![]()
CONGRESS VERGES ON SUSPENSION OF HABEAS CORPUS DEMAND CONGRESS SECURE OUR RIGHTS By KrisAnne Hall
www.AmericansUnitedforFreedom.com
December 8, 2011 My congratulations and gratitude to fellow patriots! On December 6th, D.C. Circuit nominee Caitlin Halligan became the second Obama appeals court nominee defeated on the Senate floor when cloture failed by a vote of 54 to 45. The fierce and organized opposition mounted against her nomination by lovers of liberty, and by those who insist on protection of our Second Amendment rights, was the deciding factor in her defeat – and produced victory for the cause of American freedom.Thank you for your principled and sacrificial activism; it made all the difference! DEMAND CONGRESS RESTORE OUR RIGHTS! – ENACT THE PAUL AMENDMENT NOW! ![auf_cryingliberty]() In defense of American freedom, together we persevere. On December 1, 2011 I published a straightforward analysis of Sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act). There seems to be quite a bit of controversy on this matter. Some feel that the citizens who are concerned with their liberty should be dismissed as alarmist, "Chicken Littles." I feel that given what we know from history, both ancient and recent, there is cause for concern.
We are today in the midst of a startling attack on some of our most fundamental civil liberties. The Senate passed a bill that will undermine the very due process rights that thousands of brave souls have bled and died for. Under the guise of protecting us from terrorists, Congress has removed the Constitutional right of habeas corpus. The implied premise is that the right of habeas corpus is somehow a threat to national security. The principles of habeas corpus and due process extend as far back as 12th century England. These civil liberties were among those most fearfully guarded by America's Founders. If truth be told it was abuses of due process and an unresponsive government – not simply burdensome taxes – that were the primary causes of the American Revolution. DEMAND CONGRESS RESTORE OUR RIGHTS! – ENACT THE PAUL AMENDMENT NOW! I would like to address just a few more points on this issue. First, the mere fact that the provisions in question are stuffed inside a must-pass bill like NDAA, instead of standing muster on their own, is worthy of great suspicion. Take into account that every time these provisions have been presented independently, Congress has consistently denied them; case in point, "Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010". Secondly, these bills are written by lawyers, men and women who are trained to be wordsmiths. They are trained to use just the right words to ensure that the desired effect is unavoidable. Many attorneys (including this one) have concluded that the language in these sections is not direct and clear enough to exclude US citizens. The natural conclusion is that those drafting the legislation did not want to exclude US citizens. First of all, Constitutional rights are not granted to non-citizens. So, why the legislative gymnastics to declare that fact? If the bill is aimed at non-citizen terrorists, then the legislative gymnastics are unnecessary. The proponents of this bill argue that these sections specifically limit actions of the government to al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists involved in 9/11, that Section 1032 does not cover US citizens, and that section 1032(b)(1) specifically excludes US citizens. As an attorney, I contend that if the drafters really WANTED to exclude US citizens, they would have used language that is common to similar legislative acts. DEMAND CONGRESS RESTORE OUR RIGHTS! – ENACT THE PAUL AMENDMENT NOW! ![auf_handcufffence]() Here is what I mean: In section 1032(b)(1) of the NDAA, the language specifically says that, "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." Legally speaking, stating that an agency is "not required" to do something is the very same as saying they have the choice of doing so or not. If the drafters of this legislation truly wanted to exclude US citizens from having their Constitutional rights stripped, the lawyers should have used the type of language found in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(2), the section that contains religious exemptions for employment practices or the various religious and medical exemptions that exist from state to state for things like vaccinations.
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(2) establishes an exemption from prosecution for employment discrimination violations if the circumstances are based in religious governance. The language specifically states, "it shall not be an unlawful employment practice…" and then goes on to list the organizations that are exempt from the provisions of this federal law. Florida's statute § 1002.20(3)(b), defining K-12 student and parent rights regarding immunizations states, "The parent of any child attending a public or private school shall be exempt from the school immunization requirements upon meeting any of the exemptions in accordance with the provisions of § 1003.22(5). These provisions are very clear that these laws shall not apply to these specific segments of the population. They do not say they are not required, they say they SHALL NOT or SHALL BE EXEMPT. DEMAND CONGRESS RESTORE OUR RIGHTS! – ENACT THE PAUL AMENDMENT NOW! Finally, we cannot lose sight of the real issue. The federal government can never have the right to suspend the Constitutional rights of US citizens without due process, because the government is not the source of those rights. All other arguments against or for these provisions become irrelevant when there is even a possibility of US citizens having their Constitutional rights suspended either temporarily or permanently at the discretion of the federal government. One prominent "journalist" attempting to refute the criticisms of concerned citizens, said that, "The United States Constitution is a compact between the American people and the government they created. Itendows Americans with protections against U.S.-government overreach." This ignorant mistake is widespread among the American "elite" and must be dispelled. In fact, the Constitution doesn't endowcitizens with anything. The founders in the Declaration of Independence clearly state that these inalienable rights are endowed by our Creator, and in the words of Patrick Henry "the Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." The entire purpose of the Constitution is to protect US citizens from an unlawful and arbitrary government. The current NDAA legislation clearly violates this principle this is something every citizen should be concerned about. The Act MUST be amended or corrected in committee during the reconciliation process, if our liberty is to be secured. DEMAND CONGRESS RESTORE OUR RIGHTS! – ENACT THE PAUL AMENDMENT NOW!
Keep Faith,
Lynne Roberts, President
Americans United for Freedom
![auf_KrisAnneHallLogo]() KrisAnne Hall is a former prosecutor and Constitutional attorney who was fired from her job for teaching the Constitution to citizen groups. She is a disabled veteran of the US Army, a Russian linguist, a mother, a pastor's wife and a patriot. Her former employer, State Attorney for Florida's 3rd Judicial Circuit, gave her a choice – give up her First Amendment right to speak on her own time or be fired. KrisAnne said, "My First Amendment rights are worth more than a paycheck and I will not surrender them." She now travels the country and teaches the Constitution and the history that gave us our founding documents. We are proud to have KrisAnne as a contributor to Americans United for Freedom.
To send a check, please complete and print a contribution page form
and mail it with your donation to this address: Americans United for Freedom
PO Box 1310
Herndon, VA 20172
Americans United for Freedom is a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization (pending) which focuses on nonpartisan civic education and advocacy regarding important national issues.
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment