i should be writting an essay for my class, not for myself
when was the last time you think anyone from congress actually read the constitution. thats a real question. do they read it over everyday over coffee? or just monday morning so they can have a clear direction for the week. maybe once a month? most ppl know the basics of it anyway. it wouldn't too hard to memorize, every 1st of the month seems like a good time to take a refresher glace at it.
but, maybe its just once a sessoin. i know congress people are busy busy, but maybe they read it too themselves or have group discussion about ti before every congressional session starts... but maybe not...
you know what i think, i think they havn't read the constitution since high school, unless they were a poli sci dork in college they probly didn't even read it then. if i told people that they would say, "wtf, you n00b. you are fucking dumb. they are god damn law makers. they probly read it all of the time. don't be so stuipd." to all you thinking something to that effect, i give you:
Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio who will be proposing a bill that (from the Washington Post) "would add to the criminal penalties for anyone who "intentionally discloses information identifying or describing" the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program or any other eavesdropping program conducted under a 1978 surveillance law.
Under the boosted penalties, those found guilty could face fines of up to $1 million, 15 years in jail or both.
Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the measure is broader than any existing laws. She said, for example, the language does not specify that the information has to be harmful to national security or classified.
...
David Tomlin, the AP's assistant general counsel, said government officials with security clearances would be potential targets under DeWine's bill.
"But so would anyone else who received an illegal disclosure under the proposed act, knew what it was and deliberately disclosed it to others. That's what some reporters do, often to great public benefit," he said.
hmmm... where i was i going w/ this... oh yeah.... the constitution
"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."
lets do a little zoom/cut/paste shall we... "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."
I don't know about everyone else out there, but a $1 million dollar fine and 15 years in jail would get me to not say just about anything.
just something to chew (choke to death) on. I know we are still the home of the brave and all that but can we still really call ourselves land of the free (as in freedom)?
You may all disagree with me, but I'm feeling less, and less, and less, and less, and less, and less, and less , and less, and... you get the idea.
but, maybe its just once a sessoin. i know congress people are busy busy, but maybe they read it too themselves or have group discussion about ti before every congressional session starts... but maybe not...
you know what i think, i think they havn't read the constitution since high school, unless they were a poli sci dork in college they probly didn't even read it then. if i told people that they would say, "wtf, you n00b. you are fucking dumb. they are god damn law makers. they probly read it all of the time. don't be so stuipd." to all you thinking something to that effect, i give you:
Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio who will be proposing a bill that (from the Washington Post) "would add to the criminal penalties for anyone who "intentionally discloses information identifying or describing" the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program or any other eavesdropping program conducted under a 1978 surveillance law.
Under the boosted penalties, those found guilty could face fines of up to $1 million, 15 years in jail or both.
Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the measure is broader than any existing laws. She said, for example, the language does not specify that the information has to be harmful to national security or classified.
...
David Tomlin, the AP's assistant general counsel, said government officials with security clearances would be potential targets under DeWine's bill.
"But so would anyone else who received an illegal disclosure under the proposed act, knew what it was and deliberately disclosed it to others. That's what some reporters do, often to great public benefit," he said.
hmmm... where i was i going w/ this... oh yeah.... the constitution
"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."
lets do a little zoom/cut/paste shall we... "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."
I don't know about everyone else out there, but a $1 million dollar fine and 15 years in jail would get me to not say just about anything.
just something to chew (choke to death) on. I know we are still the home of the brave and all that but can we still really call ourselves land of the free (as in freedom)?
You may all disagree with me, but I'm feeling less, and less, and less, and less, and less, and less, and less , and less, and... you get the idea.