Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
So where are the complaints from libbies now?
So why is he keeping that which he voted against as a Senator and campaigned against?
While I also think part of it is that he is privy to information that we are not, it still doesn't justify spying on American citizens without due process.Because as President, he is beginning to understand the kind of enemies that we really have.
So where are the complaints from libbies now?
So where are the complaints from libbies now?
All the whiners are quiet now, or so it seems.
Wonder why?
Perhaps that's because they are all the same. Dems and Reps are just two sides on the same coin.Neolibs are no better than neocons on this issue.
Maybe almost 8-9 years of the opportunity to overthrow the "draconian, unconstitutional parts" have shown that you are wrong. Apparently the courts don't see it as unconstitutional.
The President doesn't see it that way. The Democratic controlled House doesn't see it that way. The courts have not seen it that way. The whiners are still wrong.
Maybe almost 8-9 years of the opportunity to overthrow the "draconian, unconstitutional parts" have shown that you are wrong. Apparently the courts don't see it as unconstitutional.
The Bush administration's war on terrorism suffered another legal setback Thursday when a federal judge struck down part of the revised USA Patriot Act.
U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero ruled that investigators eventually must get a court's approval when ordering Internet providers and phone companies to turn over records without telling customers.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep/07/nation/na-patriot7
A federal judge Wednesday curtailed the government's power in terrorism investigations under the USA Patriot Act, saying a widely used tool to obtain Internet and other electronic records from communications firms violated the Constitution by permitting "coercive searches" without any judicial review.
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/sep/30/nation/na-patriot30
A federal judge in Oregon ruled yesterday that two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional, marking the second time in as many weeks that the anti-terrorism law has come under attack in the courts.
In a case brought by a Portland man who was wrongly detained as a terrorism suspect in 2004, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Patriot Act violates the Constitution because it "permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602084.html
Parts of the Bill have been declared unconstitutional. You can easily find information on these with a bit of searching on the Internet.
Just three examples. You can find more if you want to check on this topic.
Perhaps that's because they are all the same. Dems and Reps are just two sides on the same coin.
I wouldn't buy into that completely.
In some ways you may be correct. In others they are miles apart.
Sorry. The Supreme Court rules on matters of constitutionality, not an individual politically appointed federal judge.
Tom Bryant's statement stands unrefuted.
I agree. One wants to spend money and rapidly expand the reach of the federal government and fund it by raising taxes.
The other wants to spend money and gradually expand the reach of the federal government and fund it by raising taxes.