Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 91

• 0%

  engineer4 months, 4 weeks ago

  This is what this administration has done. It has created an oligarchy with the dictator at the top. We need to get back to an EQUAL democracy

  Reply

  20 Replies

  • 0%

    populist4 months, 4 weeks ago

    Absolutely - but I think there's more than just this one administration at fault. I see these current criminals as a natural result of allowing politicians to "bend the rules" of the Constitution for decades.

    We've allowed them to ignore one part or the other, or interpret it in their own way - ostensibly for good reasons.

    But, when you let politicians violate the constitution, eventually, you'll find those that come along and feel it doesn't apply at all.

    That's where I believe we are now...at the tipping point of total tyranny.

    Reply

    16 Replies

    • 0%

      djn3nunez34 months, 4 weeks ago

      I think this deserves repeating.

      "I think there's more than just this one administration at fault. I see these current criminals as a natural result of allowing politicians to "bend the rules" of the Constitution for decades."

      Good article pop.

      One of the aspects of the "Shadow Governement" the author doesn't touch on is the compliant yet so called liberal media. Spreading fear mongering propaganda is essential in their control over the people.

      Reply

      9 Replies

      • 0%

        populist4 months, 4 weeks ago

        great point - the media has played a major role. Personally, I see almost the entire institution serving as little more than a mouthpiece for the government. Even those that "dissent" still frame the debate in such a way that propaganda still gets out there.

        A great film on this is "Manufacturing Consent"

        http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-563188...

        Reply
      • 0%

        Xaos4 months, 3 weeks ago

        This trend has been going on for decades, slowly chipping away the Constitution piece by piece, lulling the American people into apathy as they expand there power and trample the Constitution.

        Reply

        4 Replies

        • 0%

          populist4 months, 3 weeks ago

          You're absolutely right, Xaos - it's been going on for quite some time now. I see the Bush administration as the logical progression that all empires go through....until their downfall.

          I only hope we can turn this mess around before it gets even worse.

          Reply

          3 Replies

          • 0%

            crghss4 months, 3 weeks ago

            "the logical progression that all empires go through"

            Which Empires?

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              earthlingerer4 months, 3 weeks ago

              Rome had Caesar as a dictator, then emperor, all the time disguised as a republic, and the Roman senate lasted until the fall of the empire.

              Evn in Roman days, a lot of really myopic people didn't understand that they were under an empire... they just had different ideas and names.

              Kind of like proclaiming oneself the "Decider of the Republic'.

              Reply
          • 0%

            icono14 months, 3 weeks ago

            America, the Capitalistic Monarchy.

            Reply
      • 0%

        Teech4 months, 3 weeks ago

        George Bush has spoken: "The Constitution is just a piece of paper....."

        Listen to the man! Has he ever steered you wrong???

        Support the GOP candidates and John McCain. He may just get rid of the stupid, old, outdated piece of parchment all together! Out with the old, in with the new!

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          memestryker4 months, 3 weeks ago

          I was shocked when I heard Bill Clinton say "we have too much freedom."

          Don't be fooled--both major parties are hacking away at different parts of the constitution. Both liberal and conservative Supreme Courts have abridged our rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            earthlingerer4 months, 3 weeks ago

            About "too much freedom"...

            In the USSR, when you went to the store, you could always buy milk, butter, bread, sour cream, etc. (Really, you only had to wait to buy bananas, and some other non-essentials).

            Te fact was that there was only ONE BRAND to choose from, and all were the same quality everywhere (and equal to western goods).

            Now you go to the market, and there's 10 kinds of butter, Five kinds of flour, a few milks, etc. Each vary by a few cents... People were "more free" just going into the store, buying, and getting out with much more "free time" for everything else.

            Is corporate globalism and capitalism freedom?

            Reply
    • 0%

      Nowalive4 months, 4 weeks ago

      Don't forget that we also now have various Federal Courts legislating from the bench. It is not the role of the legislative branch to make law, it is their role to enforce the law, or decide if it is Constitutional.

      Reply

      5 Replies

      • JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.3 Replies

        • 0%

          Nowalive4 months, 3 weeks ago

          Thank you for the heads up on my over-sight.

          Reply
        • 0%

          Lurch4 months, 3 weeks ago

          One of the very first rulings by the Roberts Court involved discriminatory pay practices based on race, sex, religion, sexual preference, etc.

          The Roberts Court in a five to four decision decided it was ok for corporations to discriminate in pay for employees based on color of skin or sex unless the victim brought the suit to court within six months from the first incident.

          Now, how many people learn their colleagues` salaries within the first six months of a new job or a new hire?

          This, is a small example of judicial legislation or activism, but it betrays the lie of the right-wing attacks on judicial activism. Judicial activism is perfectly fine and even encouraged as long as `the people` do not gain a benefit.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            memestryker4 months, 3 weeks ago

            Lurch, you're right on--judicial activism is alive and well on both sides of the aisle.

            Let's not forget executive rulemaking. Everyone from cabinet-level agencies to state governors are just issuing edicts whenever they can't get it passed legislatively.

            Reply
      • 0%

        KISA452a4 months, 3 weeks ago

        "now have "? It's been decades at least...

        Reply
  • 0%

    injest4 months, 3 weeks ago

    FTA

    "Broward, a definition of Democracy is "The people rule.""

    Webster's definition of moron is "a very stupid person.

    "This is the definition that I believe the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created the Constitution."

    Then why did the Founding Fathers create a Republic?

    "I believe their intent was that the Constitution would be the ultimate authority for the people, through their representatives, by acclimation of the people - and that it would also be subject to change at the desire of the people (hence the Amendment process)."

    It is so what's your problem?

    "And indeed, the people are supposed to rule."

    It is, that's why we have elections

    "But these same people (we, American Citizens, you, and I) have allowed a small influential group to seize control of our Representative Democracy such that it is no longer a Democracy."

    We have NEVER been a Democracy, We have Always been a Republic

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      truthiness4 months, 3 weeks ago

      the philosophy behind a jeffersonian democratic republic is Rousseau's Social Contract. The Constitution is the codification of that contract; a law which governs the governors.

      the problem is the changes haven't been made by amendment, they have been made by fiat, according to the will of a small group of unelected people who fund our representatives' corruption.

      BTW the letter pointed out we are "a republic, more commonly referred to as a democracy."

      there is more than one form of republic, e.g. Russia has a republic where the reps. are appointed. I would not call that a democratic republic. the people don't rule.

      in our constitution, b/c we hire and fire our representatives, the people rule.

      stupid is as stupid does.

      Reply
  • 0%

    capecoralM4 months, 3 weeks ago

    The U.S. has never been a Democracy. WTF school did you attend to become a engineer. The US system is a Representative Democratic Republic. Articles I and II of the Constitution are very explicit: We choose representatives and they make the rules that we live by until its time to choose again.

    Reply
• 0%

  texangelwings4 months, 4 weeks ago

  We need to have another class on the Constitution, for all of our government leaders to attend. Reminding them that they are suppose to be representing The People, not big business, not other countries nor themselves!

  America has experienced many dark days in our history, non seem as dark as the impending future of America! We must take back our country!

  Good article, thanks pop, good find!

  Reply

  5 Replies

  • 0%

    PainGoddess4 months, 3 weeks ago

    Agreed. But with all of them there congress peoples around doing their thang where is the hurry to learn??? LOL

    Reply

    3 Replies

    • 0%

      mrbs4 months, 3 weeks ago

      The People, not big business

      thats where your wrong..big business and capitalist ideals were the foundation of this country

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        bigG4 months, 3 weeks ago

        "big business and capitalist ideals were the foundation of this country"

        Nonsense. Not even close - the Constitution addresses neither of those.

        The foundation of this country is merely this : it is the people that give the power to the government to administer in their collective interests, and nothing else.

        By the way, British Corporations were one of the reasons this country revolted in 1776. Boston Tea Party ring a bell?

        http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporations/...

        Please read the Constitution when you get a chance. It can be enlightening.

        By the way, appropriate moniker.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          earthlingerer4 months, 3 weeks ago

          You mean a large corporation holding essential monopolies on markets, controlling the prices with the aid and collusion of governmental administration led to the American revolution???

          2 for 1 discounts, lowest prices, and cardholder discounts stop ANY consumerist "Tory-type" from going Whig.

          Reply
  • 0%

    memestryker4 months, 3 weeks ago

    Even the Supreme Court needs your class, texangelwings. We've lost so many rights surrounding search and seizure, freedom of religion in hiring, and four of them tried to argue the constitution is unconstitutional yesterday...

    Reply
• 0%

  populist4 months, 4 weeks ago

  Thought this quote, from Patrick Henry, was appropriate:

  "The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. "

  Reply
• 0%

  Nowalive4 months, 4 weeks ago

  Excellent find Pop

  I would like to say that I have been saying this for years. Pop and I have had numerous threaded discussions back when they archived our comments forever and not just 2 pages. Please visit the following sites and then answer this question.

  Should we begin to look for common sense leadership, or continue with business as usual?

  http://www.freewebs.com/nowalive

  http://www.we-the-people.50megs.com

  Reply
• 0%

  getreal14 months, 4 weeks ago

  I have never like the way they draw up the laws to be voted on. They put one thing that would be good for the country as a whole and then they add something bad to go along so the bill will not be passed. Knowing all along it won't be passed. It makes them look like they are working I guess.

  Reply

  6 Replies

  • JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.5 Replies

    • 0%

      populist4 months, 4 weeks ago

      you're right...they'd actually have to do their job! But, it's a great idea.

      There's actually a campaign for this out there - the "One Subject at a Time Act"

      http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=83

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
    • 0%

      memestryker4 months, 3 weeks ago

      Actually, it helps to be able to add things to bills, because otherwise, issues might not be considered at all or they'd be voted down and things would screech to a halt. If a carrot can be added, it's easier to get consensus on the big things.

      While it sounds good on paper, it's just not very workable in human systems that have to compete for resources.

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        getreal14 months, 3 weeks ago

        You mean it's easier for big business to keep something that might be a threat to his monopoly.

        Reply

      • JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
• 0%

  TheRealizer4 months, 4 weeks ago

  Each bought and paid for congress further erodes our constitution, Starting this election cycle vote for NO INCUMBENTS. The new people you vote in will have NO allegiance to any corporate interest, so they can possibly vote in the interest of WE THE PEOPLE..

  Reply

  18 Replies

  • 0%

    populist4 months, 4 weeks ago

    term limits might be a good choice going forward too. Making it clear that you can't make a career out of voting for wars and stealing our money might make some of the criminals look for a different job.

    Reply

    14 Replies

    • 0%

      Nowalive4 months, 4 weeks ago

      Excellent point. The President is limited to eight years, why do we have Senators and Congressmen serving 45, 55, 60 years? Do you think maybe those are the corruption cornerstones in government?

      Reply

      4 Replies

      • 0%

        populist4 months, 4 weeks ago

        Exactly. And if we understand the role of the Constitution and government, this makes sense.

        The Constitution was written as a limit, not on us, but on the powers of government.

        Limiting their power to rule over us for years and years...and years....just makes common sense to me.

        Reply
      • 0%

        memestryker4 months, 3 weeks ago

        One problem is some of the senior people are the most knowledgeable and have the best contacts to get information and get things done. Just like in organizations, you lose your edge when you let go of old-timers in favor of people without a deep history.

        I'm not disagreeing that new blood also is good, but on the other hand, the voters can remove them whenever they choose to do so.

        Reply
      • 0%

        bigG4 months, 3 weeks ago

        Term limitations won't work - the moneyed interests will just corrupt the replacement. How did it go ? Oh yeah

        "Here's the new boss, the same as the old boss."

        Gotta take the money out of it or it will never change. That means no lobbying or influence peddling. I just don't see that happening.

        Reply
      • 0%

        bigG4 months, 3 weeks ago

        Duplicate. Someone at Propeller must have liked my post.

        Reply
    • 0%

      TheRealizer4 months, 3 weeks ago

      Congrees will NEVER vote for term limits, that would force them away from the public trough. The only solution is just elect them for one term then get them OUT......

      Reply

      8 Replies

      • 0%

        populist4 months, 3 weeks ago

        i don't think they'll vote for it either. I also don't expect them to stop voting for war, violations of liberties, and on and on and on.

        I don't expect congress to do virtually anything right. But, in principle, I still believe we should limit their terms. Maybe someday, we'll figure out how to make that happen....

        Reply

        7 Replies

        • 0%

          miklkit4 months, 3 weeks ago

          Would it take a Constitutional amendment?

          Reply

          3 Replies

          • 0%

            populist4 months, 3 weeks ago

            It absolutely would. I assume "we the people" could do it through our state then....right?

            Reply

            2 Replies

            • 0%

              memestryker4 months, 3 weeks ago

              A lot of communities keep sending their reps and senators back because they think they are doing a good job. Also, they learn from serving on different committees over time to have a breadth of understanding.

              I don't think always having relative newbies in positions of legislative power is necessarily a good thing. I worked in the Office of the Secretary of a cabinet-level agency for years, and newbies coming in took years just to learn what they could legally do, what the spectrum of issues were, and who the real power- and knowledge-brokers were (frequently not the ones with the titles).

              As nice as it sounds, the system has survived the way it is because whenever we've taken a close look at it, we've decided that it's working better than alternatives.

              If you don't like your elected officials, campaign for someone else--or run yourself.

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                alakazam4 months, 3 weeks ago

                Only problem with running yourself is that only a "Party" member has a chance at winning at the Presidential level. Most Senate and House races are won by local funding.

                It was quite interesting to see non-party representative candidates swept immediately under the rug at the beginning of this election cycle by the Media. Both Left and Right obviously manipulated the debate process.

                The Paul Campaign made money hand over fist and the Media to this day ignores him.

                Tippecanoe and Tyler too! won a campaign once...still trying to figure that one out.

                Reply
        • 0%

          mrbs4 months, 3 weeks ago

          violations of liberties

          is affirmative action a violation of liberties.

          how about gun control laws

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            memestryker4 months, 3 weeks ago

            mrbs,

            It depends, of course. Most gun control doesn't pass muster, which is one reason Heller won his case against DC to keep a working gun in his home for self-defense. Most of it doesn't hold up to analysis and is based on emotional appeal.

            I think affirmative action can be a violation of liberties. At one point, it was really reparations for blacks, women, and others who had been sidelined by the culture. Today it may make more sense to switch to a needs-based system that might give a preference for low family income or disability.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              mrbs4 months, 3 weeks ago

              what about what is supposed to count...ABILITY

              Reply
  • 0%

    CHAM4 months, 3 weeks ago

    TheRealizer

    Good idea. I don't know if when we elect new people, they will have no Corporate ties, but if they are running against an incumbent who has demonstrated Corporate ties, why would we vote for the incumbent?

    Voting for a known evil ( the incumbent ), over an unknown candidate does not make common sense. If you know the incumbent is corrupt, why not take a chance on electing a new leader?

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      memestryker4 months, 3 weeks ago

      Corporations are not always evil. I think we need to separate corporatism, which is something very specific. Microsoft is a huge corporation, but it has been amazingly good for the U.S. economy and resulted in millions of jobs inside and outside the company.

      Even pharmaceutical and oil companies are not inherently evil. Most people working at pharmaceutical companies really want to find cures for cancer, etc.

      Having ties to a corporation doesn't imply corruption. We have to be careful not to substitute one tyranny for another. Sometimes tweaking works better than cataclysmic change.

      Reply
  • 0%

    raza94 months, 3 weeks ago

    How can we be assured the newbies won't have any allegiances to special interests?

    I believe a better idea would be to vote out the incumbents who talk of democracies all the time and to instead vote in people who hold the principles of a Constitutional Republic dear. I also believe, the incumbents who have proven their worth by living and breathing the Constitution deserve a continuation of their seat.

    Reply
• 0%

  Nowalive4 months, 4 weeks ago

  I would like to invite all of you to visit my sites, and if you are so inclined:

  Vote Hamilton in 2012.

  Common man, Common sense, Common goals

  Common sense, is genius dressed in it's working clothes.

  Reply
• 0%

  bubba24 months, 3 weeks ago

  HOW is this going to be fixed? WHAT can the people do?

  Congress is just as bad as Bush anymore.

  Even the Democrats - except for a few that have attempted to try to do the right thing - are just as pathetic and crooked as the Republicans currently there and the Republicans they replaced.

  It is beyond disgusting. Money controls everything - even elections and who can even RUN for an office.

  95% of the people in this country are being screwed while people in power continue to violate the law and the Constitution and do whatever they want, and I just don't know, at this point, how it can be stopped.

  Reply

  5 Replies

  • 0%

    populist4 months, 3 weeks ago

    Bubba - you're absolutely right. And you've asked the essential question, what do we do when virtually NO ONE in government follows the constitution and works to protect our liberty?

    The answer, i think, is something I'm not ready to admit.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      bigG4 months, 3 weeks ago

      I am ready to dust off the ole guillotine myself. It needs a good sharpening as well.

      Reply
  • 0%

    memestryker4 months, 3 weeks ago

    Wealth has always controlled everything in the entire history of humankind. Even when people allowed Marxism to topple their governments, it was really just a small group of elites seizing power and the ordinary citizens were right back in the same situation (or worse). And if you read history, the U.S. government has probably been even more corrupt in the past. A group in Tennessee was so corrupt that armed citizens had to actually take charge and run them out of town in the mid-20th century.

    People have periodically felt they were being screwed--and different groups have felt it at different times. Read Zinn's People's History of the United States for some inside information on the history not in the schoolbooks. It's been a rocky road.

    Another good read is C. Wright Mills' book "The Power Elite."

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 0%

      bubba24 months, 3 weeks ago

      If that was supposed to make me feel any better, it didn't.

      I can appreciate history.

      I also continue to be astounded at how we NEVER LEARN from history and all those mistakes that have ALREADY been made and are made again, over and over.

      Just because it happened before does not excuse it happening again.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        memestryker4 months, 3 weeks ago

        People don't seem to prefer vicarious learning, that's for sure. And I don't think most of them make the connection anyway!

        Reply
• 0%

  KISA452a4 months, 3 weeks ago

  OK, folks. Hold the phones. The problem? This author seems to think that there is agreement on what the Constitution means. There is not. Just look at abortion rights, church V state, gun rights, freedom of speech, etc. There are radicals, left and right, on all these issues. There is no consensus. So, as I've said before, where are we going to go? The author obviously things we swing far left, which is diametrically opposed to the constitution as I read it. So, what is left?

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    memestryker4 months, 3 weeks ago

    KISA452a, it's always been radicals on the left and right (which are moving targets) with most people in the middle. That's nothing new!

    What is left is do your homework and get out there and be active.

    Reply
• 0%

  CHAM4 months, 3 weeks ago

  KISA

  Does it matter what the Constitution means, if there is not agreement on what it means, or if we have a President who says its just a G..D..... Piece of paper?

  Does it matter if we have a President who places into positions of power to "Intrepret" what it means, to the President's liking?

  What difference does it mean if the "word" of the Constitution is ignored by those in power?

  Didn't Congress just in the last few days vote to ignore a provision of the First Amendment, "The Right to Redress" when the vote to give the Telecommunications freedom from lawsuits because of the Warrantless spying, was passed?

  Didn't Congress themselves violate the Constitution by making the "new" law retroactive? Doesn't the Constitution forbid passing retroactive laws?

  Kisa, if the good guys, and the bad guys, disagree with the meaning iof the Constitution, does that mean that the Constitution is of no consequence?

  Please enlighten me.

  Reply

• DeLeMaComment removed: User banned.4 Replies

  • 0%

    CHAM4 months, 3 weeks ago

    DeLeMa

    Can I give an Amen?

    What's methodically happening to the average American citizen is anathema to a Constitution, a Democracy, or a free people.

    The analogy comes to mind of the frog placed in a pot of water that is slowly heated. If he doesn't realize his plight in time, he is doomed.

    If he does realize what's going on, he has the ability to get out of the hot water in time.

    We are slowly being squeezed into economic slavery. When we get too restless, the Oligharcy just might become oppresive to our freedom. You know they can't just let us out of the water into which they have placed us. It might mean the end of their meal. They don't or can't let that occur.

    And yes it would be so interesting to be able to see the coming eruption. And that it will occur is certain. The only thing to be determined is how uncivil it will be.

    Reply

    3 Replies

    • 0%

      memestryker4 months, 3 weeks ago

      CHAM, the Constitution and the U.S. have survived some amazing eruptions. Civil disobedience has been used throughout U.S. history to recalibrate those who hold the power or limit others' rights.

      Today many unions aren't well-thought-of, and yet at one point, they were the ones that helped ordinary people get paid for losing limbs on machines, get off work when they were ill, and get working hours so they were not dangerously tired on inherently dangerous jobs.

      So eruptions have periodically occurred. Most of us would like to find a method other than violence to make that happen, and mostly we have in the past--but obviously not always.

      I've always considered working a type of slavery. The difference is we have a lot of latitude about the type of education we'll have and, except in times of recession or depression, some choice in the work we do.

      At least the second amendment ruling allows all Americans reasonable means to fight off home invaders.

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        CHAM4 months, 3 weeks ago

        memestryker

        You are absolutely right. Hopefully we will continue to be able to keep our second amendmant rights. But as you know, we've lost several rights.

        We need to get back what was lost and forbid the tampering with the constitution that has been going on for way to long.

        My prescription is Impeachment and War Criminal Charges. Be very difficult to achieve with all the enablers in Congress.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          memestryker4 months, 3 weeks ago

          Very difficult to pull off. Had it not been for Tripp breaking Maryland law and then getting a pass from Maryland lawmakers, Clinton would never have been put in a situation to even consider lying to a grand jury. Acting like an overgrown frat-boy was not a good reason for that expensive mind-numbing exercise. That's what Clinton got for being bi-partisan in hiring.

          Bush has always been strictly partisan and sends anyone who isn't absolutely loyal to him packing. I'm not sure there is anyone who would dare speak up.

          Reply
• 0%

  Truzseeker4 months, 3 weeks ago

  "The Constitution is a written instrument. As such its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. Being a grant of powers to a government, its language is general; and, as changes come in social and political life, it embraces in its grasp all new conditions which are within the scope of the powers in terms conferred. In other words, [199 U.S. 437, 449] while the powers granted do not change, they apply from generation to generation to all things to which they are in their nature applicable. This in no manner abridges the fact of its changeless nature and meaning. Those things which are within its grants of power, as those grants were understood when made, are still within them; and those things not within them remain still excluded." STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA v. U S, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)

  Reply
• 0%

  Truzseeker4 months, 3 weeks ago

  "It is not only the same in words, but the same in meaning, and delegates the same powers to the government, and reserves and secures the same rights and privileges to the citizen; and as long as it continues to exist in its present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted by the people of the United States. Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judicial character of this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day." Gobbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188, 6 L. ed. 23, 68

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    CHAM4 months, 3 weeks ago

    Truzseeker

    Thanks for the insight. I mentioned that I thought the recently passed law giving immunity to the telecoms for acts before the act was passed - was a violation of the Constitution.

    Could you give info on that?

    Reply
• 0%

  CHAM4 months, 3 weeks ago

  Truzseeker

  Thanks again but I went and looked up the law against passing retroactive law ( Ex Post Facto . I copied it from a law library and am going to paste it here.

  I just copied the sentence about the retroactive law, ther are others in Article 1 Section 9 if someone wants to go read all of it.

  So indeed is immunity for the telecoms against the Constitution.

  U.S. Constitution: Article I

  Section 9.

  No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

  Seems pretty clear to me. You think this will be upheld by those in power in Government.

  Course that is an oxymoron: Those in power include the Media. Right?

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    bigG4 months, 3 weeks ago

    I believe that just pertains to passing a law and then prosecuting someone under the law for act(s) committed prior to the passage of said law.

    It really doesn't matter, because Bush would pardon them anyway from any criminal prosecution. It would be hard to prove any civil damages as well.

    Reply