Strip the Citizenship from Everyone who Signed a Petition to Secede and Exile Them

topic posted Tue, November 13, 2012 - 1:31 PM by  Gwenny
I have not been here in YEARS . . but I need to get this out to every thinking person, so we can all sign it!!!
posted by:
SF Bay Area
  • I've got a petition for ya...

    ...and it's already crossed the 30k-signature threshold, despite being started a day after the petition you linked above, which still needs another 10k signatures before it hits the threshold.
    • LOL.

      godspeed with that one.

      RE: #1...that's probably your best bet, but it's highly unlikely that a congress under either party would consider impeachment proceedings based upon that.

      #2 SCOTUS just ruled it was constitutional, so i'm not sure where the unconstitutionality of the law comes into play.

      #3 if the constitution couldn't or shouldn't be changed, there wouldn't be a mechanism to add amendments. and, get over themselves. boo-hoo that someone said something negative about an extremely flawed document that probably wouldn't pass the smell test if, in its original form, was proffered to the american people today.

      #4 how precisely is this a "high crime and misdemeanor"?
      • Hey, I never said they were all strong points.

        I agree #1 is the strongest, probably because it's the simplest to grasp.

        "it's highly unlikely that a congress under either party would consider impeachment proceedings based upon that."

        It doesn't rise to the level of lying about blowjobs, I'll grant you that. Goes to show what a farce the whole thing really is.

        #2: Well technically they ruled a specific part is constitutional. How about just the bullshit lies that "it's not a tax," and then bringing the case that it's constitutional because it *is* a tax? I know, I know, it's not against the law for the president to lie to the American public, so I guess we're just SOL. However, for the reason you stated, generally speaking I'd say this is the weakest point (if a point at all).

        #3: But the executive isn't part of that mechanism.

        Regardless of any "smell test," the oath of office is what it is: "will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

        This is hardly about people "getting over themselves" because Obama "said something negative." For example, like the war powers clause, obviously the fourth amendment is part of the Constitution that the administration considers "flawed," considering how it's being perverted and disregarded every day. So to minimize it by saying it's just "someone saying something negative" is just an excuse to dodge the issue of the continual erosion of our Constitutional rights, and the government's Constitutional responsibilities.

        #4: Just another form of subversion of the Constitution. Check out pg 27 of Judicial Watch's report for "Examples of How Obama Circumvents the Constitutionally Required Confirmation Process by the Senate"

        >>godspeed with that one.

        I don't harbor any illusions that it will actually go anywhere, but it's got a shit-ton more merit than the "deport the thought-criminals" petition. And incidentally, "deport the thought-criminals" is one of the lighter sentiments... I've seen a number of comments on articles on this subject where summary execution is the preferred solution. Yay "tolerance."

Recent topics in "! * POLITICS * !"