the U.S. Senate has just passed a bill that effectively ends the Bill of Rights in America.

A bill can't supersede an amendment. If the bill goes against the Bill of Rights, it will be struck down.

RuKiddingMe!! wrote:

This bill, passed late last night in a 93-7 vote, declares the entire USA to be a "battleground" upon which U.S. military forces can operate with impunity, overriding Posse Comitatus and granting the military the unchecked power to arrest, detain, interrogate and even assassinate U.S. citizens with impunity.

Thanks for your post. It's good to be aware of such things.

a bill can't end the BoR wrote:

A bill can't supersede an amendment. If the bill goes against the Bill of Rights, it will be struck down.

Who would strike it down?

A few observations:

Doesn't the bill provide for a review of detainees' status every 180 days? And I didn't see anything in the bill purporting to deny a right to file a habeas corpus writ.

There were similar bills in effect after the Civil War, and those went away.

If this violates the Constitution, then it won't stand.

That being said, I don't think they ought to pass it either. After 9/11 we've had what, like half a dozen terrorist plots in this country? There doesn't seem to be any reason that the civil courts can't handle it.

You're using logic and putting you faith in the rule of law, both which have been disregarded in the cesspool of DC. The president believes the BOR and the constitution are documents of negative liberties, and feels that they limit the governments power. Which was the point. This isn't going to end well.

Troll Hard wrote:

You're using logic and putting you faith in the rule of law, both which have been disregarded in the cesspool of DC. The president believes the BOR and the constitution are documents of negative liberties, and feels that they limit the governments power. Which was the point. This isn't going to end well.

If the SCOTUS said this was unconstitutional, I don't see Obama pulling an Andrew Jackson and ignoring them, especially for a bill that he wasn't too enthusiastic about in the first place.

RuKiddingMe!! wrote:

... and even the ACLU is outraged about this potential law:

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senate-rejects-amendment-banning-indefinite-detention

Hmm, "even the ACLU". You make it sound like it's surprising the ACLU would oppose this sort of thing. It would be shocking if the ACLU didn't oppose this.

Ron Paul warned about this. A voice in the forest.

And to add to that, it's not that Ron Paul was the only person warning about this, but that he is the only politician putting the seriousness of this before the eyes of the public.

Whoever has any confidence in the judicial branch to uphold the Constitution is a moron of epic proportions. The SCOTUS abdicated its responsibility long ago.

America is becoming a dangerous place to live. I'm seriously considering a move to Canada, Australia or Singapore.

BRG/253 wrote:

Whoever has any confidence in the judicial branch to uphold the Constitution is a moron of epic proportions. The SCOTUS abdicated its responsibility long ago.

Why do you say that?

Damn. Looks like Ammar Moussa, Jordan Hasay, Hicahm El Gerrourj, etc. may be going into U.S. Concentration Camps.

Concerned Citizen wrote:

BRG/253 wrote:

Whoever has any confidence in the judicial branch to uphold the Constitution is a moron of epic proportions. The SCOTUS abdicated its responsibility long ago.

Why do you say that?

I never understood why enemy combatants were treated differently than American enemy combatants, particularly when illegal aliens are treated the same as U.S. citizens.

Concerned Citizen wrote:

Why do you say that?

Does the PARTRIOT Act ring a bell? Where in the Constitution is that authorized? Which amendment empowers the FCC to regulate speech? It sure isn't the first. I could go on for volumes. The only reason you wouldn't see it would be that you think the Constitution is a "living" document, which is statist-speak for the belief that government can do whatever it wants, which is precisely what has brought us the evil in question.

yup and wrote:

And to add to that, it's not that Ron Paul was the only person warning about this, but that he is the only politician putting the seriousness of this before the eyes of the public.

Seriously admire that man. He clearly considers honesty and forthrightness more important than success. And I hope the American people make him successful for acting accordingly!

The Senate has a Democrat majority. That says it all.

BRG/253 wrote:

Concerned Citizen wrote:

Why do you say that?

Does the PARTRIOT Act ring a bell? Where in the Constitution is that authorized? Which amendment empowers the FCC to regulate speech? It sure isn't the first. I could go on for volumes. The only reason you wouldn't see it would be that you think the Constitution is a "living" document, which is statist-speak for the belief that government can do whatever it wants, which is precisely what has brought us the evil in question.

I believe both were authorized under the Commerce Clause, Art. I, section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution.

As far as the Patriot Act, what part of it are you concerned with? This article might make you feel better about it:

I don't see the Constitution as a "living document" per se, but I think things like television and radio, which the FCC regulate, pretty clearly fall under any sensible definition of the phrase "interstate commerce."

A few important things -

The offending provisions were tacked onto a military spending bill. Voting against it is political suicide. It not a sure thing that Obama will exercise his promise to veto. He hasn't exactly shown enough spine thus far. It's also problematic for him because Obama promised to shut gitmo within a year of his inauguration. Then he realized that he couldn't win trials against most of the detainees and couldn't beg other countries to take them so 3 years later gitmo is still open. This bill seems like it will allow the military to hold the gitmo detainees indefinitely.

It's a scary picture of the strength of the military industrial complex that this provision even made it to the bill.

categorically wrote:

It's a scary picture of the strength of the military industrial complex that this provision even made it to the bill.

It doesn't sound like the military-industrial complex is too enthusiastic about it from the articles the OP linked to.

Concerned Citizen wrote:

I believe both were authorized under the Commerce Clause, Art. I, section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution.

As far as the Patriot Act, what part of it are you concerned with? This article might make you feel better about it:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=317501

I don't see the Constitution as a "living document" per se, but I think things like television and radio, which the FCC regulate, pretty clearly fall under any sensible definition of the phrase "interstate commerce."

You are truly sick and people like you are the reason that this country will burn to the ground.