Read it and Believe it!

This is a discussion on Read it and Believe it! within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; "Well met..."...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 18 of 18

Thread: Read it and Believe it!

  1. #16
    Distinguished Member Array dimmak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    1,752
    "Well met..."
    "Ray Nagin is a colossal disappointment" - NRA/ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox.


    "...be water, my friend."

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    VIP Member Array rodc13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    2,753
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob72
    Maybe I'm misreading you, but the take on the above seems to be a "relativistic" one. There can be no unified Constitutional Republic unless the concept of Absolute Right and Wrong are recognized and acknowledged.(Granted, as humans, we won't always live up to the ideal, but....)
    Hi, Rob. I don't quite follow you here. Could you expand? Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob72
    Constitutionally, we can squash the hell out of churches/congregations that preach violence- we simply cannot say that we are establishing the Church of the United States.
    Actually, we can't. In 1969, in Brandenberg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court established a new standard: Speech can be suppressed only if it is intended, and likely to produce, "imminent lawless action." Otherwise, even speech that advocates violence is protected. Brandenberg is still the standard.

    And, there's a lot more to the establishment clause than "Church of the United States", but I don't want to go too far afield here. There are lots of forums for debating separation of church and state.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob72
    Again, the socialists are not able to legally (with validity)or morally challenge the Constitution, so they circumvent it with socialist-reformist judicial appointments. There must be some limits on freedom, or it will be used to destroy itself (as CAIR and the Mexican Reconquistas are doing).
    Sorry, I'm not following you here again. Any group, right or left, can legally challenge the constitution through the process of amendment. Specific laws can be challenged via our legal system, but the Constitution itself cannot be altered by the judiciary. Courts are there to interpret the application to specific laws.

    Absolutely, there are limits to freedom, generally where one person or group's exercise impacts on others, and in what a society can reasonably require of its members in order to function. Thus the Constitution grants that authority as well. It's hardly perfect. In fact, ours is probably the worst system in place today -- except for all the others!

    Morally is a different issue altogether, although our Declaration of Independence enumerates conditions under which a government can justifiably be set aside. Of course, the Brits had a rather different opinion on the validity of that document.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob72
    Re the internment camps: we should have them today. Since we do not, and since we've all agreed that Catholic Nuns are the terror suspects we should be observing, we will have another "event". Probably severe enough to have a declaration of martial law.
    Interesting concept. Who decides who goes in the camps (get those nuns off the street!)? Do we hold an election?

    Haven't seen a situation even remotely close to requirement for national declaration of martial law -- ever.

    At the federal level, martial law is severely limited anyway. In 1866, the Supreme Court establisheld that martial law couldn't be instituted within the United States when its civilian courts are in operation. Then there's the Posse Comitatus Act which requires congressional approval for military involvement in domestic law enforcement. The National Guard is under the control of state governors, unless they're federalized.

    Certainly, we've had a few localized instances that could possibly qualify, Katrina, for example. Although, in that case, it's questionable, because the state of Louisiana has no legal reference to "martial law". There are extraordinary powers granted during a "state of emergency", so you could argue that it looks like a duck. 9/11 wasn't one, since civil authority was never in any danger of breaking down.

    Hawaii was under martial law during WWII (although not a state at the time). Andy Jackson declared martial law in New Orleans during the war of 1812. I don't know if he'd approve of his home state's current constitution specifically forbids martial law within the state.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob72
    McCarthy couldn't spot a Communist across the room, however it is generally recognized that the "Reds" were extremely active in a majority of the 60s movements, and seriously penetrated our Mil/Int. This, from KGB documents released +/- 8 years ago. The Red threat was real- we experienced a taste of it under Mr. Clinton, an indirect recipient of the USSR's love and affection; a direct recipient of China's.
    No argument on Tailgunner Joe. Of course, the "Reds" also proved to be the gang that couldn't shoot straight. "Generally recognized" is also very problematic, as is "majority of '60s movements", which, if you laid them end to end, would point in all directions. There was hardly a monolithic movement. And, you know, I just never ran into many "Reds" when I was in the military.

    That being said, all the hysteria got in the way of actual counter-espionage work. Looking for demons under the bed took resources away from the real fight.

    BTW, the USSR was no more when President Clinton was in office.

    Let's not be so fearful that we turn on ourselves, instead of taking appropriate action against real threats.
    Cheers,
    Rod
    "We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters

  4. #18
    VIP Member Array rodc13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    2,753
    By the way, the essay which started this thread was not written by USAF Major General Vernon Chong , although he did pass on a version of it to an acquaintence via email. Here's the scoop:
    http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/chong.asp
    Nothing wrong, of course, with discussing the ideas and concepts, which can stand or fall on their own.
    Cheers,
    Rod
    "We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. A must-read, and fun too
    By cinsc in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 11th, 2010, 11:36 AM
  2. What to read next?
    By razz in forum Defensive Books, Video & References
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: June 11th, 2008, 10:57 PM
  3. Carry options for wife---I've read and read and cant find anything decent?
    By Mighty HD in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: January 15th, 2006, 03:25 PM
  4. Please Read This
    By QKShooter in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: May 26th, 2005, 11:07 AM