Quantcast

The due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality

irish 2011/10/01 11:57:23

The due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality






Anwar al-Awlaki


FILE - In this Nov. 8, 2010 file image taken from video and
released by SITE Intelligence Group on Monday, Anwar al-Awlaki speaks in
a video message posted on radical websites. A senior U.S.
counterterrorism official says U.S. intelligence indicates that
U.S.-born al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki has been killed in Yemen. (AP
Photo/SITE Intelligence Group, File) NO SALES (Credit: AP Photo/SITE
Intelligence Group, File)





Topics:


(updated below)

It was first reported
in January of last year that the Obama administration had compiled a
hit list of American citizens whom the President had ordered
assassinated without any due process, and one of those Americans was
Anwar al-Awlaki. No effort was made to indict him for any crimes
(despite a report last October that the Obama administration was “considering” indicting him). Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even had any operational role
in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government
accusations) was presented of his guilt. When Awlaki’s father sought a
court order barring Obama from killing his son, the DOJ argued,
among other things, that such decisions were “state secrets” and thus
beyond the scrutiny of the courts. He was simply ordered killed by the
President: his judge, jury and executioner. When Awlaki’s inclusion on
President Obama’s hit list was confirmed, The New York Times noted that “it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing.”

After several unsuccessful efforts to assassinate its own citizen, the U.S. succeeded today (and it was the U.S.).
It almost certainly was able to find and kill Awlaki with the help of
its long-time close friend President Saleh, who took a little time off
from murdering his own citizens
to help the U.S. murder its. The U.S. thus transformed someone who
was, at best, a marginal figure into a martyr, and again showed its true
face to the world. The government and media search for The Next bin Laden has undoubtedly already commenced.

What’s
most striking about this is not that the U.S. Government has seized and
exercised exactly the power the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar
(“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law”), and
did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections
(questions that will now never be decided in a court of law). What’s
most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from
objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government’s new power to
assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally
without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government. Many will
celebrate the strong, decisive, Tough President’s ability to eradicate
the life of Anwar al-Awlaki — including many who just so righteously
condemned those Republican audience members as so terribly barbaric and
crass for cheering Governor Perry’s execution of scores of serial
murderers and rapists: criminals who were at least given a trial and
appeals and the other trappings of due process before being killed.

From
an authoritarian perspective, that’s the genius of America’s political
culture. It not only finds ways to obliterate the most basic individual
liberties designed to safeguard citizens from consummate abuses of
power (such as extinguishing the lives of citizens without due
process). It actually gets its citizens to stand up and clap and even
celebrate the destruction of those safeguards.

http://politics.salon.com/2011/09/30/awlaki_6/
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • twhiting9275 2011/10/01 18:59:17 (edited)
    twhiting9275
    +11
    So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause......

    One of my favorite quotes in that damn movie, and it's becoming more and more relevant here.

    Was the man a "bad guy"? I'll go as far as to say probably, to admit that yes, he probably was. HOWEVER, according to this little piece of paper that politicians like to wipe their asses with, AKA, the CONSTITUTION, this man was innocent. He was NEVER proven guilty, EVER.

    So, what we have here is the assassination of a U.S. citizen, ordered by the U.S. president , nothing more. ANYTHING to avoid paperwork, right? ANYTHING to avoid due process.

    When did this country become a dictatorship, where the president can do what the hell ever he wants, against who the hell ever dares to speak out against him?

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Boblawbla 2011/10/05 20:37:48
    Boblawbla
    +1
    It used to go like this: Arrest, arraignment, bail-hearing, grand jury, indictment, pre-trial examination, trial, conviction, appeals, death penalty..... no longer in today's busy and crammed courts. And about half the populace don't have the time nor patience to go any further than execution. The old adage about "why give him a trial or produce evidence? We all know he's guilty.... after all, our CIA are honest people" is certainly in effect today. Oh, unless it's about your OWN guilt.

    Besides, why waste our time, as in the movie "Twelve Angry Men" the Yankees were playing the Red Sox that afternoon, of course he's guilty and I just don't want to waste time with an honest appraisal of his culpability. I think America needs to watch this movie in its entirety:

  • Doc 2011/10/04 19:48:28
    Doc
    +1
    I wonder how the left would react if this happened while Bush was president?

    I bet they would have started just loving him and supporting him just like they do Obama.
  • irish Doc 2011/10/05 11:00:18 (edited)
    irish
    +1
    you think so?
    It was standard policy under George Bush's November 2001 Military Order Number 1, authorizing the capture, kidnapping, or otherwise neutralizing of non-citizens (and later citizens) suspected of terrorist involvement, holding them indefinitely without charge, evidence, or due process, treating them as non-persons, disappearing them forever, the practice continuing under Obama.
  • Doc irish 2011/10/05 19:02:46
    Doc
    +1
    And I remmeber the left complaining about it, and bringing charges against seal team 6, and all kinds of not so sweet things.
  • irish Doc 2011/10/06 11:05:26
    irish
    +1
    sounds as if they are confused or think americans are not paying attention.
  • Doc irish 2011/10/07 21:30:16
    Doc
    I actually approve of this particular action by our president. I believe alaki made his choice when he went to Yemen.
  • irish Doc 2011/10/08 12:15:43
    irish
    +1
    he was a cia asset. and there is no body ,nothing.
  • Doc irish 2011/10/11 00:02:38
    Doc
    +1
    Why does this not surprise me?
  • irish Doc 2011/10/11 10:39:05
    irish
    +1
    it shouldn't.
  • Grammar Freak 2011/10/03 20:53:40 (edited)
    Grammar Freak
    +1
    Wait a minute.

    We've had "Dead or Alive" posters for centuries... literally... & many many American criminals have been killed, both in the US & outside the US by the US government & people authorized by the US government for loads of reasons.

    This is not new in any way, shape or form.




    Can we just calm down a minute?

    Please!



    ShareDead or Alive
  • irish Grammar... 2011/10/04 12:39:57
    irish
    +2
    there is a huge difference when a sitting president orders a hit on an american citizen.
  • Grammar... irish 2011/10/04 15:42:33
    Grammar Freak
    How is that?
    Please explain the difference.
  • irish Grammar... 2011/10/04 19:05:18
    irish
    +1
    one word,the constitution.
  • Grammar... irish 2011/10/05 07:36:28
    Grammar Freak
    Where, exactly, are you referring to in The Constitution?
  • irish Grammar... 2011/10/05 11:06:43
    irish
    are you serious?
    "President Obama is claiming the power to act as judge, jury and executioner while suspending any semblance of due process....The US government is going outside the law to create an ever-larger global war zone and turn the whole world into a battlefield."

    Under international or US law, designating US citizens or anyone terrorists based on suspicions without proof is egregious by any standard. Moreover, no one should be denied due process and judicial fairness.

    The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) condemned Al-Awlaki's killing, saying:

    "The assassination of Anwar Al-Awlaki by American drone attacks is the latest of many affronts to domestic and international law, said Vince Warren," CCR Executive Director.

    "The targeted assassination program that started under (Bush) and expanded under Obama essentially grants the executive" extralegal judge, jury, and executioner power.

    "If we allow such gross overreaches of power to continue, we are setting the stage for increasing erosions of civil liberties and the rule of law."
  • Grammar... irish 2011/10/05 13:23:26
    Grammar Freak
    I understand.
    Which part of The Constitution were you referring to?
  • irish Grammar... 2011/10/05 13:43:35
    irish
    the Constitution's requirement that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.
  • Grammar... irish 2011/10/05 19:37:02
    Grammar Freak
    Look, here is the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment:
    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

    Now my point is that it says that "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ..."
    Not that it has stopped states in the past. We've had loads of criminals caught & killed in the name of the state (the law) without ever going to trial. The Constitution does not specifically restrain the President from doing any such thing.

    That being said, it does not mean that I disagree with you.
    However, I do not believe it is okay for the US to have killed bin Laden either... because of the same portion I quoted in the second paragraph. It says "...deprive any person of life, liberty... ." It does not delineate "citizen" from "person." Of course, our government has been knocking people off for years... illegal or not....

    &&&

    &
    Look, here is the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment:
    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

    Now my point is that it says that "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ..."
    Not that it has stopped states in the past. We've had loads of criminals caught & killed in the name of the state (the law) without ever going to trial. The Constitution does not specifically restrain the President from doing any such thing.

    That being said, it does not mean that I disagree with you.
    However, I do not believe it is okay for the US to have killed bin Laden either... because of the same portion I quoted in the second paragraph. It says "...deprive any person of life, liberty... ." It does not delineate "citizen" from "person." Of course, our government has been knocking people off for years... illegal or not. Our last administration even "absolved" us from following the Geneva Conventions. So, it would be an interesting study indeed to determine just how powerful The President of the United States of America truly is today, wouldn't it? It seems that he is, indeed, somewhat untouchable.

    It's truly unbelievable to me that Clinton was impeached for having/ lying about sex, while our last fearless leader & his entire administration raped our treasury, lied about going to war, ensured removal of our liberties... & he & his overlord of evil are walking around with the sun on their faces feeling fine as frog's hair.
    Unbelievable.
    I don't like Obama. One reason is because he has done nothing to restore our liberties, but has, in fact used those illegally expanded powers. I have never trusted him. There is no reason to trust him. I do not hate him, but I certainly do not respect him, because he was a professor of Constitutional Law & should absolutely know better.
    (more)
  • SuiJuri... Grammar... 2011/10/05 20:13:10
    SuiJuris249
    +1
    The 5th Amendment have you bothered to read it? Here it is for ya.

    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 offense 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.
  • Grammar... SuiJuri... 2011/10/05 20:14:43
    Grammar Freak
    Good.
    Now, where does it say that the "person" has to be a US citizen?
  • irish Grammar... 2011/10/06 11:06:51
    irish
    he was NEVER a professor,never. he was a fill in. he never had tenure as a professor.
  • Grammar... irish 2011/10/06 13:36:48
    Grammar Freak
    This is from Wiki:

    "In 1991, Obama accepted a two-year position as Visiting Law and Government Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School to work on his first book. He then served as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years—as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004—teaching constitutional law."

    This is from the U of Chicago:

    "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."


    I guess he was a professor then... for 12 years.
  • irish Grammar... 2011/10/06 13:48:08
    irish
    wiki is a corrupt source.
    Barack Obama was a lecturer at the University of Chicago law school between 1992 and 1996 while he was an attorney at the law firm of Miner, Barnhill & Galland. In 1996, Sweet wrote, Obama was appointed senior lecturer, a position he maintained at the law school until 2004, when he resigned to run for the U.S. Senate.


    the University of Chicago claimed Obama "applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn't even considered."

    "The University of Chicago did Obama no favor by saying he was a law professor when he wasn't," Sweet wrote. "The parsing is not necessary. There is nothing degrading about being a senior lecturer and bringing to students the experience of a professional in the field."

    The distinction between the not capitalized "professor" and the capitalized terms "Lecturer" and "Senior Lecturer" in the University of Chicago statement was intentional, University of Chicago spokeswoman Sarah Galer told WND

    "Barack Obama's official titles were Lecturer and Senior Lecturer," Galer said. "These are adjunct positions on the University of Chicago faculty, not full-time tenure-track positions."
  • Grammar... irish 2011/10/06 14:48:00 (edited)
    Grammar Freak
    Fine, but what is so special about tenure... it just means that a person's been hired & plans to stay full-time until retirement... so he/she can get retirement benefits & school benefits & health benefits. But those considered "professors" are often as useful/helpful in practical learning than those considered "Professors," simply because they actually have hands-on experience.
    U of Chicago also said this:
    "Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."

    I'm not defending Obama... I don't think there is anything to defend. You don't like the word "professor" (which is what I initially said) as much as you do "Professor." The point is that he taught Con Law & I think that someone who teaches Con Law should know better than to allow our constitution to be trampled upon. He (as well as those before him) took an oath to uphold & defend The Constitution, not whittle it down to toothpicks, chew on it & spit it out.

    Presidents have been at the helm, ordering assassinations forever. It's never been right. There have always been cover-ups... at least since the beginning of the CIA. How many foreign dignitaries do you suppose we've hit? More than we'll ever know. This is ju...&





    &&

    &&&
    &

    &&

    &
    Fine, but what is so special about tenure... it just means that a person's been hired & plans to stay full-time until retirement... so he/she can get retirement benefits & school benefits & health benefits. But those considered "professors" are often as useful/helpful in practical learning than those considered "Professors," simply because they actually have hands-on experience.
    U of Chicago also said this:
    "Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."

    I'm not defending Obama... I don't think there is anything to defend. You don't like the word "professor" (which is what I initially said) as much as you do "Professor." The point is that he taught Con Law & I think that someone who teaches Con Law should know better than to allow our constitution to be trampled upon. He (as well as those before him) took an oath to uphold & defend The Constitution, not whittle it down to toothpicks, chew on it & spit it out.

    Presidents have been at the helm, ordering assassinations forever. It's never been right. There have always been cover-ups... at least since the beginning of the CIA. How many foreign dignitaries do you suppose we've hit? More than we'll ever know. This is just one more in a line of many.. foreign & domestic.

    I want The Patriot Act done away with.
    I want Homeland Security done away with.
    I want Presidential Powers limited to the outline of The Constitution.

    That's all. After that, we can start working on the other constitutional discrepancies going on. My theory is to work backward from the most recent to the furthest away. You think the most recent are these actions by Obama... okay, you're likely correct, but what can be done about them now? Those guys are dead. Fire him? Okay, I'm fine with that. Sooner or later the guy's going to go anyway. Either way it's going to cost the US tax payer either with an election or with an impeachment. My question now is, why didn't we fire the entire Bush Administration for all of their many illegal actions? I think his administration was egregiously damaging to our nation & no one's been arrested other than Scooter... & his sentence was commuted (whoopie).

    Look, my theory is that if no one's willing to take back their liberties that were ripped from them by the last administration, why would anyone be willing to do anything about this administration's b.s.? Our nation's people are so confused & perplexed because of Fox & MSNBC commanding everyone to hate each other instead of being angry at those wankers shredding our constitution & our very nation.
    I love the idea of educating our public. Try to get that into their heads though. Try to convince them to read a non-biased history book or a non-biased, factual biography or just to read The Constitution &/or SCOTUS case law. Are you kidding? They might miss their daily dose of whatever stupid "reality" show.

    If we still have a vote, I want to see Dr. Paul elected. At least that would be a beginning. Maybe get Gary Johnson up next... even as VP cuz he's like a younger version of Dr. Paul. But we really need wisdom, integrity & experience & Dr. Paul has more of all those things than anyone else I see on the playing field.

    But I strongly urge you to keep educating people about our nation's history, laws & constitution. I only suggest that all insects, as well as animals, are far more attracted to honey than to vinegar. We have to treat one another with respect or we'll only alienate them further. You aren't crazy or a kook or whatever. So, try not to sound as if you are... that should be easy enough for someone as intelligent as yourself.
    (more)
  • irish Grammar... 2011/10/06 15:20:34
    irish
    it gives a person the title. a guest lecturer can be anyone ,can't they ? i could be a guest lecturer and so could you . it doesn't make you a professor does it? he was a "guest lecturer though i fail to see how he could even do that when he obviously doesn't have much knowledge of the constitution. he was part time lecturer,part time state rep,part time lawyer,all part time but he really didn't do much of anything. the u of chicago professors complained that about Obama because "he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool."
  • Grammar... irish 2011/10/06 15:49:02
    Grammar Freak
    A "guest lecturer" is someone who comes in to lecture from outside the university, not a regular lecturer. Obama worked at the university continually for 12 years... teaching three courses per semester most of the time. He was a long way from being a "guest lecturer." You can read about him on the University of Chicago's website. I think that they know better than anyone else what he did. But to continue to call him a "guest lecturer" is not only misleading, it's just plain wrong.
    Where are you getting your information? Please post a link.
  • irish Grammar... 2011/10/06 15:57:46
    irish
    no,he didn't work "most of the time",that supposedly was later,but i doubt it . oh please,and you don't think they buffed it up after he was bought into office?? come on. real news before the fraud in chief became known. i note the opinions of the real professors is probably accurate as he hasn't changed much has he?
    when are you going to realize that its hard to find the truth without extensive digging. obama is a fraud. someone who came out of nowhere and suddenly was built a background . one that is still kept secret and locked up. don't you ever wonder WHY?
  • Grammar... irish 2011/10/06 18:32:29
  • irish Grammar... 2011/10/07 10:29:02
    irish
    i would think that they are qualified to actually teach not lecture. what does a lecturer do? he is there a day a week? no in depth work is done.

    why is it do hard to understand that the president put out a hit,an announced hit ,on an american citizen,with absolutely no proof of any of the allegations? and because you have been conditioned to think this guy was "the enemy" its okay with you?

    don't you understand the precedent this will set?this could be a trial run to see the effect it has on people. if they accept it will we see more of this? we are doomed as a country if americans allow this.
  • Grammar... irish 2011/10/07 19:20:50
  • irish Grammar... 2011/10/08 12:17:34
    irish
    i agree,no one seems to care . isn't this issue proof of that? perhaps this is a trial run to see how many object. after all,if you paint the demon in glaring colors long enough people think its true and accept it. how long til this happens to others?
  • Grammar... irish 2011/10/07 19:33:30
    Grammar Freak
    I don't think you understand how universities work or how they are structured. A "Lecturer" is a teacher. Adjunct professors are often called "instructors" instead of professors, but they're the same thing. Lecturers are teachers... senior & regular... they're all teachers in universities. The term is misleading. Some of them just stand there & lecture, but that's the nature of many university courses. Most of the time the homework is simply handed in & some flunky grad-student(s) correct(s) & grades it... not always, but often, especially at really large uni's where the classes are upwards of 100-350 students. It's pretty tough to have class projects, etc. when you're in a room full of 250 or so students. There's no time.

    And what does it matter?? He held his position for 12 years & didn't just remain a regular Lecturer, he became a Senior Lecturer & was asked if he would like to join the tenure-track. Somehow, I do not think that the U of Chicago is going to risk its reputation to lie about something so silly as that. I just don't see what you're making some big issue out of his time at that school for. It really is just a regular tick on his resume... just like anyone else's. Not every single thing is some conspiracy. If any conspiracy started at all with him, it was...
    I don't think you understand how universities work or how they are structured. A "Lecturer" is a teacher. Adjunct professors are often called "instructors" instead of professors, but they're the same thing. Lecturers are teachers... senior & regular... they're all teachers in universities. The term is misleading. Some of them just stand there & lecture, but that's the nature of many university courses. Most of the time the homework is simply handed in & some flunky grad-student(s) correct(s) & grades it... not always, but often, especially at really large uni's where the classes are upwards of 100-350 students. It's pretty tough to have class projects, etc. when you're in a room full of 250 or so students. There's no time.

    And what does it matter?? He held his position for 12 years & didn't just remain a regular Lecturer, he became a Senior Lecturer & was asked if he would like to join the tenure-track. Somehow, I do not think that the U of Chicago is going to risk its reputation to lie about something so silly as that. I just don't see what you're making some big issue out of his time at that school for. It really is just a regular tick on his resume... just like anyone else's. Not every single thing is some conspiracy. If any conspiracy started at all with him, it was during his time in the Senate... not before, I'm sure. If so, who's the one pulling all the strings? He certainly isn't powerful enough on his own to do it. So you've got to figure out who's behind all the stuff you think is conspiratorial. Otherwise it sounds like you're yelling just to yell.
    (more)
  • irish Grammar... 2011/10/08 12:18:51
    irish
    what matters is that the man is a fraud. its obvious. so why believe anything of this at all? after all,most of what we know about this nobody is made up. no proof of anything .
  • Grammar... irish 2011/10/08 16:08:45
    Grammar Freak
    What, exactly, is "made up?" Do you think he never went to Harvard, that Harvard is willing to stand by & allow him to use its name? Do you think that he didn't ever work in any of the law firms he worked in? Do you think the University of Chicago "made up" his 12 years there? Do you think his work in the boards of directors is "made up?"

    I mean, there is such a thing as a legitimate conspiracy. I think that there are reasons administrations do slimy, underhanded & covert things. However, who the hell honestly thinks that some young, idealistic mulatto guy has created some dastardly plot to "destroy America?" The US is sort of "the mother" of his ability to get anywhere at all, much less President of the United States. I'm pretty sure that Obama does not "hate" America. I'm pretty sure that he's just too inexperienced & not wise enough to know what he hell he's gotten himself into. His idealism isn't worth a fig because he has no cahonas & doesn't stand firm for what he says he believes in. If there's a conspiracy regarding Obama, it's from somewhere in the background... someone very powerful who's pulling his/all the strings in their favor. But, frankly, it seems to me that he's just a Republican posing as a Democrat... cuz he hasn't succeeded in doing much of anything...


    What, exactly, is "made up?" Do you think he never went to Harvard, that Harvard is willing to stand by & allow him to use its name? Do you think that he didn't ever work in any of the law firms he worked in? Do you think the University of Chicago "made up" his 12 years there? Do you think his work in the boards of directors is "made up?"

    I mean, there is such a thing as a legitimate conspiracy. I think that there are reasons administrations do slimy, underhanded & covert things. However, who the hell honestly thinks that some young, idealistic mulatto guy has created some dastardly plot to "destroy America?" The US is sort of "the mother" of his ability to get anywhere at all, much less President of the United States. I'm pretty sure that Obama does not "hate" America. I'm pretty sure that he's just too inexperienced & not wise enough to know what he hell he's gotten himself into. His idealism isn't worth a fig because he has no cahonas & doesn't stand firm for what he says he believes in. If there's a conspiracy regarding Obama, it's from somewhere in the background... someone very powerful who's pulling his/all the strings in their favor. But, frankly, it seems to me that he's just a Republican posing as a Democrat... cuz he hasn't succeeded in doing much of anything that the Democrats elected him to do, but has, instead, cowered to every single demand the Republicans have made.
    I don't know, but I just think he's an inexperienced, young nit-wit who's in far far far over his head.

    Ron Paul 2012.
    (more)
  • irish Grammar... 2011/10/08 16:42:29
    irish
    i doubt just about everything about this guy.
  • ConLibF... Grammar... 2011/10/04 19:46:51
    ConLibFraud
    +1
    You have got to be kidding!!!
  • Grammar... ConLibF... 2011/10/05 07:37:05
    Grammar Freak
    About what?
  • irish Grammar... 2011/10/05 11:07:15
    irish
    you need to get some education about the constitution.
  • Grammar... irish 2011/10/05 13:25:36
    Grammar Freak
    I've read it & studied a bit of Con Law.
    I'm asking you which part of The Constitution you're referring to... instead of just saying "in The Constitution."
  • irish Grammar... 2011/10/05 13:48:40
    irish
    the 14th amendment
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 36 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/23 11:51:22

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals