Think Freely Media presents Common Sense with Paul Jacob

Yesterday, on ThisisCommonSense.com, the “Today in Freedom” feature related that 220 years ago — on December 15, 1791 — Virginia’s ratification of the Bill of Rights made those first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution the law of the land.

Hooray! That’s worth remembering and celebrating.

But something else happened yesterday, worth remembering but not celebrating: Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act.

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives [sic] had already passed the legislation. Yesterday, the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate sent the bill to a President Obama, waiting ready to sign it, with a whopping 86 to 13 vote.

This law says the government can arrest you on U.S. soil, shackle you, pull a hood over your face and hustle you out of the country to Guantanamo if someone somewhere in the government theorizes that you might be a terrorist.

But wait: The Fifth Amendment guarantees that you cannot “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Sixth Amendment states quite clearly that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial . . .”

Agreed, those proven to be terrorists are terrible people. But in a video posted on our website, Senator Rand Paul, who voted against this bill, pointed out, “Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, then the terrorists have won.”

We can only triumph over terrorism with the Bill of Rights intact.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

By: Redactor

9 Comments

  1. Drik says:

    Congress can vote for unconstitutional laws all day and not make them constitutional. Neither the Supreme Court nor Copngress are the sole arbiter of constitutionality.

  2. Mike Henderson says:

    This also seems to be in direct contradiction to the 4th amendment. Illegal search and sezier without warrant is what we face under the American Defense Act. I suggest that the president consider that the second amendment is still in tact before signing this into law.

  3. Jay says:

    I tend to disagree; if this ahd been effect prior to 9/11- and the FBI etc. knew of the plan, and caught these creeps BEFORE THEY blew up the buildings and killed a few thousand people, I think the tradeoff would have been worth it.

    And the Paul’s, in my view, are off the mainstream view- consider his father’s statement, (in a recent debate) (paraphrased) that if he were president, and knew of a plot to bomb American cities, he wouldn’t kill them, as they hadn’t committed a crime yet.

    Seems his principles are wiorth more to him then thousands of lives.

    I cannot see the government using this indiscriminatley–just as the fovernment ( and I am NOT a fan of government) using the Patriot Act powers indiscriminately.

  4. Jay says:

    sorry if any words spelled incorrectly

  5. Tj says:

    Jay what planet are you from?

    Principles are the very foundation of our United States. Since the War for Independence (which was a war of principle) this country has been a symbol of principle.

    Your argument is the same used for tapping phone lines without a warrant. I clearly understand the idea that you have nothing to fear if you are not hiding something.

    However, the slippery road of government monitoring the day to day lives of its citizens is NOT what this country is about. That is not freedom.

    You will clearly understand this when your opinion differs with the government and they drag you off to Guantanamo and you are never heard from again. That is why due process is so important! No American citizen should be hauled off by our own government without due process.

    Does Hitler Youth mean anything to you?

    This whole subject is about principal. Little by little freedom is lost.

    You can’t see the government indiscriminately using this power?
    Our government is well on its way to being out of the control of the people. Remember “by the people, for the people”.

    Think about this: when a law or regulation is instituted it is enforced. I saw police, about a month ago, spraying pepper spray on american citizens while they were sitting down protesting. That is how the “law” is followed. It is enforced. Principle becomes sub servant to the law. The law will be enforced by people who are just doing what they are ordered to do. This is how the government controls the people instead of the people controlling the government.

    Scary stuff.

  6. Jay says:

    I am from earth;

    I lsot friends in the WTC blow ups–

    I almsot was working there, but decided to leave NY instead.

    RE: pepepr spray– where were they protesting? AND, AS REUTERS HAS SHOWS SO WELL, pictures can be easily doctored to show what the perosn taking them wants them to show.

    Yes, the government is out of control, but I tend to think the police are (my expiernce, and yes, I have been arrested) fair and non violent unless the person that theya re arresting gets violent. (In my case, the police decided the charges were groundless, but the other person insisted on pressing them; the judge read the police report and threw the case out, and expurged my records).

    Feel free to disagree.

    My view of the Paul’s– they ahve no real principals.

    Look at Rand Paul– 5 months (May 2012) as a Senator, files for relection, so can start collecting contributions, etc.

    Ron Paul- “A STRICT CONSTUTIOPNALIST” true, the Constution DOES NOT SPECIFY TERM LIMITS, BUT THE SPOKEN AND THEN WRITTEN) STATEMENTS CALLED FOR A ” CITIZENS” LEGISLATURE (CONGRESS).

    RON PAUL HAS BEEN IN CONGRESS, ON AND OFF, FOR OVER 30 YEARS. (MOSTLY ON).

    TO ME, SOUNDS MORE LIKE FEATHERING HIS OWN NEST.

  7. MoreFreedom says:

    Hopefully civil rights minded Democrats will register Republican this year to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. That’s about the only way we’ll arrest the unconstitutional power grabs of those in government.

    To Drik, if the Supreme Court isn’t the sole arbiter of constitutionality, who else is?

  8. Mark Read Pickens says:

    Jay:

    I think Ron and Rand Paul are social conservatives with some libertarian attitudes, which is why I’m voting for Gary Johnson this election. For example, Gary believes in allowing gay marriage; Ron and Rand oppose it.

    Having said that, I agree with them on this issue. If we abandon due process, the damage to our society will be far greater than anything terrorists can do.

    Drik:

    Under the rules of the Constitution, the Supreme Court IS the “sole arbiter of constitutionality.” You might want to focus on the fact that our rights precede the Constitution, rather than being created by it. In other words, I never agreed to be bound by the Constitution, so it ought not to be binding on me.

  9. Terry De Pew says:

    Somebody help me out here:
    Who was it that said “Those who would accept security over liberty
    deserve neither…” ….or something like that?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© 2017 Common Sense with Paul Jacob, All Rights Reserved. Back to top