In the Senate that is not counting the House of Rep. Then it goes to the president and he can veto it once then it goes back to congress and they can override the veto with a 2/3 majority which almost never happenstofulove said:according to the article it passed 93 to 7, there is no veto option for it.
It's not so much as opinion as I knew a few guys who were sent down there and they pretty much figured that stuff out themselves. And I'm really hoping that Obama Haggar-Piledrives this thing into the ground, because after reading it it does seem like small-scale terrorism to me. Then again I'm always paranoid.Patrick Corners said:-snip, stuff's huge yo-
im not sure how the house feels about it, but with a 93 to 7 if the house is on the same fence as the senate all a veto will do is push it back a little bit. and i hope the supreme court is going to say fuck no to it, but im not holding my breath.Patrick Corners said:In the Senate that is not counting the House of Rep. Then it goes to the president and he can veto it once then it goes back to congress and they can override the veto with a 2/3 majority which almost never happenstofulove said:according to the article it passed 93 to 7, there is no veto option for it.
In the history of the US Congress very few bills have ever been able to pass after they have been vetoed. Even when they have been widely supported. But this will not happen because it will fail in the house I'm willing to fall on my sword if it does happen.tofulove said:im not sure how the house feels about it, but with a 93 to 7 if the house is on the same fence as the senate all a veto will do is push it back a little bit. and i hope the supreme court is going to say fuck no to it, but im not holding my breath.Patrick Corners said:In the Senate that is not counting the House of Rep. Then it goes to the president and he can veto it once then it goes back to congress and they can override the veto with a 2/3 majority which almost never happenstofulove said:according to the article it passed 93 to 7, there is no veto option for it.
We have military bases outside our borders, this bill is for the military. They're not just there to look pretty.NightmareLuna said:Hmmm, call me stupid but I have a question about this...
"Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States."
What in the hay is that bold part about? I would guess it refers to things like drugcartels and whatnot, but picking up someone from outside the United States, where the US have no legal rights and taking them back and being able to keep them, well forever, without any form offical charge or trial?
I'm still shocked that the Patriot act is not only still in existence, but it's lauded by all politicians from both sides of the aisle.Joseph Alexander said:like they did on the patriot act?Fanfic_warper said:Wait for it, Supreme Court's going to bring the hammer down on this one.
Unless you're on the Moon, an ICBM can still reach you. And even then.Zhukov said:Ah, we love you America.
From a distance.
...
A really looong distance.
President Obama, however, has threatened to veto the bill.Joseph Alexander said:http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10023-senate-passes-controversial-defense-bill
yes, you read that right.
the senate has pushed forth an act that gives the military the ability to throw you in jail without cause, conviction, or end on mere suspicion.
and we though SOPA was the biggest threat to freedom.
KeyMaster45 said:Good news, Obama has already said he's going to Veto the military thing into the dirt should he ever find it on his desk.
Thank God for balance of power.Fanfic_warper said:Wait for it, Supreme Court's going to bring the hammer down on this one.
I think this is worth a gander. This whole thing seems terribly overblown.EC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
---
The point that they stated with this amendment, which was affirmed through a vote, was that the existing laws regarding detaining US citizens and the due process they receive will not change because of this act.
Quoting for the peaceLiquidGrape said:Hey, uh...before this gets completely out of hand:
http://notasenator.tumblr.com/post/13759360157
I think this is worth a gander.