Bill passes allowing govt' to imprison American citizens without the right of Habeus - Page 2

Bill passes allowing govt' to imprison American citizens without the right of Habeus

This is a discussion on Bill passes allowing govt' to imprison American citizens without the right of Habeus within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; According to this link, Amendment 1274 was defeated. SPRINGFIELD, Virginia – On Thursday night, Senator Rand Paul blocked passage of an amendment that would have ...

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 79
Like Tree38Likes

Thread: Bill passes allowing govt' to imprison American citizens without the right of Habeus

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    According to this link, Amendment 1274 was defeated.

    SPRINGFIELD, Virginia – On Thursday night, Senator Rand Paul blocked passage of an amendment that would have allowed the government to indefinitely detain American citizens until Congress declares the War on Terror to be over. These Americans would be detained even if they were tried and found not guilty.

    An attempt was made to pass Amendment No. 1274 to the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1867) by voice vote, but Senator Paul’s objection and request for a roll call vote ultimately led to the bill’s defeat by a final vote of 41-59.

    Press Release: C4L Stands With Rand | Campaign for Liberty

    This awful piece of crap was proposed by senator Sessions and seconded by senator Inhofe. IMO: Both are blithering idiots.

    SA 1274. Mr. SESSIONS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1867, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:


    On page 360, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:

    (5) Notwithstanding disposition under paragraph (2) or (3), further detention under the law of war until the end of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

    The vote:

    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00217


  2. #17
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,750
    Quote Originally Posted by gunthorp View Post
    McCain was an author, but I read that Paul Ryan called for a role call vote on the amendment instead of a voice vote, and it failed. But there's still some bad stuff in the bill which I hope the house will strip out. The POTUS would love to have the army haul me away with my FFL. In any case, he can have the justice department personnel who are assigned to INTERPOL disappear us right now.
    Can't you read? The President and the Agency heads don't want this authority and The President has threatened a VETO. Stop fantasizing that someone is conspiring to haul you away.

    What is being cooked up is an end run around the 5th and 6th of the BOR; and it has been cooked by a nearly unanimous
    group of Republicans aided by some Dems who should know better.

    Again, The President has threatened a veto. He does not want the authority the bill is proposing to give him.

    The Senate should be deeply ashamed of themselves. Every last one of them who voted for this after swearing to preserve our constitution.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  3. #18
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    12,777
    Laugh of the day-- If the President must sign this he should immediately follow The Senate's desires, brand them all enemy combatants and ship the unholy lot of them off to GITMO.
    It will be a great day, staring with a laugh like that!

  4. #19
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,750
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    Hop - I like your final solution to this. Couple of issues with your thoughts though. First, I think you will find this is not a partisan issue. You and I are in basic agreement on this issue. It is a "ruling class" against the people issue and highlights why informed voting is so very important. Second, if I read the article linked in the OP correctly, the vote was 93 - 7. Pretty much all of them went for it and that is a veto-proof margin in the Senate.

    Thinking about this in the context of the other thread we have been debating - it is actions like this that the FF knew government would eventually try and one I the reasons they included the 2A
    I don't know what the final vote was-- but I have seen lists of who voted for it, and I don't think it was anywhere near
    that overwhelming 93-7.

    It is really hard to deal with this topic without stepping into the partisan box. So I am not going to say more than that I hope The President Vetoes this bill and does it with a very public speech about the perfidy of stealing 5th and 6th rights.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  5. #20
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I don't know what the final vote was-- but I have seen lists of who voted for it, and I don't think it was anywhere near
    that overwhelming 93-7.

    It is really hard to deal with this topic without stepping into the partisan box. So I am not going to say more than that I hope The President Vetoes this bill and does it with a very public speech about the perfidy of stealing 5th and 6th rights.
    Hop - Here is how they voted. the 7 Nays were 3 Reps, 3 Dems & 1 Independent. Overall more Dems (48) voted for the bill than Reps (44). 1 Independent also voted for it - Leiberman. I still don't see this as partisan, but if you are going to keep beating that gong, recognize that more Dems, lead by the Democrat Senate leadership, voted for this bill. I still think it is the "ruling class" -v- We the People.

    Grouped By Vote Position


    YEAs ---93
    Akaka (D-HI)
    Alexander (R-TN)
    Ayotte (R-NH)
    Barrasso (R-WY)
    Baucus (D-MT)
    Begich (D-AK)
    Bennet (D-CO)
    Bingaman (D-NM)
    Blumenthal (D-CT)
    Blunt (R-MO)
    Boozman (R-AR)
    Boxer (D-CA)
    Brown (D-OH)
    Brown (R-MA)
    Burr (R-NC)
    Cantwell (D-WA)
    Cardin (D-MD)
    Carper (D-DE)
    Casey (D-PA)
    Chambliss (R-GA)
    Coats (R-IN)
    Cochran (R-MS)
    Collins (R-ME)
    Conrad (D-ND)
    Coons (D-DE)
    Corker (R-TN)
    Cornyn (R-TX)
    Crapo (R-ID)
    DeMint (R-SC)
    Durbin (D-IL)
    Enzi (R-WY)
    Feinstein (D-CA)
    Franken (D-MN)
    Gillibrand (D-NY)
    Graham (R-SC)
    Grassley (R-IA)
    Hagan (D-NC)
    Hatch (R-UT)
    Heller (R-NV)
    Hoeven (R-ND)
    Hutchison (R-TX)
    Inhofe (R-OK)
    Inouye (D-HI)
    Isakson (R-GA)
    Johanns (R-NE)
    Johnson (D-SD)
    Johnson (R-WI)
    Kerry (D-MA)
    Kirk (R-IL)
    Klobuchar (D-MN)
    Kohl (D-WI)
    Kyl (R-AZ)
    Landrieu (D-LA)
    Lautenberg (D-NJ)
    Leahy (D-VT)
    Levin (D-MI)
    Lieberman (ID-CT)
    Lugar (R-IN)
    Manchin (D-WV)
    McCain (R-AZ)
    McCaskill (D-MO)
    McConnell (R-KY)
    Menendez (D-NJ)
    Mikulski (D-MD)
    Moran (R-KS)
    Murkowski (R-AK)
    Murray (D-WA)
    Nelson (D-FL)
    Nelson (D-NE)
    Portman (R-OH)
    Pryor (D-AR)
    Reed (D-RI)
    Reid (D-NV)
    Risch (R-ID)
    Roberts (R-KS)
    Rockefeller (D-WV)
    Rubio (R-FL)
    Schumer (D-NY)
    Sessions (R-AL)
    Shaheen (D-NH)
    Shelby (R-AL)
    Snowe (R-ME)
    Stabenow (D-MI)
    tester (D-MT)
    Thune (R-SD)
    Toomey (R-PA)
    Udall (D-CO)
    Udall (D-NM)
    Vitter (R-LA)
    Warner (D-VA)
    Webb (D-VA)
    Whitehouse (D-RI)
    Wicker (R-MS)

    NAYs ---7
    Coburn (R-OK)
    Harkin (D-IA)
    Lee (R-UT)
    Merkley (D-OR)
    Paul (R-KY)
    Sanders (I-VT)
    Wyden (D-OR)

    Source = http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00218
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  6. #21
    Senior Member Array wdbailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    605
    Okay, let me explain my take on what will happen in the future whenever some of our high speed, low drag types run across a US citizen who's grown out a beard and taken up an AK for the cause of Jihad.

    He'll be shot of hand.

    They know up front that first off he's not going to be read his rights, he'll likely take them to court and generally cause grief that they don't need. At least that's going to be their feelings about the situation.

    That's reality on the ground. Have a nice day

  7. #22
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,750
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    Hop - Here is how they voted. the 7 Nays were 3 Reps, 3 Dems & 1 Independent. Overall more Dems voted for the bill than Reps. I still don't see this as partisan, but if you are going to keep beating that gong, recognize that more Dems, lead by their leadership, voted for this bill. I still think it is the "ruling class" -v- We the People.

    Grouped By Vote Position


    YEAs ---93
    Akaka (D-HI)
    Alexander (R-TN)
    Ayotte (R-NH)
    Barrasso (R-WY)
    Baucus (D-MT)
    Begich (D-AK)
    Bennet (D-CO)
    Bingaman (D-NM)
    Blumenthal (D-CT)
    Blunt (R-MO)
    Boozman (R-AR)
    Boxer (D-CA)
    Brown (D-OH)
    Brown (R-MA)
    Burr (R-NC)
    Cantwell (D-WA)
    Cardin (D-MD)
    Carper (D-DE)
    Casey (D-PA)
    Chambliss (R-GA)
    Coats (R-IN)
    Cochran (R-MS)
    Collins (R-ME)
    Conrad (D-ND)
    Coons (D-DE)
    Corker (R-TN)
    Cornyn (R-TX)
    Crapo (R-ID)
    DeMint (R-SC)
    Durbin (D-IL)
    Enzi (R-WY)
    Feinstein (D-CA)
    Franken (D-MN)
    Gillibrand (D-NY)
    Graham (R-SC)
    Grassley (R-IA)
    Hagan (D-NC)
    Hatch (R-UT)
    Heller (R-NV)
    Hoeven (R-ND)
    Hutchison (R-TX)
    Inhofe (R-OK)
    Inouye (D-HI)
    Isakson (R-GA)
    Johanns (R-NE)
    Johnson (D-SD)
    Johnson (R-WI)
    Kerry (D-MA)
    Kirk (R-IL)
    Klobuchar (D-MN)
    Kohl (D-WI)
    Kyl (R-AZ)
    Landrieu (D-LA)
    Lautenberg (D-NJ)
    Leahy (D-VT)
    Levin (D-MI)
    Lieberman (ID-CT)
    Lugar (R-IN)
    Manchin (D-WV)
    McCain (R-AZ)
    McCaskill (D-MO)
    McConnell (R-KY)
    Menendez (D-NJ)
    Mikulski (D-MD)
    Moran (R-KS)
    Murkowski (R-AK)
    Murray (D-WA)
    Nelson (D-FL)
    Nelson (D-NE)
    Portman (R-OH)
    Pryor (D-AR)
    Reed (D-RI)
    Reid (D-NV)
    Risch (R-ID)
    Roberts (R-KS)
    Rockefeller (D-WV)
    Rubio (R-FL)
    Schumer (D-NY)
    Sessions (R-AL)
    Shaheen (D-NH)
    Shelby (R-AL)
    Snowe (R-ME)
    Stabenow (D-MI)
    tester (D-MT)
    Thune (R-SD)
    Toomey (R-PA)
    Udall (D-CO)
    Udall (D-NM)
    Vitter (R-LA)
    Warner (D-VA)
    Webb (D-VA)
    Whitehouse (D-RI)
    Wicker (R-MS)

    NAYs ---7
    Coburn (R-OK)
    Harkin (D-IA)
    Lee (R-UT)
    Merkley (D-OR)
    Paul (R-KY)
    Sanders (I-VT)
    Wyden (D-OR)
    Either this list is wrong, or several Senators who spoke out against the bill went ahead and voted for it. There were many who spoke against the provision.

    Keep in mind, there really were two votes. One was for the Defense Authorization, and I think that is the one that got the
    overall vote you are referring to. However, prior, there was a vote on an Amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill to strip out the section dealing with the perfidy.

    The vote to defeat the amendment, that is--to retain the inappropriate language in the bill--- was much more partisan and nowhere near as lopsided as for the final product--the overall appropriations bill.

    Here's the political angle without trying to be partisan, but to explain it. People felt they had to hold their noses and vote funds for DOD, even if the bill had the odious provisions, which were not voted out of the bill on a very partisan vote.

    The game is to put The Pres. in the position of having to veto funds for the troops, if you would look at it this way.

    The President has been painted into a corner in which he can not win. If he vetoes because of the odious provisions he gets accused of cutting funds for DOD. If he signs, he gets accused of approving the attack on our BOR. Lose lose lose.

    A signing statement might be the best he can do with this.

    But it is, and make no mistake, a game of partisan politics and gotchya that has nothing to do with ruling classes; just partisan positioning. Why on earth an astute politician like Carl Levin (D) would have agreed to this is beyond me, except that his home state MI was where the underwear bomber was caught-- so there is constituent pressure. I don't know the motives of the others and I don't care. The bill stinks. They stink.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  8. #23
    Member Array TheGiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    89
    I think it is just Lazy politicians and staffers.
    Look a DOD bill lets sigh it, we are strong on Defense. Hey jerkwad how about reading a bill and all the amendments before voting for it. Yes a perfect bill can be screwed with just one bad amendment added to it.

  9. #24
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Either this list is wrong, or several Senators who spoke out against the bill went ahead and voted for it. There were many who spoke against the provision.

    Keep in mind, there really were two votes. One was for the Defense Authorization, and I think that is the one that got the
    overall vote you are referring to. However, prior, there was a vote on an Amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill to strip out the section dealing with the perfidy.

    The vote to defeat the amendment, that is--to retain the inappropriate language in the bill--- was much more partisan and nowhere near as lopsided as for the final product--the overall appropriations bill.

    Here's the political angle without trying to be partisan, but to explain it. People felt they had to hold their noses and vote funds for DOD, even if the bill had the odious provisions, which were not voted out of the bill on a very partisan vote.

    The game is to put The Pres. in the position of having to veto funds for the troops, if you would look at it this way.

    The President has been painted into a corner in which he can not win. If he vetoes because of the odious provisions he gets accused of cutting funds for DOD. If he signs, he gets accused of approving the attack on our BOR. Lose lose lose.

    A signing statement might be the best he can do with this.

    But it is, and make no mistake, a game of partisan politics and gotchya that has nothing to do with ruling classes; just partisan positioning. Why on earth an astute politician like Carl Levin (D) would have agreed to this is beyond me, except that his home state MI was where the underwear bomber was caught-- so there is constituent pressure. I don't know the motives of the others and I don't care. The bill stinks. They stink.
    Best I can figure out, there were 5 amendments, only 1 passed. It was to sanction Iran and will likely drive up the cost of oil/gas. All the others failed and there was a party line flavor but a significant number of Dems did have to cross the aisle. In the end, as reported above, 93 of them voted for the obviously unconstitutional bill. Yeah, we gotta fund the troops, but they really could not have taken time to get a bill that was constitutional?

    I agree with you that there is posturing going on. I would greatly favor a constitutional amendment to require every bill to have 1 subject. Amendments that were not amending the main subject of the bill would be out of line. This would help the government run more efficiently and allow the voters to better evaluate their reps & sens. Any question why this has not happened? Below is how the votes on the amendments went.

    Vote.jpg

    source = http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...menu_112_1.htm
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  10. #25
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    Hopyard has it right; this was an attempt to force Obamas veto of the defense authorization bill.
    These fine political hacks voted to allow the Army to detain US citizens forever:

    YEAs ---41

    Alexander (R-TN)
    Ayotte (R-NH)
    Barrasso (R-WY)
    Blunt (R-MO)
    Boozman (R-AR)
    Burr (R-NC)
    Chambliss (R-GA)
    Coats (R-IN)
    Coburn (R-OK)
    Cochran (R-MS)
    Cornyn (R-TX)
    Crapo (R-ID)
    DeMint (R-SC)
    Enzi (R-WY)
    Graham (R-SC)
    Grassley (R-IA)
    Hatch (R-UT)
    Hoeven (R-ND)
    Hutchison (R-TX)
    Inhofe (R-OK)
    Isakson (R-GA)
    Johanns (R-NE)
    Johnson (R-WI)
    Kyl (R-AZ)
    Lieberman (ID-CT)
    Lugar (R-IN)
    Manchin (D-WV)
    McConnell (R-KY)
    Moran (R-KS)
    Murkowski (R-AK)
    Portman (R-OH)
    Pryor (D-AR)
    Risch (R-ID)
    Roberts (R-KS)
    Rubio (R-FL)
    Sessions (R-AL)
    Shelby (R-AL)
    Thune (R-SD)
    Toomey (R-PA)
    Vitter (R-LA)
    Wicker (R-MS

  11. #26
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    :SNIP:
    What is being cooked up is an end run around the 5th and 6th of the BOR; and it has been cooked by a nearly unanimous
    group of Republicans aided by some Dems who should know better.

    :SNIP:
    If the President and the Congress had legally declared war would any of the measures be necessary? In a legal war spies are shot and POW's are kept until the end of hostilities.
    Some of out politicians want it both ways. They do not want to be on the record voting to declare war. But they want to use the rules that would be allowed had they voted to do it.

    Michael

  12. #27
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig 210 View Post
    Hopyard has it right; this was an attempt to force Obamas veto of the defense authorization bill.
    These fine political hacks voted to allow the Army to detain US citizens forever:

    YEAs ---41

    Alexander (R-TN)
    Ayotte (R-NH)
    Barrasso (R-WY)
    Blunt (R-MO)
    Boozman (R-AR)
    Burr (R-NC)
    Chambliss (R-GA)
    Coats (R-IN)
    Coburn (R-OK)
    Cochran (R-MS)
    Cornyn (R-TX)
    Crapo (R-ID)
    DeMint (R-SC)
    Enzi (R-WY)
    Graham (R-SC)
    Grassley (R-IA)
    Hatch (R-UT)
    Hoeven (R-ND)
    Hutchison (R-TX)
    Inhofe (R-OK)
    Isakson (R-GA)
    Johanns (R-NE)
    Johnson (R-WI)
    Kyl (R-AZ)
    Lieberman (ID-CT)
    Lugar (R-IN)
    Manchin (D-WV)
    McConnell (R-KY)
    Moran (R-KS)
    Murkowski (R-AK)
    Portman (R-OH)
    Pryor (D-AR)
    Risch (R-ID)
    Roberts (R-KS)
    Rubio (R-FL)
    Sessions (R-AL)
    Shelby (R-AL)
    Thune (R-SD)
    Toomey (R-PA)
    Vitter (R-LA)
    Wicker (R-MS
    Actually, the original list voted to do as you say. The list that you posted is the list that voted against the amendment to get that out of the bill. In the end, all but 7 senators voted to pass the amended bill with this provision in it. I don't care when you voted for it, if you voted for it then you voted for it.
    Hopyard likes this.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  13. #28
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    The language of Amendment #1274 is not in the new defense authorization bill.

    http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-01/p..._s=PM:POLITICS

    Senate passes defense bill with detainee policy compromise
    LAW ENFORCEMENT

    .................................................. .................................................. ..................................The Senate on Thursday passed a giant defense bill that includes a new policy for detaining and trying suspected al Qaeda terrorists -- a policy that attracted controversy during the debate and may draw a presidential veto.

    The defense authorization bill passed by a vote of 93-7.

    Senate debate on the detainee matter was at times volatile and emotional.

    After years of struggling with issues of who should investigate, detain and try suspected terrorists -- civilian authorities and courts or the military and its tribunal system -- Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin, D-Michigan, and ranking Republican John McCain of Arizona reached a long-sought compromise to codify the process.

    However, critics complained the deal was weighted toward the military because it required any suspected al Qaeda terrorists, even those captured inside the U.S., to be held potentially indefinitely by the military. That concerned the White House and many lawmakers who think the responsibility belongs, in part, to law enforcement agencies and the federal courts and warned that Americans could possibly be detained indefinitely by the military.

    Levin and McCain denied their bill would allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens.

    .................................................. .................................................. ...................................

    Senators ultimately reached an agreement to amend the bill to make clear it's not the bill's intent to allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and others legally residing in the country.

    "It would provide the assurance that we are not adversely affecting the rights of American citizens in this language," Levin said while expressing support for the compromise.

  14. #29
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,090
    Quote Originally Posted by wdbailey View Post
    Since the fear monger in the press don't seem to be inclined to actually share the language of the bill I thought I'd look it up for myself

    Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

    Read it and draw your own conclusion but here's a hint, if you're not an active member of al Qeada on a battlefield somewhere you don't really have to worry about the black helicopters swooping in on your Fortress of Solitude
    Exactly...I wish folks would look at the bill itself, not what the press or ACLU put together.

    This came out earlier in the week through the ACLU. First problem with the ACLU assertions--they didn't publish which section of the bill they were referring to. After I looked the bill up at the thomas.gov site, I saw NOTHING what the ACLU asserted and what the rest of the press lied about.

    Folks--don't feed the hysteria...read the bill yourself and then post the offending section and your commentary as to why this is bad. Right now, AS WRITTEN, there is nothing about arresting U.S. citizens by the military, in fact, U.S. citizens cannot be arrested by the U.S. military (see Section 1032, para (b) of S.1253, which reads:
    (b) Requirement Inapplicable to United States Citizens- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
    Magazine <> clip - know the difference

    martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
    You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know

  15. #30
    Member Array TheGiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    89
    Ok I am confused I need to see what passed the senate and who voted for it.
    Being a strict Constitutionalist and having sworn and oath to defend it I want know my enemies.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

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
  •  

Search tags for this page

amendment 1274

,

bill to imprison american citizens

,

bill to imprison americans

,

bill to imprison us citizens

,
congress passes bill to imprison
,
imprisoning american citizens
,
law passed to imprison americans
,

law that allows govt to imprison citizens

,
law to imprison americans
,
new law to imprison americans
,
the right to imprison
,
what law was passed to imprison us citizens without recourse to the law in 2012
Click on a term to search for related topics.