A Conversation With My Congressman
Over the weekend, while in Columbus GA for the 2012 Georgia Republican State Convention, I ran into Congressman Austin Scott from Georgia’s 8th US Congressional District (my district).
After Friday’s convention adjourned I go to a local Restaurant/Jazz bar (The Loft…If ever in Columbus check it out). I have just
downed a Rusty Nail, to remove the tension from the day of listening to speakers whose only talking point was “BEAT OBAMA.” (I would like him removed from office as bad as they do. I just don’t want to replace him with someone who has the same positions on issues just a different party affiliation.)
Now I am sipping and enjoying my time with Three Philosophers (a delicious Belgium beer) and I turn around and to my delight I see Austin. This is ironic because I was very disappointed at his most recent vote on the floor of the House of Representatives. Disappointed is putting it mildly. I was really somewhere in the range of irate and pissed probably leaning pissed…yea definitely leaning pissed.
On Thursday Austin Scott voted against an amendment to the NDAA bill. This amendment, the Amash-Smith amendment, would have struck the language from the bill that allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens without a trial.
So I need to put some things in context and rewind about a month. It’s the District convention in April. Following our district convention we had a lunch and Austin Scott was the guest speaker. After he spoke, a group of incensed passionate people confronted Austin about the NDAA bill. Specifically they heckled him about sections 1021 and 1022 which denies even US citizens our right to a trial. (Though I agreed with their question I disagreed with the means that they went about presenting them to him.) That said, Mr. Scott, before the members in attendance at the luncheon denied that the bill contained any language to detain US citizens.
So here is what has been said so far:
- In April Austin Scott denied to the District 8 GOP members in attendance that the NDAA bill does allows the indefinite detention of US citizens and removes their right to a fair and speedy trial.
- In May he casts a “NO” vote to amend the NDAA bill and remove the language from the bill that is the questionable portion applying to US citizens.
- I run in to him the day after his “NO” vote on the amendment.
So after he finishes up a conversation with someone he obviously knew, I make my way to him. I did notice something as I approached him, I wasn’t nervous at all. Here I am about to talk to a US congressman and I feel nothing but confidence. Why? I don’t know.
Maybe it’s that the Rusty Nail had taken some affect and given me liquid courage. Maybe it’s that I feel that I was dressed more stylish than he was (FACT). Maybe it’s that drinking on a Three Philosophers made me feel wise (Again GREAT beer). To his credit Austin was drinking a Fat Tire another good beer. However, being that I have a hobby of brewing beer, even my beer was better than his…Maybe another cause of confidence. But he did turn down the horse pee beers for the Fat Tire. I respect that about him. Or it could be that I feel confident, because based on his voting record I am more aware of what is contained in the NDAA (and other legislation) than he is and that I am more up to date than he is on issues.
For whatever reason I am feeling confident.
I introduce myself and shook his hand and begin to ask questions. This is a summary of the conversation:
Me: I was at the district convention in Tifton and was at the luncheon.
Austin (AS): Yeah that was bad
Me: I know! I didn’t like the way they heckled you…sorry about that.
AS: Thanks
Me: I do agree with their position though.
AS: Ok
Me: I do have a question for you.
AS: Ok
Me: At the district convention you told everyone there that the NDAA does not contain language to indefinitely detain US Citizens yet yesterday you voted against an amendment that would have removed the language from the bill that does apply to US citizens. If the bill doesn’t apply to US citizens, why was there an amendment to remove that kind of language and why did you vote against it?
AS: Because it would have ALSO (I will come back to this later) removed the language that applied to non US citizens.
Me: Ok but it would have removed the language applying to US citizens.
AS: The constitution doesn’t apply to non US citizens
Me: Sir, do you believe the US Constitution is the greatest form of Law ever written and conceived by man to govern?
AS: Absolutely.
Me: Then why, if it’s so good, can’t it be applied to everyone and show the world we respect human rights and the rule of law.
AS: It just doesn’t apply to non US Citizens.
(At this point I am seeing some density and feel a little frustrated that I am not communicating my thoughts to him convincingly enough)
Me: Do you not see how we are one short step away from an Obama taking the liberty to abuse this law on US citizens? That one day to voice opposition of your government will make you a declared enemy of the state? And that you and I will be detained indefinitely for “terrorist” activity?
AS: Yes, but the threat to us is real. I am actually surprised that we haven’t been attacked again since 9/11. We need to take every precaution to protect the US citizens from terrorists.
Me: Do you not see that in the name of protection, the power of government grows and one day it’s the Federal Government that we will need protection from and then what?
AS: Yes.
Me: Then put the brakes on now and do not give the power to detain even non US citizens indefinitely because it’s one short step away from US citizens.
AS: They do not have the same rights as US citizens.
Me: Sir, why not treat them with justice and rights as a human? If they are “suspected” (and I did do the finger motion) of a crime…TRY THEM IN COURT and PROVE IT! Then execute them. Hang them, electrocute them, inject them, shoot them. Whatever the means is carry out the law on them. Don’t hold them indefinitely forever. This only incenses our enemy. Let the world know that we are a nation that respects human rights and the rule of law. Let the world know that if you come to our country and try to carry out a terrorist activity you will face the full extent of the law. You will see your day in court and you will be prosecuted but we will have liberty and JUSTICE for ALL!
AS: Well the constitution doesn’t apply to non US citizens.
Me: It seems to me it’s not far from applying TO even US citizens.
(in a change of subject Austin brings up drones)
AS: I will say that after the district convention I looked into the drone questions because I hadn’t heard that before. You know most of us don’t have time to watch the news because we are so busy. But I did start to do some research on that and I am fighting to remove the drones from US skies. I don’t want them flying of my house and land.
Me: Agreed (I didn’t want to get into the whole deal with him on how he voted to fund it. OR get into how the news was they were funded and allowed by congress. He should have known because it was his actions/inaction that was the news. You know what you do/don’t do without it having to be reported to you through the news…at least I do. I.E. If I were to go rob a convenient store I wouldn’t have to watch the news to know someone robbed the convenient store.)
At this point we talked a little more about drones and about the NDAA some more. I encouraged him to rethink the NDAA because we have a president who takes liberty in his position of office, look at Libya He mentioned that Obama should be impeached for Libya. I asked why you haven’t done it. His answer was because it would have guaranteed his re-election. I mentioned so much for the rule of law winning elections is more important. He remarked by asking if I wanted 4 more years. Of course I don’t. But I don’t want to compromise and play politics with the law either. He shrugged and nodded. And I said so if he wins in November would you then hold him accountable?
Here we exchanged pleasantries and went on. It wasn’t a heated exchange just a conversation.
So back to the word “ALSO” mentioned earlier. I didn’t think of this then but I did later. He used the word ALSO! I am not an English major (you can probably tell by writing style), but ALSO is used to join together. Right?
Definition of Also – In addition; too.
Synonyms: too – as well as – likewise – so – besides – eke – ditto.
So Austin Scott using the word ALSO here implies his understanding that the language of the bill applies to: Non US citizens as well as US citizens. “I didn’t vote for the amendment because it applied to non US citizens as well as US citizens.”
Right? Am I off here? He said it would have also removed the language for Non-US citizens.
Congressman Austin Scott didn’t protect your rights as a US citizen guaranteed in the US constitution because he ALSO wanted to prevent non US citizens from having protection under the US law.
He has failed in his oath to protect and defend the Constitution because he wants to abuse the human rights on non US citizens. He is more concerned with abusing non US citizens than he is in protecting US citizens from government oversteps. He supports our path to Totalitarianism over US citizens by ensuring that non US citizens are treated inhumanely.
I will conclude with this:
Though I disagreed with their tactics, the rowdy rebels at the district convention did educate Austin Scott on violations that he himself is participating in. To that end there is a victory. We celebrate that.
However, we must refine our tactics so that we educate all in attendance too. How many of the people there left and learned about the NDAA and the FAA? Not many. And Austin Scott will now speak out about the drones. However, he was part of the problem that allowed and funded the drones in the US skies. The people will never hear that from him and remain in the dark.
The Declaration of Independence, which goes hand in hand with our Constitution clearly states “We hold these truths to be self evident, that ALL MEN are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”.
Before the 13th and 14th amendment there existed no such thing as a U.S. citizen not to mention that anyone falling under U.S. citizen must do so by consent of voluntary servitude in exchange for their rights which now become privileges.
I had a similar conversation with him at the Civic Center Saturday. He denied he went against 900 years of the signing of the Magna Carter and rights contained in it. He either challenged or asked somebody to run for his position. I went a step further and asked about the 450,000,000 rounds of hollow point 40 caliber ammo homeland security is ordering. He acting in the dark about that. Either ways knowing or not knowing; he is not doing his job, Congress is not in control or he is not being honest. I think I even asked him what he thought of 1100 engineers and scientist signing affidavits stating that World Trade Center Building number seven that collapsed at 5 pm on 9-11-2001 had to have come down by control demolition, yet I was tired from only being on nine hours sleep for two days. It might have been the person previous or after Congressman Scott I spoke to ab that.
This business of the US becoming a corporation under the 13th and 14th amendments is something I do not pretend to be qualified to argue. I will do the necessary studying. But, how can you say there was no such thing as an American citizen prior to their passage when the Constitution requires that you must be a natural born citizen to be the president? As a matter of fact, in Article III, Section 2, Clause 1; and Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 use the term several times, each. While you may argue that those passages refer to the citizens of states, there is reference to the process of naturalization, which would grant citizenship of the country, as I understand the word and as it relates to eligibility to hold the office of President.
Please pardon my oversight. That last reply was to the poster above your comment.
Yes, you are right to delve into the ‘also’ usage. I am actually and English major. He needs to be required to answer why it was more important to go after foreign nationals than to protect our human rights. Congressmen propose amendments to bills all the time. If it was so important to retain the language enabling our system to indefinitely detain foreign terrorists, then he should have introduced or supported an amendment to clarify. His oath is to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The Constitution was under attack and it was his job to make sure that any legislation accomplishes its end without compromising our rights. If he was smart enough to be your congressman, he should have been smart enough to do that.