I agree. ForumFocus seems to be a junior neocon in training with his irrational explanations for torture and denial of facts. There is no one as paranoid and neurotic as a far gone right winger, who sees enemies and terists around every corner.
Yea those people are bad but not as bad as liberals and crazy Ron Paul supporters who find a conspiracy behind every possible event. And the people who refuse to accept the truth. The people who manipulate the Constitution to their way like most of what you have specifically stated. My statements are far more rational then your strectching of facts.
Exactly - too many are wrongly arrested http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/29/mayfield.suit/index.html http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1853 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1655624 http://www.realchangenews.org/2006/2006_02_15/interview.html http://www.inminds.co.uk/know-your-rights.html#stats http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_hate.jsp?id=412 http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_hate.jsp?id=278 It's the same thing as putting a stop to the death penalty because innocent people were being wongly convicted and sentenced to death.
Well first of all. It says "Congress shall make no law", not "the president shall not suggest a law." If you are saying the faith based initiative is unconstitutional, well you should be targeting your resentment against Congress, not the President. It is congress that makes the laws and they went against our constitution when they passed those initiatives. the president did not. So you are wrong there. These rights do not go to foreigners. They apply only to the people of the United States. Now I will quote the constitution to show this. You are wrong again. The constitution says unreasonable searches, not all searches. national security, someone's life being at risk and so on is a reasonable time to search without a warrant in most people's minds. Can I have some examples of this please? If they were paid compensation that was not challenged, then it was just and it was legal as well. The preamble states that the constitution is for the people of America. As for Padilla however, you can argue that he did not have a speedy trial and so on... however the president is not part of the judicial branch. He does not run that (shocking, but true). So if any branch broke the constitution it would be the judicial by denying him his rights. Torture is not a punishment, it is an interrogation method. No terrorist has been convicted and the judge said, "you now face ten years of hard time and torture on every Tuesday." That would be illegal. The judicial branch issues the punishments for crime. However the tortured individuals were not tortured as punishments, they were tortured to get info. That is not illegal according to this amendment. Again you are wrong You need to explain yourself on this one, I do not know what you are talking about. You can say no, but by the constitution, they have the right to search. Your whole reasoning here is just flawed and wrong. Backing an idea is not unconstitutional for your information. You are required to have an ID to drive, to get a job and so on. Showing it to vote is not a poll tax or a tax at all. You are wrong again. Habeus Corpus is stated in the constitution as a privilege, not a right. The constitution says you can not search without a warrant in unreasonable cases. If it reasonable, you can search. You do not know about the constitution as I have displayed above. Go back and read it a few times, you can learn a few things.