Congressional Sit In // Jerry Henry on 11 Alive

I not a Brenda Woods fan. I wish she and other news casters would just shut their yaps if they are going to give opinions. I turn in to watch the news not listen to their opinions.

 

I agree jato. I have stopped watching their news because her opinion pieces at the end.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovODpzpk2RI[/ame]

 

Brenda Wood blabs too much. But at least she gave Jerry Henry the last word, which Sen. Fort just had to interrupt.

According to Brenda Wood, her Democrat friends, and Rino Republicans, it's not a violation of your rights to get mistakenly put on a secret list and have your rights taken away without due process, if there is a way to appeal after the fact.

So, it's not theft if someone steals something from you, if you can appeal to the thief afterwards to get it back?

You know, the secret list way of denying people their rights won't be a fully effective way to deny rights unless you make private sales without background checks illegal. These two things go hand-in-hand, which is why both are being pushed so hard.

 

I suspect that to many people, due process is some abstract legalese loophole technicality thing. They don't seem to understand its fundamental nature.

Some ministerial after-the-fact venue where one is simply told again that some of their rights have been arbitrarily stripped is NOT due process. At best it is a sham of a appellate process, even though there is no ruling to appeal. I guess that makes it a form of "pretend redress".

Cherry picking form here and there does not preserve substance no matter what labels are used.

 

"Appeal process"

"...you took away my rights without a trial and didn't even have the common decency to tell me about it... please give me my rights back..."
"...we've considered the matter and the answer is no... your rights remain stripped... you may appeal again in five years, at which point the answer will again be no..."


In my opinion they want to set up a bureaucratic machine for stripping supposedly guaranteed rights, wherein the basis is simply whether or not some agency somewhere tags you as "suspicious".

First of all, this amounts to punishing an individual (strip rights) for something someone else (an agency) has done (deemed them suspicious). Call it "arbitrary punishment through edict". The gov't strips at least some of your rights any time it "decides" to. No trial, no evidence, just someone somewhere saying "yeah, let me put a check mark next to this person's name". It doesn't require the person having done anything, it just requires that check mark.

Second, there is no proceeding, no active judicial process, not even an arrest. It is all completely ex parte and ministerial. There is no disposition or activity, there is just "limbo". Having punished you, you must live with the punishment and the only thing you can do is ask to be told "No" in person.

Third, even if there were some sort of actual judicial proceeding, the way it's being set up, the "determining fact" will be whether or not there is a check mark next to your name. It WILL NOT be whether or not the check mark is justified. Let me say that again... the "evidence" will be the opposing party saying "Yes, we have flagged him". There will be no trying of WHY the person is flagged.


Quite simply, such is NOT how we do things in this country.

 

Remember, when Sen. Fort talks about "...if there was a mistake...", he is talking about "...I don't see check mark next to your name..." and "...oops, the pencil slipped and marked the wrong check box..." He is not talking about "...we were suspicious but now we aren't..."

 

Remember, the standard here is not even RAS. It isn't even "mere suspicion". The standard here is administrative. Also, unlike RAS which authorizes a temporary detainment without loss of rights, this instead is permanent.

Since when do we treat the guarantees on fundamental inalienable rights so much more shabbily than we treat even traffic infractions and jay walking?

 

Could gun control become a defining issue in this election?

 

That would require Trump to have a different position than Hillary.

 

I have a feeling the GOP and Trump will continue to diverge as the summer rolls on. Major GOP donors are going to fund down ballot contests and let Trump do his own thing, as he is not even a conservative.

 

Good job, Jerry! What infuriates me is that the Democrats are well aware of the due process clause in the Constitution, and they don't care. If we all agree to it, screw the Constitution!!

 

Yay Mock'racy.



[/sarcasm]

 

It isn't just democrats. I run in mostly conservative circles, and support for secret government lists is popular on both sides of the aisle. What's really nauseating is the number of people who aren't saying "This idea sucks, but surely there is a workable idea", but simply accept (even actively support) secret lists as a good idea.

 

Reminds me of GunSmoker's "extra special scrutiny" arguments of the past. Nationalize it?

 

So, does anyone think it's going to ever be easy to just appeal to the Feds to get taken off of some secret watch list?

http://www.dailyitem.com/news/local...cle_94e98fc1-3beb-5cae-9539-aec6f9d0b59c.html

 

So, as long as SOMEONE is able to do it, there is no "complete ban"... or something?

 

So, are they going to, what... call him on his cell phone or something? If it goes to voicemail, will the default be to block or to allow?