President can basically kidnap and detain anyone, anywhere in the world (including US citizens inside US borders), at any time, for however long he wants to...with no trial, lawyers, or other representation, no notification to their family, he doesn't need to provide any proof, or even charge them with a crime.

             see, i didn't understand that until now.   that's bad and wrong and smacks of the Nazis. But there is a legacy of one George Bush, no, TWO George Bushes to consider -- and their focus on leadership was of course the 'all powerful Napoleon' sort of legislative imperialist...and they dug deep into the American infrastructure. Removing what they did will take time and attention.

            > But since last year they made it legal to execute anyone (including US citizens), at any time, anywhere, with no due process or oversight...and no one really got too hot & bothered over that, it wasn't all that surprising that this amendment slid right through as well. 

            --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "middleeastanalyst" <middleeastanalyst@...> wrote:
            >
            > I'm brand new, so I might be stepping in it by responding, but I've never been overly cautious or concerned about my image. Sooo here it goes, the last amendment to the NDAA basically did away with the right to due process, the Writ of Habeas Corpus...which doesn't just go against the US Constitution, but International Law as well....and all of the US Miranda rights.
            >
            > It says that without any oversight, by a court, military tribunal, a judge, Congress, or anyone else, the US President can basically kidnap and detain anyone, anywhere in the world (including US citizens inside US borders), at any time, for however long he wants to...with no trial, lawyers, or other representation, no notification to their family, he doesn't need to provide any proof, or even charge them with a crime.
            >
            > But since last year they made it legal to execute anyone (including US citizens), at any time, anywhere, with no due process or oversight...and no one really got too hot & bothered over that, it wasn't all that surprising that this amendment slid right through as well.
            >
            > I think the most yelling that was done, this time around, was by the right-wing religious conservatives, who were only concerned that by removing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for the US military, the Amendment had somehow legalized and encouraged US troops to engage in bestiality...
            >
            > ~N
            >
            > --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, Mikal Haley chipsterthehipster@ wrote:
            > >
            > > i find it sort of funny.
            > > amendments can be called treason by deceptive arguers. how does the law
            > > stated affect the constitution.
            > > first i have heard about it is now. please frame the answer in a context
            > > that supports practical application of NESARA if you're serious,
            > > it's about information, you don't have to fire back an answer.
            > >
            > > i could search for myself and i did, but it's better to get info from
            > > someone who has living insight
            > > -- just looking at text makes my eyes glaze over. what is the new act?
            > > how does it go against the constitution?
            > >
            > > NESARA changes a lot of things on the fundamental level, it itself is like
            > > an amendment.
            > >
            > > the original constitition did not allow women the right to vote,
            > > and discussion and WAR and tumult and generations took place before that
            > > basic tool was added to the american democratic system.
            > >
            > > loyalty to unfair systems and structures without deep thought can be called
            > > unwise stewardship....
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:18 AM, gmacjr@ <
            > > gmacjr@ wrote:
            > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > *"If you create a law that circumvents the Constitution, you commit
            > > > treason."*
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > *-------Original Message-------*
            > > >
            > > > *From:* Mikal Haley chipsterthehipster@
            > > > *Date:* 01/30/12 04:01:37
            > > > *To:* NESARA101@yahoogroups.com
            > > > *Subject:* Re: [NESARA101] THE NDAA ACT IS A DIRECT ATTACK AGAINST THE
            > > > CONSTITUTION (Explain.)
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:35 AM, lawrencelu55 lawrencelu9@wrote:
            > > > Posted on January 28, 2012
            > > >
            > > > ….
            > > > THE NDAA ACT IS A DIRECT ATTACK AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION
            > > >
            > > > can you explain how? why is said act "a direct attack against the
            > > > constitution"? how is that bad?
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > [image: FREE Animations for your email - by IncrediMail! Click Here!]<http://www.incredimail.com/?id=619264&did=10500&ppd=2724,201107241500,9,1,820154832617812363&rui=146068913&app_test_id=0&sd=20120130>
            > > >
            > > >
            > >
            >
          • Andres Espino
            while it is theoretically possible (and we did pretty much that against Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladin), Wikipedia says there are still some checks and
            Message 5 of 6 , Feb 3, 2012
              while it is theoretically possible (and we did pretty much that against Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladin), Wikipedia says there are still some checks and balances protecting the average individual not guilty of terrorism or mass killings.... See sections under controversy.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012#Controversy_over_indefinite_detention


              The NDAA act has actually been around since 2008 in more or less its present form and the Internal Security Act since 1950.  It is not a new idea.


              Even most French countries are under Napoleonic Law (one is presumed guilty and must prove innocence) and does not have benefit of a Jury trial in most cases, or bail or any other benefits Americans are used to. 

              Some politicians believe that since international terrorists like Bin Ladin could seek and take up refuge in places where they could not be touched, it is necessary for the US to be able to extend jurisdiction to bring such to  justice.


              From: middleeastanalyst <middleeastanalyst@...>
              To: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 9:34 PM
              Subject: [WorldCitizen] Re: [NESARA101] THE NDAA ACT IS A DIRECT ATTACK AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION (Explain.)

               
              I'm brand new, so I might be stepping in it by responding, but I've never been overly cautious or concerned about my image. Sooo here it goes, the last amendment to the NDAA basically did away with the right to due process, the Writ of Habeas Corpus...which doesn't just go against the US Constitution, but International Law as well....and all of the US Miranda rights.

              It says that without any oversight, by a court, military tribunal, a judge, Congress, or anyone else, the US President can basically kidnap and detain anyone, anywhere in the world (including US citizens inside US borders), at any time, for however long he wants to...with no trial, lawyers, or other representation, no notification to their family, he doesn't need to provide any proof, or even charge them with a crime.

              But since last year they made it legal to execute anyone (including US citizens), at any time, anywhere, with no due process or oversight...and no one really got too hot & bothered over that, it wasn't all that surprising that this amendment slid right through as well.

              I think the most yelling that was done, this time around, was by the right-wing religious conservatives, who were only concerned that by removing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for the US military, the Amendment had somehow legalized and encouraged US troops to engage in bestiality...

              ~N

              --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, Mikal Haley <chipsterthehipster@...> wrote:
              >
              > i find it sort of funny.
              > amendments can be called treason by deceptive arguers. how does the law
              > stated affect the constitution.
              > first i have heard about it is now. please frame the answer in a context
              > that supports practical application of NESARA if you're serious,
              > it's about information, you don't have to fire back an answer.
              >
              > i could search for myself and i did, but it's better to get info from
              > someone who has living insight
              > -- just looking at text makes my eyes glaze over. what is the new act?
              > how does it go against the constitution?
              >
              > NESARA changes a lot of things on the fundamental level, it itself is like
              > an amendment.
              >
              > the original constitition did not allow women the right to vote,
              > and discussion and WAR and tumult and generations took place before that
              > basic tool was added to the american democratic system.
              >
              > loyalty to unfair systems and structures without deep thought can be called
              > unwise stewardship....
              >
              >
              >
              > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:18 AM, gmacjr@... <
              > gmacjr@...> wrote:
              >
              > >
              > >
              > > *"If you create a law that circumvents the Constitution, you commit
              > > treason."*
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > *-------Original Message-------*
              > >
              > > *From:* Mikal Haley <chipsterthehipster@...>
              > > *Date:* 01/30/12 04:01:37
              > > *To:* NESARA101@yahoogroups.com
              > > *Subject:* Re: [NESARA101] THE NDAA ACT IS A DIRECT ATTACK AGAINST THE
              > > CONSTITUTION (Explain.)
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:35 AM, lawrencelu55 <lawrencelu9@...>wrote:
              > > Posted on January 28, 2012
              > >
              > > ….
              > > THE NDAA ACT IS A DIRECT ATTACK AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION
              > >
              > > can you explain how? why is said act "a direct attack against the
              > > constitution"? how is that bad?
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > [image: FREE Animations for your email - by IncrediMail! Click Here!]<http://www.incredimail.com/?id=619264&did=10500&ppd=2724,201107241500,9,1,820154832617812363&rui=146068913&app_test_id=0&sd=20120130>
              > >
              > >
              >



            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.