In Ancient Rome, the Roman army kept the peace throughout Italy and Europe. From 390-387 B.C., Rome was sacked by the Gauls. Rome was powerless to stop them, because their troops had been spread throughout the 'Roman World', and were thinned from recent wars.
The present-day U.S. can be compared to Rome in a multitude of ways, but one of the most frightening is the world-wide distribution of our military. The U.S. military has been the world's police since WWI. Spreading our troops so thin puts our borders at risk. I am not suggesting Isolationism. However, I AM saying that Democratic Imperialism isn't working.
In order to avoid a country-sized version of Ticonderoga, I would like to see the U.S. investing more troops in National Security, and the withdrawal of troops from the Middle East. Once troops have been withdrawn, Black Ops can be sent to fight Al Queda, who HAVE declared war on the U.S.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Public Rights and Privacy
The United States Constitution: Amendment IV
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be siezed'.
The United States Constitution: Article I, Section 8, in part
'The privilege of the writ of habeus corpus shall not be suspended,unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it'.
The USA PATRIOT ACT has been a cause of uproar in the United States since 2001 when it was passed. Violations of the rights of citizens has been the primary concern regarding this Act for Conservatives and Liberals alike. The big question and concern for me is: Does the USA PATRIOT ACT contradict the U.S. Constitution, or does it only specify what has already been written in the Constitution?
The USA PATRIOT ACT gives the U.S. government the power to intercept communications in cases of computer fraud and abuse offences,authority to share criminal investigative information(this means that if any investigative or law enforcement officer, or attorney for the Government has intercepted any type of communication, he has the authority to disclose the information to any government agency he chooses as long as it is not forbidden by his official duties), seizure of voice-mail messages persuant to warrants,...
And also...
Authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant, trade sanctions (regarding things 'used to facilitate the design, development, or production of chemical or biological weapons, missiles, or weapons of mass destruction',...
It seems to me that most of the authorities granted in the USA PATRIOT ACT are in alignment with the Constitution, and only narrow the Constitution down to various scenarios. However, some allowances are questionable, such as the authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant, and trade sanctions. In the next few weeks, I intend to cross-reference the United States Code, U.S. Constitution, and the USA PATRIOT ACT to find out whether there are contradictions between these areas of the USA PATRIOT ACT and the U.S. Constitution. Do some research for yourself, and I'll come back to this subject in a couple weeks!
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be siezed'.
The United States Constitution: Article I, Section 8, in part
'The privilege of the writ of habeus corpus shall not be suspended,unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it'.
The USA PATRIOT ACT has been a cause of uproar in the United States since 2001 when it was passed. Violations of the rights of citizens has been the primary concern regarding this Act for Conservatives and Liberals alike. The big question and concern for me is: Does the USA PATRIOT ACT contradict the U.S. Constitution, or does it only specify what has already been written in the Constitution?
The USA PATRIOT ACT gives the U.S. government the power to intercept communications in cases of computer fraud and abuse offences,authority to share criminal investigative information(this means that if any investigative or law enforcement officer, or attorney for the Government has intercepted any type of communication, he has the authority to disclose the information to any government agency he chooses as long as it is not forbidden by his official duties), seizure of voice-mail messages persuant to warrants,...
And also...
Authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant, trade sanctions (regarding things 'used to facilitate the design, development, or production of chemical or biological weapons, missiles, or weapons of mass destruction',...
It seems to me that most of the authorities granted in the USA PATRIOT ACT are in alignment with the Constitution, and only narrow the Constitution down to various scenarios. However, some allowances are questionable, such as the authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant, and trade sanctions. In the next few weeks, I intend to cross-reference the United States Code, U.S. Constitution, and the USA PATRIOT ACT to find out whether there are contradictions between these areas of the USA PATRIOT ACT and the U.S. Constitution. Do some research for yourself, and I'll come back to this subject in a couple weeks!
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Cuban Travel and Trade
In recent news, President Obama passed a new $410 billion spending bill which, pork barrel aside, will allow Cuban-Americans to visit Cuba once a year, and spend up to $170 when they are visiting the island. I was surprised to read this news, because I was not aware that there are restrictions on Cuban-American travel. Once again, the audacity of the United States government shocks me. Before this bill was passed, Cuban-Americans could only visit Cuba every three years, and were allowed to spend a paltry $50 dollars during their visit. Where, fellow patriots, can freedom be found? Your government has not the right to tell you where you may travel to, how frequently you may travel there, and how much of your hard-earned money you may spend.
As far as trade with Cuba goes, I am for it. The United States is not at war with Cuba. Therefore, the act of trade with Cuba by business owners and consumers should not be considered illegal, or treasonous. A consumer has a right to take his business where he chooses.
The U.S. Treasury's Office of International Affairs claims that it, in part, "protects and supports economic prosperity at home by encouraging financial stability and sound economic policies abroad (Treasury's Office of International Affairs)". If this is the case, then trade with Cuba should be re-established at once.
As far as trade with Cuba goes, I am for it. The United States is not at war with Cuba. Therefore, the act of trade with Cuba by business owners and consumers should not be considered illegal, or treasonous. A consumer has a right to take his business where he chooses.
The U.S. Treasury's Office of International Affairs claims that it, in part, "protects and supports economic prosperity at home by encouraging financial stability and sound economic policies abroad (Treasury's Office of International Affairs)". If this is the case, then trade with Cuba should be re-established at once.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)