Reactionary Much?

I am, I have to admit, sadly disappointed in my fellow Americans.  In a poll of some 380,000 of you, when asked the question "Should people on the terror watch lists be banned from buying guns?" An overwhelming 94% of you replied "YES".

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And yet you are ready and willing to allow some nameless bureaucrats to place your name on a list.

Shame. 

A Connecticut Yankee in Hugo Chavez's Court

Connecticut Governor Daniel P Chavez Malloy

Connecticut Governor vows to sign executive order banning guns from people on the no-fly list.  Now I'm the last person who wants to see terrorists with guns, but there is just one problem with this concept (and the no-fly list itself), the US Constitution!

5th Amendment: 

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

 14th Amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 From Time:

The problem lies with the terrorist watch lists themselves, which are both secret and routinely updated without the typical due process given to those who are accused of breaking the law, such as court proceedings. Without a trial, the government can add anyone to watch lists who it believes may be a threat to national security—and exactly how the government defines such a threat isn’t even public knowledge. TIME

From the ACLU:

As we will argue to a federal district court in Oregon this Wednesday, the standards for inclusion on the No Fly List are unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error.

Our clients, among them four U.S. military veterans, were never told why they were on the list or given a reasonable opportunity to get off it.

Separately, the government made two basic arguments in its defense of the No Fly List, both of which the court rejected. First, it argued that U.S. persons had no constitutionally protected right to fly.

Second, the government asserted that national security concerns meant the government couldn’t confirm or deny whether people were on the No Fly List, and it couldn’t give them reasons or a hearing before a neutral decision-maker. This is absurd as a practical matter and violates due process as a constitutional matter.   ACLU

Wake Up Sheeple!

Is it me? Or could he be Hugo's thin twin?

Photo: Dilma Rousseff