NY TIMES SUPPORTS COVERT SUSPENSION OF THE CONSTITUTION

By Bob Walsh

Yesterday The New York Times printed a very interesting editorial. They proposed that legislation be passed (NOT a constitutional amendment, merely legislation) that would somehow allow the federal government to covertly suspend certain constitutional rights of American citizens.

Specifically they want to set up something like the FISA court wherein the government would propose to suspend, in secret, the rights of American citizens to own firearms. (The existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court approves over 99% of the application made to it by the government.) There would be no due process beyond the court, there would be no path to appeal and the person whose rights were suspended (revoked) would not know what evidence was used against them. Gee, what could possibly be there that was bad?

Remember the shooter in Orland was a licensed security officer working for a U.S. government contractor. When he was contacted by the FBI, the FBI was supposed to notify people up the chain that they had contacted him. They didn’t. They were supposed to notify his employer. They didn’t. The contractor was supposed to notify the feds. They didn’t, because nobody told them.

Can you be suspended from your right to vote because the feds THINK you MIGHT commit a felony? No. You have to be charged and convicted. There are clear avenues of appeal. Can you be thrown in prison because the government THINKS you MAYBE committed a crime? No. You have rights, due process and appeals.

Is it good that wannabe terrorists can buy guns? No it isn’t. Fine. Now, how do we inhibit them WITHOUT STOMPING ON THE RIGHTS OF THE 99.99% OF HONEST, LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS WHO OWN GUNS? For people like Hillary Clinton it doesn’t matter, you just throw the baby out with the bath water. She doesn’t give a shit, she has paid professional federal law enforcement body guards for the rest of her miserable life. I don’t. Do you?

There is a process to deal with this. There is a process to amend the Constitution. Why don’t the liberals, commies and similar ass-wipes just go for it? That would be the HONEST way to go about it. But honest and politician don’t often appear together in the same sentence, do they?