drieuxster (drieuxster) wrote,

But Is It Constitutional?

Hey Boys and PersonsWhoAreNotActualPersons, what if we took some time to review various dangerous MYTHS that evil liberals espouse, and ask if they are actually constitution.

Today's Horror
Innocent Until Proven Guilty.
How do we really know that this is actually constitutional law in america?

One proof put forward by a God Hating America Basher was:
In France, the Presumption is
Guilty until the defendant can overcome the presumption beyond a reasonable doubt
Thus, since they are EVIL, americans must do it some other way
Yes, but that does not mean that anyone in an american court SHOULD presume that the Onus of Proof lies with those who seek to change the status quo ante, and in this case that the Person is innocent until proven otherwise.

It should be noted that The Presumption Of Innocence is a british notion, and one may not wish to rest too hard upon that world, since, well, they are not really Americans, and as such may not be american enough. Try to remember that Woolmington v. DPP is not until 1935, and they are a long way down the slippery slope into godless heathenism by then.

So the golden thread argument, is probably just another Golden Compass presentation that the unbeliever has abandoned all hope!

So can americans really believe that they hold some majikal and mystical right to the presumption that they are not terrorists? And if so, how can they defend this position?

Clearly IF they can prove this point, then there will be some problem for the NeoConClownCarCrew who have whined about GitMo, since, well gosh, how exactly where these alledged 'terrorists' proven to be 'terrorists' such that they now live beyond the pale of the law.

Yes, many argue that after having their liberties suspended, many have gone on to die for the martyr's cause. As if this establishes that the person had been a 'terrorist' at the time they were transferred to GitMo.

But it may also establish that the lack of law in GitMo has forced some over the edge to a place where the problem demands a resolution, and a restoration of law.

I can appreciate that for the NeoConClownCarCrew, they have been hurting, emotionally, since the nixon era, when the liberals were RUDE and called Republicans 'the party of law and order' - and that has left them with a life long desire to be more LAWLESS!!!

But does that really advance the cause? Is allowing a president to establish lawless zones a good idea?

Or should I be really RUDE here and ask, "Would this be a bad time to talk about Emma Goldberg?" and with it the very thin line between being a 'citizen' who is alledgedly majikally protected by the US Constitution, and one who has been cast out of the Promise Land, by, well... Executive Privilege!!!

Try to remember, if the removal of one's papers as a citizen does not require anything more than the Will of The Unitary Executive, then how secure is a citizen in any of their presumptions as to which side of the line they are on at any time!!!

Add to that, the question of whether or not the Government would need to overcome the presumption of innocence.... well.... Wax The Surf Boards, that is not a mere slippery slope, given the Padilla Case, that is the wonderland Wall Of Water that makes all Surfers yearn for the fonder, gentler, kinder, Halycyon Daze when there was still law in the land.

Not that I really want to make a Federal Case Of It All!!!

Since clearly, We Thank GOD that we have RoboBushCheney!
They Shiney!!!

They protect us from the threat of Law!!!
Tags: bushcheney2008, law, war

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.