Ron Paul is WRONG on the 5th Amendment!

I wanted to see what you all had to say about this:

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-wrong...210923103.html

My response was that: the author was obviously clueless and that it didn't warrant a response. If she would read the comments section, most of the people do a well enough job of dismantling it, to which she responded:
"I read that comment of yours too.....but discounting the article and saying he is clueless because of the comments below the article is hardly critical thinking....I didn't see any comments that showed research or intelligence. Just the same pissed off ppl that respond on msn, cnn, and whereever a platform is available. We are all entitled to our own opinion, but I would like to hear one from you that is actually well thought out and not Ron Paul platform regurgitation little brother"

Responses anyone?

Fifth Ammendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Doesn't the Patriot Act make the 5th ammendment null and void?
Let's ask Bush or Obailout...oh, sorry they plead the 5th...:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kazmlsj

Fifth Ammendment
nor [shall one] be deprived of LIFE, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ...

---

It's pretty clear.

I had to fight the so - called "Patriot Act" as a victim and I won the case. Ron Paul is exactly RIGHT on this issue. If you think not, you should wake up one morning to find out that you have been deemed to be an enemy combatant / domestic terrorist without the benefit of due process.

As a CITIZEN, we are entitled to the equal protection of the laws, regardless of what the alleged crime is. I think it is absolute B.S. that any single political leader ought to be able to say it's necessary to kill you without due process.

As for the war argument, sorry but NO declaration of war was issued. The Constitution clearly places the power to declare a war on Congress. This Congress did not do. They merely gave a blank check to George W. Bush and when it wasn't going so good, the Democrats backed up and rightfully claimed it was Bush's war. Only Bush had his name on that war. The problem is, there is not one single, solitary sentence in the entire Constitution which allows Congress the authority to abdicate their powers or delegate them to the president, the Federal Reserve or any freaking body else.

There are far too many people itching to go to war all the time and so, they cannot understand the oppressive precedents they are setting... precedents that have cost the lives of people that I know and nearly my own life. Did I break any laws? Nope. The same laws that are being used to ignore the Constitution and go after politically unpopular groups is also used to go after innocent Americans. And any one of you, not belonging to the mainstream establishment, could become a target of these tyrannical laws.

Yeah, great, Obama is a Harvard grad and a lawyer wannabe. Parts of his Obamacare did not survive court challenges, so he is not always right. Maybe Obama and Bush liked that idea of giving the president the power to circumvent the Constitution, but I'd be on here a long time presenting tables of authorities to disprove such an untenable argument if we were not in the habit of repealing the Bill of Rights.

It's amazing that he wrote an article that long about the Constitution, without actualling bringing up the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cutlerzzz

It's amazing that he wrote an article that long about the Constitution, without actualling bringing up the Constitution.

---

Actually things like due process are in the Constitution.

Quote:

---

As for all of those Paulistas complaining about the Founders "spinning in their graves": Get real. The Founding Fathers never considered the Fifth Amendment to be a check on the president's war-fighting powers.

---

That's because the Founders would have already had heart attacks at the "Imperial Presidency" and the idea that one man can wage war across the globe.

They never considered it because CONGRESS is supposed to DECLARE war, not write a blank check to an Imperial Executive.

Quote:

---

Al Awlaki also personally directed the "underpants bomber" during his stay in Yemen to blow up a Detroit-bound passenger plane. Both the bomber and al Awlaki have admitted their role in this murderous conspiracy.

---

The "underwear bomber" had direct government help to get onboard an inbound US flight, WITH NO PASSPORT.

That doesn't fucking happen, ever, unless you are a protected "asset".

Quote:

---

In war, we wisely give the president wide latitude to win and do not treat war-fighting like crime-fighting. In law and order, we strike a balance in favor of the accused. In war, we strike a balance in favor of our forces and our civilians.

---

When will the "war" end?

What metric determines a "win"?

Dangerous, slavering, pro government, jingostic nonsense at it's very, very worst.

Quote:

---

This forgets the obvious: Only Americans who openly declare war on the U.S., join an enemy organization and order attacks are targets. Criticizing the president or big business doesn't draw drones.

---

Says fucking who?

Show me in law, where it says that is the only thing.

Oh wait, that's right you can't, because it's all fucking classified, as to who is dangerous enough to warrant an extra legal killing.

But I'm supposed to just "trust you" because "we're in a war".

Never mind the fact that government's own documents are calling us terrorists.

Sorry, (what's this fuckstick's name...??) Richard Miniter, your platitudes don't fill me with warm and fuzzy feelings.

Quote:

---

the Anti-Federalist Papers

---

Try again, fool.

The Anti Federalists specifically warned about the dangers of the President becoming a "king" and acting unilaterally, again, specifically in the case of waging war.

The Anti Federalists PRECISELY predicted what would happen to the Executive Branch under the powers granted to it.