Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
- 07-09-2007, 02:48 AM #31
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
Ron PaulOriginally Posted by BearFlagRepublic
Voted against extending a voluntary workplace verification pilot program in 2003
Rep. Paul voted against H.R. 2359, the Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003. H.R. 2359 would extend for five years the voluntary workplace employment eligibility authorization pilot programs created in 1996. This program is an important component of preventing illegal aliens from taking jobs from those who have the legal right to work in this country. H.R. 2359 passed the House Judiciary Committee by a vote of 18 to 8 before being brought up on the suspension calendar. Because it was brought up on the suspension calendar, no amendments were allowed to be offered to the bill and the bill needed a two-thirds majority in order to pass. Thus, even though a majority of Representatives voted in favor of H.R. 2359 (231-170), it failed because a two-thirds majority did not vote in favor of it. However, the Basic Pilot Extension Act eventually passed the Senate by Unanimous Consent as S. 1685. Then, the House passed by voice vote S. 1685 and it was signed by the President, becoming Public Law No. 108-156.
- 07-09-2007, 03:07 AM #32
Re: Ron PaulOriginally Posted by tancredofan
BTW today seemed to turn out to be a ALIPAC war on Ron Paul....Not blaming you tancredofan, it just seemed to turn out that way.Serve Bush with his letter of resignation.
See you at the signing!!
- 07-09-2007, 03:23 AM #33
BTW today seemed to turn out to be a ALIPAC war on Ron Paul....Not blaming you tancredofan, it just seemed to turn out that way.
Hey, it's all good (at least he wasn't attacking Hunter today ), but I do believe we need a Presidential Candidate forum on ALIPAC for these lively discussions. :wink:"Too bad ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation." Henry Kissinger
- 07-09-2007, 04:33 AM #34
I think we should leave all the anti-amnesty candidates alone and concentrate on educating people about the MSM lefty picks that are getting pushed along?Unemployment is not working. Deport illegal alien workers now!
- 07-09-2007, 09:33 AM #35
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
IT IS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION for our military to operate WITHIN THE U.S. They are for FOREIGN INTERVENTION.
The NATIONAL GUARD (or millitia) CAN handle DOMESTIC problems within the U.S. If anyone is sent to the border, constitutionally, it should be the Guard.
I wish when you see this item around the internet, you would address it.
- 07-09-2007, 10:15 AM #36
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
It sure is getting tiresome listening to people complain because Ron Paul is against our military on the border. For the 4th time today.......
OUR MILITARY IS FOR FOREIGN PURPOSES.........O N L Y.
DOMESTICATE (MEANING WITHIN THE U.S.) PROBLEMS WILL BE HANDLED BY THE NATIONAL GUARD.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RON PAUL WAS VOTING ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!!!!
I also checked H RES 365(2002) and HR 1885 (2001). People using these votes to discredit Paul, are really grasping at straws. Before accepting this info as gospel, check for yourself before passing this erroneous info on.
- 07-09-2007, 10:47 AM #37Originally Posted by girlygirl369Serve Bush with his letter of resignation.
See you at the signing!!
- 07-09-2007, 01:37 PM #38Originally Posted by MW
Nice picture of Hunter the Happiest person in the world when Bush signed the bill
Hunter was the sponser in the House
Title: To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Hunter, Duncan [CA-52] (introduced 9/12/2006) Cosponsors (19)
Related Bills: H.R.6166, S.3861, S.3886, S.3901, S.3929, S.3930
Latest Major Action: 9/25/2006 Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 409.
House Reports: 109-664 Part 1, 109-664 Part 2
Note: For further action, see S.3930, which became Public Law 109-366 on 10/17/2006.
here is a copy of the bill in pdf final http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... ih.txt.pdf I believe you can find removal of Habeas corpus around pg 55.
Duncan is a warmonger and basically supports anything that has military contracts in it where he and his companies lobbies can make money here is another example of that you might find interesting
Duncan Hunter: Never Mind What the Navy Says, This Plane is AWESOME
As far as Birthright citizenship Ron Paul has a bill in the house to end it
4. H.J.RES.46 : Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 6/13/2007) Cosponsors (6)
Committees: House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 6/25/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties
- 07-09-2007, 02:36 PM #39
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
MILITARY COMMISSION ACT OF 2006
SEC. 6. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.
(a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (e) (as added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742)) and by striking subsection (e) (as added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477)); and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who--
`(A) is currently in United States custody; and
`(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
The November 13, 2001 Presidential Military Order purported to give the President of the United States the power to detain non-citizens suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism as an enemy combatant. As such, that person could be held indefinitely, without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without entitlement to a legal consultant. Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus, and the United States Bill of Rights.
In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), re-confirmed the right of United States citizens to habeas corpus even when declared an enemy combatant. The Court affirmed the basic principle that habeas corpus of a citizen could not be revoked.
In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. ___ (2006), Salim Ahmed Hamdan petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging that the military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay "violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions. In a 5-3 ruling the Court rejected Congress's attempts to strip the court of jurisdiction over habeas corpus appeals by detainees at GuantÃ¡namo Bay. Though Congress had previously passed the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006 which stated in Section 1005(e), "Procedures for Status Review of Detaineed Outside the United States.":
"(1) Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
(2)The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on any claims with respect to an alien under this paragraph shall be limited to the consideration of whether the status determination ... was consistent with the standards and procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense for Combatant Status Review Tribunals (including the requirement that the conclusion of the Tribunal be supported by a preponderance of the evidence and allowing a rebuttable presumption in favor of the Government's evidence), and to the extent the Constitution and laws of the United States are applicable, whether the use of such standards and procedures to make the determination is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States."
On 29 September 2006, the U.S. House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006, a bill which would suspend habeas corpus for any alien determined to be an "unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States" by a vote of 65-34. (This was the result on the bill to approve the military trials for detainees; an amendment to remove the suspension of habeas corpus failed 48-51.) President Bush signed the Military Commissons Act of 2006 into law on October 17, 2006.
With the MCA's passage, the law altered the language from "alien detained ... at Guantanamo Bay":
"Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination." Â§1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742.
Under the MCA, the law restricts habeas appeals for only those aliens detained as enemy combatants, or awaiting such determination. Left unchanged is the provision that, after such determination is made, it is subject to appeal in U.S. Court, including a review of whether the evidence warrants the determination. If the status is upheld, then their imprisonment is deemed lawful; if not, then the government can change the prisoner's status to something else, at which point the habeas restrictions no longer apply.
In January 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee that in his opinion: "There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There's a prohibition against taking it away." He was challenged by Sen. Arlen Specter who asked him to explain how it is possible to prohibit something from being taken away, without first being granted.
The Department of Justice has taken the position in litigation that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 does not amount to a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed in a 2-1 decision, on February 20, 2007, which the U.S. Supreme Court initially declined to review. The U.S. Supreme Court then reversed its decision to deny review and took up the case in June of 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_cor ... ted_States
The amendment to the act was SPONSORED BY MITCH McCONNEL, CO-SPONSORED BY WM FIRST AND JOHN WARNER.
Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo BOTH VOTED YEA. Ron Paul VOTED NAY. The Constitution forbids taking away habeus corpus.
- 07-10-2007, 01:31 AM #40Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic
Like someday I will figure out how we are getting screwed by the Federal Reserve and there Printed/Computerized Money system we pay high Interest Rates on, for some darn reason for a Full money amount! If only I could make money from Thin Air I wouldn't have to Work! Someday I will figure out how to do this like the FED! And Buy out America one business at a time, with the printed money, and then Rename the Land... China! Oh never mind China is already doing this. I think i might be to late! Oh well back off to Walmart to spend that paper dollar, on some China goods. So they can save it till they got enough to buy american business one biz at a time! Only if we has some kinda of hard currency that takes tons of labor to produce, and can't be made out of thin Air or Printed on some cheap paper and ink, this probably wouldn't be possible,! I just can't think of what we could use for this hmm... !