Candidate Declaration: Maverickhunter, Democratic

Originally posted by Johnmike

Please explain what this means.

Source: www.sparknotes.com... Clause - Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution...powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States." This clause, known as the elastic clause, was the point of much contention between those who favored a loose reading of the Constitution and those who favored a strict reading.

This allows the government to do anything it pleases and they are allowed to do that under that law and that section of the constitution needs to be changed so that we can participate in the government more so that our voices don't fall on deaf ears. Because, apparently they think that they can do whatever they want without looking at the constitution and this is why, because they seem it's necessary, when it really isn't.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
We cannot allow any outside influence from any terrorist organizations change our way of thinking and we need to defeat anyone who declared war on us. Even if Osama Bin Laden never did attack us on 9-11 and even though they said that they were not responsible for the attacks and that we were they made it a paradox and made it seem that they didn't do it but that we declared war against them when it was they who continued battling us and made it clear that they are a valiant enemy and that we should defeat them at all costs.

This was kind of confusing to read, but what do you mean? Didn't Bin Laden accept responsibility for the attacks?

Source: www.911truth.org...
Bin Laden offers evidence that people within the government did it, and that he was innocent.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
We should accost Al-queda on their home soil and we should not allow them to regroup so that we cannot let them invade Europe. Their idea is that since they can attack our Military in a country which we know little about that they can take us over, and that they can attack our police, and invade us from Mexico and smuggle material to build nukes in here. Without liittle denial, we can see that Al-queda has made several attempts to smuggle uranium into the nation so that they can make nukes and turn a bad situation into a worse one but we need to see to them that we are very coherent in what we want to do with their regime that is being supported by obviously many financial networks around the globe because apparently someone, some group, some organization, or some government is supporting Al-queda because they would not have the money had they not been supported by an outside group. If this means that the U.N or someone within the United States government is supporting Al-queda that official or those officials need to be recalled or called back so that they don't cause any more harm or they need to be impeached and if it is the current President we need to get rid of him to get rid of the violence.

First of all, it's Al-Quaeda, not Al-queda.
Where is "Al-queda's" "home soil"?

:p
Well we let Al-quaeda regroup and organize itself across the globe and let its terrorist network expand so fast and furiously to terrorize many governments in the world, it's only right that we stop what we started. :|

Please state where you got this intel on their future plans, and exactly how they will be carried out.

newsweek.washingtonpost.com...
I see that this plays with Al-quaeda's plan, does it not?

Here's an article about nuclear terrorism (Iran related)
www.washingtonpost.com...
I'd say that's an eye-opener. What would we do against nuclear terrorism? Of course, WE'D STOP IT THAT'S WHAT. We could not stand there all day and wait unless you're given orders by a military to let that happen that won't happen, but the possibility of this is amazingly conceivable

Also, here is an article about what nuclear terrorism can do, if you're still not convinced that this is a real threat, you need to check this link.

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/02/AR2005050201454.htm[/url]l
It talks about how there will be nothing left in the area when a nuclear weapon hits.

The threat information our leaders have given post-9/11 has often been disorganized, not confidence-inspiring," added Irwin Redlener, director of Columbia University's National Center for Disaster Preparedness. "It's perilous to have a system solely dependent on central leadership to save lives."

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
...I heard statistics saying that one out of so many homeless people are from the military, and that we should also offer them services after they come back from the war right away.

Sorry, but you can't just say something because you "heard statistics." I heard that your grandmother was a terrorist. That doesn't mean anything, because there's no credible source. Please stop being ignorant and justifying your speeches by stating that you "heard something."

I say what I heard and then I link my quotation to a source. now take your grandma that was a terrorist out of the thread and out of here alright?

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
We need the news to tell the truth and nothing but the truth so that no one complains.

How do we do that?

Well, we need to make sure that no journalists lie. Also they should be fair and give the facts and they shouldn't be fair and balanced because if they are only being balanced to one side, that won't help anyone at all, it'll be like a total pain just sitting through one news broadcast, and no making jokes, there are no real jokes in politics that are funny because people can get offended. People forget this, and offend the other party.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
We should allow people to take amplitude tests even if they aren't going in the army.

Please don't preach any policy on a word you don't know. It's "aptitude."

People can take "aptitude" tests if they don't go into the Army. The SAT and ACT are just two of them. The Armed Forces use the ASVAB, or the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. You must take this before enlisting in the military. Anyone can take it, at any time.

Is this what you're talking about?

Yeah, but I am saying that people should know what they are good at before they join if they want to join the armed forces or if they want to join another job they should know what they're good at, that's all I am saying.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by Maverickhunter]

[edit on 15-3-2007 by Maverickhunter]

In one sentence, Why should I vote for you?

Originally posted by chissler
In one sentence, Why should I vote for you?

That's easy: vote for me so that I can uphold the constitution, make sure that Europe if ever invaded by terrorists gets help from a foreign presence like ours if they can't handle it, we should make sure that the terrorists get defeated; we should raise interest rates so that the economy doesn't collapse and we don't have to rely on Chinas market so that our market doesn't fall, we need to work on intel; what we need to do is to make sure that Al-quaeda doesn't get a nuke so that they can't bring it over here, and also, we need to ensure that the government works and is efficient and will do everything right and not break the laws of the constitution but to abide by them.

I am going to analyze the constitution in my next few posts. I believe we should impeach the current administration because they are inadvertent to our constitution.

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Well apparently some misconduct and the powers of the government has been translated to fit modern times. The definition of the constitution is strict, and the administration is breaking it by

They talk about project granite and the use of military force on the United States. The mismanagement has clearly continued to a point where it is useless to accost the government itself. So that being said, they plan to patrol the United States with its own "special" police, they plan to use the military as a police force. This is a violation of our 10th amendment that states that the powers not given to the government or to the state is reserved to the people. They are using a power they don't have, which is a violation of our rights. If another terrorist attack happens and we are propelled into a state of emergency, they say that our constitution will be suspended and our rights will be abridged and that they will arrest us without a warrent normally. IF this happens that is a violation of our 1st, 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and of the 10th ammendment. They are also violating our 14th ammendment because that gives a clearer definition for the prevention of discrimination against people due to race and they're doing this for middle-eastern people.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

The constitution must be upheld and the articles that are voted in MUST BE VALID TO ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES as said of the original constitution. That means they violated the 1st amendment

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

:p
NO problems here :p, but they should retain the original intents and purposes as said of the constiution. They think the constitution is too STRICT and thus they are breaking many of the rules!

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

The ammendments must pertain to what was originally written in the text. They cannot be changed, unlike a story, they must be followed.


[edit on 16-3-2007 by Maverickhunter]

Originally posted by Maverickhunter

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Well apparently some misconduct and the powers of the government has been translated to fit modern times. The definition of the constitution is strict, and the administration is breaking it by

They talk about project granite and the use of military force on the United States. The mismanagement has clearly continued to a point where it is useless to accost the government itself. So that being said, they plan to patrol the United States with its own "special" police, they plan to use the military as a police force. This is a violation of our 10th amendment that states that the powers not given to the government or to the state is reserved to the people. They are using a power they don't have, which is a violation of our rights. If another terrorist attack happens and we are propelled into a state of emergency, they say that our constitution will be suspended and our rights will be abridged and that they will arrest us without a warrent normally. IF this happens that is a violation of our 1st, 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and of the 10th ammendment. They are also violating our 14th ammendment because that gives a clearer definition for the prevention of discrimination against people due to race and they're doing this for middle-eastern people.

Who are "they?" George Bush? Please state where exactly he said he plans to do this?

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by Maverickhunter

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Well apparently some misconduct and the powers of the government has been translated to fit modern times. The definition of the constitution is strict, and the administration is breaking it by

They talk about project granite and the use of military force on the United States. The mismanagement has clearly continued to a point where it is useless to accost the government itself. So that being said, they plan to patrol the United States with its own "special" police, they plan to use the military as a police force. This is a violation of our 10th amendment that states that the powers not given to the government or to the state is reserved to the people. They are using a power they don't have, which is a violation of our rights. If another terrorist attack happens and we are propelled into a state of emergency, they say that our constitution will be suspended and our rights will be abridged and that they will arrest us without a warrent normally. IF this happens that is a violation of our 1st, 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and of the 10th ammendment. They are also violating our 14th ammendment because that gives a clearer definition for the prevention of discrimination against people due to race and they're doing this for middle-eastern people.

Who are "they?" George Bush? Please state where exactly he said he plans to do this?

The article may be innacurate though, but it still doesn't make sense, so I tried to edit that but I forgot to :|.
blog.washingtonpost.com...[/source]

[edit on 17-3-2007 by Maverickhunter]

Grounds for impeaching bush.

Hello, so I wanted to ask you what your position on the church and state is. The United States politics within the last seven years has been breaching the constitution and I would say they are anti-constitutionalist down there and that the Republicans have been intentionally inaverdent to the constitution and that George W.Bush should not be allowed to hold office because he has a "constitutional disability.

I want to tell you how many times George W. Bush has broke our constitution. How many times he has closed the gap between church and state and has said that the separation fo church and state was only a myth. WE need to realize that Church and State are separated because we are far from midieval times and we have gone to a modern timespan and what they are doing would make our nation a christian nation when we have many people from many other religions in our nation. Even though Christianity is the main religion in the US of A, we need to be more tolerant, and have to ask you what your stance is on this because Bush may just go awol of the constitution and ratify the gay marrage ammendment and abolish the roe vs wade case results. He may even take away our miranda rights while we're at it.

"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
He is making sure that we cannot speak out against the Iraq war and that sevaral people that speak out against the Iraq war should be tried for treason. Under the patriot act he gives them the right to try anyone for treason and that they can be detained to a remote location if they speak out against the government.

"Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
He made it clear that he wants the assault weapons ban in D.C a law to protect the country from a rebellion even though that may be in the best interest of the country.

"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 persons or things to be seized."
He must be using a different constitution than we are (the bible) because he is apparently making it so that they don't need a warrant or probable cause to violate this law so that they can search our home. He apparently doesn't think that the words warrent or seizures are in this ammendment.

"Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The President never declared that we are in a state of war. WE are operational right now, so also the President failed to realize this so the fifth ammendment still applies to us.

"Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
People can be detained without a warrant. Sent to a detainment camp, and sent to a prison without even bothering to have held a trial. The sixth ammendment rules out the fifth ammendment and says that they can have a trial.

"Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
He most likely wants them to have unlimited bail so that they can never get out because they are "*********" and that they can be a threat to our country when most of them have done nothing wrong.

"Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Ammendments 7 and 8 conflict with the patriot act.

"Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The right to gay marrage should not be in the hands of George W Bush but the rights to gay marrage and abortion should be allowed for the people under this law, as should the right to protest should be allowed.

"Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Well, all rights should include every right, and this includes the right to vote, which thousands of members lost, after the 2000 electio

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
The article may be innacurate though, but it still doesn't make sense, so I tried to edit that but I forgot to :|.
blog.washingtonpost.com...[/source]

[edit on 17-3-2007 by Maverickhunter]

Uh...that doesn't say anything. You talked out of your rear again. Can you tell me, Maverick, what it says about Martial Law in the constitution, and who the last president to declare federal martial law was?

Originally posted by Maverickhunter

Grounds for impeaching bush.

Hello, so I wanted to ask you what your position on the church and state is. The United States politics within the last seven years has been breaching the constitution and I would say they are anti-constitutionalist down there and that the Republicans have been intentionally inaverdent to the constitution and that George W.Bush should not be allowed to hold office because he has a "constitutional disability.

I want to tell you how many times George W. Bush has broke our constitution. How many times he has closed the gap between church and state and has said that the separation fo church and state was only a myth. WE need to realize that Church and State are separated because we are far from midieval times and we have gone to a modern timespan and what they are doing would make our nation a christian nation when we have many people from many other religions in our nation. Even though Christianity is the main religion in the US of A, we need to be more tolerant, and have to ask you what your stance is on this because Bush may just go awol of the constitution and ratify the gay marrage ammendment and abolish the roe vs wade case results. He may even take away our miranda rights while we're at it.

Less bull, more examples. Go.

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
The article may be innacurate though, but it still doesn't make sense, so I tried to edit that but I forgot to :|.
blog.washingtonpost.com...[/source]

[edit on 17-3-2007 by Maverickhunter]

Uh...that doesn't say anything. You talked out of your rear again. Can you tell me, Maverick, what it says about Martial Law in the constitution, and who the last president to declare federal martial law was?

Did you even see my post? I said that I was trying to edit it but I couldn't . Why don't we have a debate about this in the debate forum?

Originally posted by Johnmike
Less bull, more examples. Go.

Actually now that I think about it, we should impeach Chaney instead.

Source: men.style.com...


[edit: reduced quote to relevant portion]
Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 17-3-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
Actually now that I think about it, we should impeach Chaney instead.

Source: men.style.com...

Hahahahaha!

Sorry, kid, but in politics, you can't go around and decide, "Whoops! Never mind!" You just shot yourself in the face. Good job commiting political suicide.

Learn to do research before you blurt your ideas all over the place, and I won't have to attack you like this.

[edit: reduced quote to relevant portion]
Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 17-3-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by Johnmike
Hahahahaha!

Sorry, kid, but in politics, you can't go around and decide, "Whoops! Never mind!" You just shot yourself in the face. Good job commiting political suicide.

Learn to do research before you blurt your ideas all over the place, and I won't have to attack you like this.

I never said that I would change my mind about wanting to impeach Bush either, but just that we have to impeach Chaney first, if we impeached Bush we would have Chaney and President and he would be able to then impliment anything he wanted without the President's smokescreen.

[edit: reduced quote to relevant portion]
Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 17-3-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by Johnmike
Learn to do research before you blurt your ideas all over the place, and I won't have to attack you like this.

From the Terms & Conditions...

2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

Discuss the content and refrain from attacking anyone. We have no problem with you confronting the content, but keep things from getting personal.

Thank You.

Johnmike, are you for the furthering violations of the Bush administrations violations of our own rights? Are you saying that I am wrong in saying that they have violated the constitution? If so, please provide examples of how they ABIDED by the constitution, because the patriot act seems to act as an appeal to the bill of rights.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
I am going to analyze the constitution in my next few posts. I believe we should impeach the current administration because they are inadvertent to our constitution.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
Grounds for impeaching bush.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
the Republicans have been intentionally inaverdent to the constitution and that George W.Bush should not be allowed to hold office because he has a "constitutional disability.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
I want to tell you how many times George W. Bush has broke our constitution.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
Actually now that I think about it, we should impeach Chaney instead.

Erm...

Hmm... It depends, especially since the Supreme Court said that the Act was Constitutional. Can you find specific examples of why the Patriot Act is unconstitutional?

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
I am going to analyze the constitution in my next few posts. I believe we should impeach the current administration because they are inadvertent to our constitution.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
Grounds for impeaching bush.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
the Republicans have been intentionally inaverdent to the constitution and that George W.Bush should not be allowed to hold office because he has a "constitutional disability.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
I want to tell you how many times George W. Bush has broke our constitution.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
Actually now that I think about it, we should impeach Chaney instead.

Erm...

And if we dont' impeach chaney first... bush will still be president :|.

So, what would you choose, I would choose the lesser of the two evils. Chaney is eviler than Bush and he has intent on destroying this nation through his foreign policy and sending our nation into panick by staying at a base in Afghanistan:

/3xpwyb

He shot someone with a gun:

www.truthdig.com...

Chaney thinks that gay marriage should be a state issue and that it should be handled even though it is their right whether they choose to be gay or not:

www.washingtonpost.com...

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
And if we dont' impeach chaney first... bush will still be president :|.

So, what would you choose, I would choose the lesser of the two evils. Chaney is eviler than Bush and he has intent on destroying this nation through his foreign policy and sending our nation into panick by staying at a base in Afghanistan:

/3xpwyb

He shot someone with a gun:

www.truthdig.com...

Chaney thinks that gay marriage should be a state issue and that it should be handled even though it is their right whether they choose to be gay or not:

www.washingtonpost.com...

So...what's wrong with hiding after a bomb blast? The Vice President of the United States is an exceptional target at a time of war, and by keeping him exposed, the military would be putting him in extreme danger.

He shot someone accidentally while hunting. I don't see your point.

I personally think that many things that are federally decided should be decided by state. It is their right to be homosexual, but whether or not gay marriage should be allowed depends on what your definition of marriage is. At the least, however, I personally think gays should be allowed to have recognized civil unions.


You haven't shown any reason for Cheney to be impeached.

[edit on 17-3-2007 by Johnmike]