Rand Paul introduces FAIR act (Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act)

[Matty]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1204

100% support from me.

[Person Man]

It's an interesting idea but the devil is in the details.

[Orser67]

Sounds like a good idea to me, although requiring "clear and convincing evidence" could get in the way of law enforcement. But of course, sometimes you have to do just that to protect liberties.

[AggregateDemand]

History tells us this kind of legislation isn't a good idea, when the borders are unsecured and immigration policy is a complete mess.

We've been down this road before. If you want to be an 18th-century Republican, you have to strengthen immigration laws and be willing to deport.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

History tells us this kind of legislation isn't a good idea, when the borders are unsecured and immigration policy is a complete mess.

We've been down this road before. If you want to be an 18th-century Republican, you have to strengthen immigration laws and be willing to deport.

Could you please explain how your post is relevant to the topic?

[Cory]

History tells us this kind of legislation isn't a good idea, when the borders are unsecured and immigration policy is a complete mess.

We've been down this road before. If you want to be an 18th-century Republican, you have to strengthen immigration laws and be willing to deport.

No it doesn't.

Freedom bill.

[ElectionsGuy]

100% support from me.

[AggregateDemand]

Could you please explain how your post is relevant to the topic?

If you don't know, you shouldn't be moderating. Paul's bill is basically US Civics 101, and this particular issue, namely the application of the Bill of Rights during quasi-war, has raged since the dawn of our republic. You shouldn't need someone to walk you through it.

[MaxQue]

Could you please explain how your post is relevant to the topic?

If you don't know, you shouldn't be moderating. Paul's bill is basically US Civics 101, and this particular issue, namely the application of the Bill of Rights during quasi-war, has raged since the dawn of our republic. You shouldn't need someone to walk you through it.

You seem obsessed by immigrants.

[Maxwell]

#randpaulismyfriend2016

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Could you please explain how your post is relevant to the topic?

If you don't know, you shouldn't be moderating. Paul's bill is basically US Civics 101, and this particular issue, namely the application of the Bill of Rights during quasi-war, has raged since the dawn of our republic. You shouldn't need someone to walk you through it.

so your answer is no

I appreciate the heightened level of discourse

[AggregateDemand]

so your answer is no

I appreciate the heightened level of discourse

I just said this debate hinges on the application/interpretation of the civil rights during quasi-war.

And stop moderating my posts when I do my off-topic trollery!

(Italics: Replacement text from your friendly neighborhood spidermod.)

[AggregateDemand]

You seem obsessed by immigrants.

This is on-topic, I see.

(On-topic, but still in need of moderation, which I've done both in the original and in what you quoted. - TF)

If you want to undermine your own credibility, choose something more interesting than misplaced censorship. Bill of Rights and immigration are as intertwined today as they were during the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts. If anything the relevance of these topics has grown substantially during the Cold War and the War on Terror, neither of which are official wars.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Bill of Rights and immigration are as intertwined today as they were during the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts. If anything the relevance of these topics has grown substantially during the Cold War and the War on Terror, neither of which are official wars.

Actually, what is driving this particular bill is the War on Drugs, and while immigrants (both legal and illegal) have been useful bogeymen for certain people in all of these "wars", they aren't the cause of these problems.  As someone more profound than me once said, "We have met the enemy and he is us." The only unofficial war that doesn't seem to have caused some impingement on civil liberties is the War on Cancer.  (And even that could be debated given the restrictions placed on tobacco advertising.)

[Badger]

You seem obsessed by immigrants.

This is on-topic, I see.

(On-topic, but still in need of moderation, which I've done both in the original and in what you quoted. - TF)

If you want to undermine your own credibility, choose something more interesting than misplaced censorship. Bill of Rights and immigration are as intertwined today as they were during the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts. If anything the relevance of these topics has grown substantially during the Cold War and the War on Terror, neither of which are official wars.

No. Yet again you're chasing your own tail in a self-referential world where every point you make is OH so OBVIOUS to the non-plebian drones of the world.

Meanwhile, in Realityville, you constantly sound like a crank.

[AggregateDemand]

Actually, what is driving this particular bill is the War on Drugs, and while immigrants (both legal and illegal) have been useful bogeymen for certain people in all of these "wars", they aren't the cause of these problems.  As someone more profound than me once said, "We have met the enemy and he is us." The only unofficial war that doesn't seem to have caused some impingement on civil liberties is the War on Cancer.  (And even that could be debated given the restrictions placed on tobacco advertising.)

Fair enough. Judging by the provision to divert seized assets to the General Treasury Fund, War on Drugs looks like the quasi-war justification for the FAIR Act. However, immigration and border policy are even more relevant, if War on Drugs is the motivating factor.

My assessment of the bill doesn't change. Bad legislative initiatives, like the War on Drugs, are not diseases. Inoculating the public with a Bill of Rights vaccine will not eliminate the virus. I suspect the FAIR Act is merely the version of libertarian virtue which is most compatible with the Republicans, who are hesitant to eliminate the War on Drugs. Paul would do better to cross the aisle, even if House Republicans try to scuttle his bill.

[user12345]

100% support from me.
[/quote]

[SWE]

100% support from me.

(sane, normal)

[NHLiberal]

Freedom bill.