Home » Posts tagged "Government" (Page 2)

Should the government have the right to violate civil rights for national security?

Question by Tay.: Should the government have the right to violate civil rights for national security?
I’m writing a paper for my Civics class, and the question is “Should the U.S. government have the right to violate Americans civil rights in the name of national security?”

What are your thoughts on this?
Any suggestions for points I could state?

I was thinking “no”
but what do you think?

Best answer:

Answer by scott b
No. Because those rights are guaranteed the Constitution and laws. And once you allow them to do that, then it’s a “slippery slope” and you don’t know where it would end.

What do you think? Answer below!

Posted on July 18, 2011 by , 3 comments

How does the Australian Constitution outline the roles of the three arms of government?

Question by Thomas M: How does the Australian Constitution outline the roles of the three arms of government?
In what sections of the AUS Constitution does it outline the roles of the three arms of government (executive, legislative and judiciary)?

Best answer:

Answer by Bella Rose
All this information that you need to know about the Australian Federal Constitution is included on this web site provided by the Australian Federal Government.

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Australia

Select any of these topics in Blue for further detail
http://australianpolitics.com/constitution-aus
Full text of the Australian Constitution
http://australianpolitics.com/constitution-aus/text

History of Australian Constitutional Law
http://www.lexscripta.com/legal/statutes/constitution_Australia.html

I hope that this information helps in finding out about the Australian Constitution.

Cheers!!!

What do you think? Answer below!

Posted on July 17, 2011 by , Reply

Andrew Napolitano – Government Lawlessness

Andrew Napolitano explains how the actions of Washington politicians are displaying little regard for that which they pledge to uphold, the Constitution. www.LibertyPen.com
Video Rating: 4 / 5

Nov. 24, 2010 – Got questions about the TSA? This video’s got answers. Jam-packed with all the information you need to get up to speed on the 2010 holiday airport security uproar. Get the inside scoop on full body scanners, radiation health risks, pat-downs, screw-ups, underwear bombers, cavity searches, special interests, government officials, the Constitution (specifically, the 4th Amendment), scanner storage capability, and hear from some of the most engaged minds in the debate; including Congressman Ron Paul.
Video Rating: 4 / 5

Posted on July 15, 2011 by , 50 comments

Tea Party Movement Happier With the Supreme Court than Other Branches of Government, Survey Finds

Tea Party Movement Happier With the Supreme Court than Other Branches of Government, Survey Finds











Columbia Law School Professor Nathaniel Persily

New York (Vocus) July 19, 2010

Despite a general distrust of government, most Tea Party supporters believe the Supreme Court will correctly decide difficult issues, even if they are unpopular and go against the will of the president or Congress, a new survey finds.

The survey, co-authored by Nathaniel Persily, the Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law and Political Science at Columbia Law School, also found a majority of Tea Party supporters approve of the Supreme Court’s performance.

The results were taken from an online survey by Knowledge Networks on a wide range of issues that probed attitudes toward constitutional issues, including gun control, abortion rights, and the death penalty.

Some 1,027 people answered questions, including 456 who identified themselves as supporting the Tea Party movement. Harvard University political scientist Stephen Ansolabehere co-wrote the survey with Persily.

Some 80 percent of Tea Party backers either have a great deal or some confidence in the Supreme Court, compared to just 37 percent for Congress and 39 percent for President Obama. Overall, 56 percent approve of the job the Supreme Court is doing, compared to 63 percent of those surveyed who do not support the Tea Party.

On issues before the court, the survey found:


Eighty percent of Tea Party supporters agree the Supreme Court should recognize a right to privacy even if it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution.
Some 48 percent believe the Constitution should be viewed as a general set of principles that can change over time, compared to 74 percent of respondents who do not back the Tea Party.
Asked whether the Supreme Court should focus less on the Constitution’s original intent and more on the effect its decisions will have today, just 38 percent of Tea Party backers support that notion, compared to 69 percent not in the Tea Party.
While 72 percent of those who do not support the Tea Party approve of Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court, just 33 percent of movement supporters back her. Persily said that number was likely held down by President Obama’s low numbers from Tea Party supporters. They gave him just a 26 percent approval rating.

The survey is a follow-up to a similar poll done in 2009. Both have a margin of error of 4 percent.

The full Tea Party survey can be read here. The results from all respondents can be read here.

Columbia Law School, founded in 1858, stands at the forefront of legal education and of the law in a global society. Columbia Law School joins its traditional strengths in international and comparative law, constitutional law, administrative law, business law and human rights law with pioneering work in the areas of intellectual property, digital technology, sexuality and gender, criminal, national security, and environmental law.

Visit us at http://law.columbia.edu

Follow us on Twitter http://www.twitter.com/columbialaw

###






















Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.







Posted on June 23, 2011 by , Reply

The Federal Government and the Constitution pt 2

Video Rating: 0 / 5

Video Rating: 0 / 5

Posted on May 29, 2011 by , Reply

How was the government under the Articles of Confederation ineffective in dealing with national security?

Question by Tootsie: How was the government under the Articles of Confederation ineffective in dealing with national security?
How was the government under the Articles of Confederation ineffective in dealing with national security? How did the United States Constitution attempted to address the issue?

Best answer:

Answer by Monika K
It couldn’t tax or enforce laws. Therefore, it didn’t have much power over the states. The states could make up their own laws, but didn’t have to include important things like hospitals, fire department, or rodes. The Constitution was made so the national government could have more power, and to give the states less power. The Constitution enforced laws so security-like things had to be present. This way, the US could act more like a country.

Give your answer to this question below!

Posted on May 3, 2011 by , Reply

John Pilger “The Invisible Government” Part 3/4

Blackwater: Hired Guns, Above the Law by Jeremy Scahill Global Research, September 22, 2007 My name is Jeremy Scahill. I am an investigative reporter for The Nation magazine and the author of the book Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army. I have spent the better part of the past several years researching the phenomenon of privatized warfare and the increasing involvement of the private sector in the support and waging of US wars. During the course of my investigations, I have interviewed scores of sources, filed many Freedom of Information Act requests, obtained government contracts and private company documents of firms operating in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. When asked, I have attempted to share the results of my investigations, including documents obtained through FOIA and other processes, with members of Congress and other journalists. I would like to thank this committee for the opportunity to be here today and for taking on this very serious issue. Over the past six days, we have all been following very closely the developments out of Baghdad in the aftermath of the fatal shooting of as many as 20 Iraqis by operatives working for the private military company Blackwater USA. The Iraqi government is alleging that among the dead are a small child and her parents and the prime minister has labeled Blackwater’s conduct as “criminal” and spoke of “the killing of our citizens in cold blood.” While details remain murky and subject to …

The four aircraft which crashed on September 11th, 2001 have never been forensically matched to the four passenger planes which were allegedly hijacked that morning. Requests under the Freedom of Information Act have met with denials and refusals, and documents which have been produced, allegedly using data from the only three “Black Box” flight recorders said to have been found, have no serial numbers of the devices listed on them. The excellent work done by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and other such organizations, in their quest to determine what caused the Twin Towers and WTC 7 to collapse, should never be underestimated. But, being the primary murder weapons, for my money the real smoking guns were, and still are, the four aircraft that were used as weapons on that terrible day, and for them not to have been identified breaks every rule in any book which seeks to teach the art of solving crimes. It is either an oversight beyond belief, on the part of the 9/11 Commission, or part of a criminal conspiracy of immense proportions set in motion to cover up what really happened on September 11th, 2001. Links to documents researched by Aidan Monaghan FAA related: 911blogger.com FBI related: rinf.com Serial Numbers: 911blogger.com The Murray Street Engine was not planted and was not from a Boeing 737, see: ckpi.typepad.com The photo of the engine at the land fill on Staten Island was taken by whistleblower Kurt Sonnenfeld, then an official FEMA photographer who is …
Video Rating: 4 / 5

Posted on May 1, 2011 by , 50 comments

Covenant Security Solutions Wins Contract with Major Government Agency

Covenant Security Solutions Wins Contract with Major Government Agency












Fairfax, VA (PRWEB) August 25, 2008

Covenant Security Solutions (CHSS), a premier provider of total security solutions to agencies of the U.S. Government, was awarded a canine services contract by a major government agency.

“We are very pleased to continue our support to the United States government in protecting those people and assets that protect our great Nation,” said Robert Coe, President of the Covenant Security Companies. “We view these operations not as contracts but as missions that support our governmental infrastructure and that is a mission we take very seriously.”    

CHSS operates Covenant Farms Canine Training Center, a world-class training facility, located just outside of the National Capital Region in Northern Virginia, Covenant Farms provides a diverse range of canine acquisition and training services spanning the entire spectrum of canine capabilities for law enforcement, military and private security.

Covenant Security Solutions is part of the Covenant family of security companies, a leader in global security, training and assessments, and is recognized for innovative, cost-effective solutions to ensure the safety and security of the assets of the U.S. Government and government contractor organizations worldwide.

About the Covenant Security Companies

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, The Covenant Security Companies manages over $ 180 million in contracts in 23 states as well as globally, and employs more than 2,900 security personnel in over 62 locations. The company provides a wide range of high-quality protective force and technical security services through four operating companies: Covenant Aviation Security, Covenant Security Services, and Covenant Security International. Services include Protective Force Operations – Armed/Unarmed; Information Security Services; Industrial Security Services; Aviation Security Services; Emergency Preparedness and Planning; Security-Related Training; Investigations, Audits and Survey Services; Special Security Operations; Ancillary Services; Pre-Employment Screening; Drug Testing; FOCI Program Management; OSHA Safety; and Canine Operations.

For more information, contact Rob Coe at info@covenantsecurity.com

# # #









Attachments
























Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.







Posted on April 15, 2011 by , Reply

What part of the Constitution allows the government to prohibit what we put into our own bodies?

Question by bryguy_95: What part of the Constitution allows the government to prohibit what we put into our own bodies?
I’ve read it and can’t seem to find anything about this. I know the courts have ruled in favor numerous times, but they’re only allowed to interpret, not violate, right?

Also, do you think police should be required to actually read the Constitution that they’re supposed to be defending?

Best answer:

Answer by mannerin193
i dont think any part

What do you think? Answer below!

Posted on April 9, 2011 by , 15 comments

Where specifically in the constitution does it say what powers are given to the national government?

Question by Matt Ozz: Where specifically in the constitution does it say what powers are given to the national government?
Also where in the constitution does it say what powers are given to the states?

Best answer:

Answer by scott b
It says that throughout the entire document. Here’s a tip…why don’t you try to actually READ it?

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

What do you think? Answer below!

Posted on March 30, 2011 by , 2 comments
First « 1234 » Last