Just in case I have any readers who still are Not totally confused about my position on Ron Paul, today's rant is to urge support for a bill recently introduced by Rep. Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives.
HR 3835-- To restore the Constitution's checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
This bill would strictly limit the use of military tribunals to crimes committed under genuine battle field conditions, require substantial proof before detaining anyone as an "unlawful enemy combatant", require that this label never be applied to US citizens and specifically allow the right of habeus corpus such persons.
The bill would also prohibit torture and coerced confessions, prohibit the President from adding "signing statements" to bills that violate the Constitution and prohibit government and military authorities from kidnapping , detaining and torturing people abroad.
The bill also affirms the right of journalists to publish information critical of the government and prohibits the use of secret evidence in making a determination to designate a person or organization as a "terrorist".
These changes would go a long way to restoring our civil and human rights that have been trampled by the current Administration in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. I urge you to call your Congressional Representative to urge them to support HR 3835. (You can easily look up their telephone number here.)
In this particular instance, Ron Paul is right on!
3 comments:
Let me admit right up front that I haven't read the full text of the bill; this is a reaction to the concept of the bill alone. (I may be back after I've read it)
So far as the bill has thus far been described, it seems in itself to controvert the Constitution. Whether it's well-intentioned or a publicity move I don't know. I tend to lean toward the latter simply because anyone who is actively involved in politics should have a basic understanding of the fact that the Constitution trumps federal law and that one of those "checks" in the Constitution is that the Supreme Court and NOT the legislature gets to interpret the Constitution.
In short, simply introducing a bill that purports to control the manner in which Constitutional protections are interpreted and enforced violates the most fundamental of the checks and balances created by the Constitution.
That isn't to say, of course, that federal legislation couldn't address some of these issues effectively (while leaving the Constitution out of the legislation), but the legislature clearly has no power to impact Constitutional interpretation or enforcement in any way except through an amendment to the Constitution.
I would be VERY interested in hearing your take after you've had a chance to read the bill. (I hate to think I've been suckered in by a pure PR play but it's beginning to sound that way...)
I will refrain from making a comment until I do some research on HR 3835 and the consitution. If nothing else, I do thank you for bringing this to my attention. I appreciate anything or anyone that gives me a reason to increase my knowledge.
Post a Comment