Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "NewsNation"
channel.
-
67
-
59
-
55
-
30
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@VesproDBA Here's some actual law and EVIDENCE on the issue, anti-American bigot --
___
"No Collusion"?
Trump's July 27, 2016 Solicitation of Crime with Russia.
This is Webster's definition of "collusion":
"Secret agreement or cooperation for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose".
How many Trumpeters lied about their contacts with Russians during the Trump-Putin COLLUSION?
THIS IS THE LAW:
The Model Penal Code defines solicitation as commanding, encouraging, or requesting another person to engage in conduct that constitutes a crime or an attempt to commit a crime (with the intent that the crime be committed). Model Penal Code S. 5.02(1) (1962). Generally the code provides that solicitation be as punishable as the crime solicited. Id. at S. 5.05(1). Law Dictionary, Giffis, at 446.
THIS IS THE EVIDENCE:
We have Trump on video, in broad daylight, soliciting Russia:
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."
To "find" those emails required computer hacking. Computer hacking is a felony.
In fact, he solicited a series of felonies, beginning with computer hacking and stealing private property, through to receiving and possessing that stolen property.
And we know that on the same day as Trump's solicitation, within hours thereafter, Russia hacked computers and stole the emails. That made Trump a co-conspirator with Russia.
That conspiracy is an additional felony.
____________
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes, they were given the warrant when it was executed. And that was before the search.
It was during the search that the inventory was made. And after the search copy of the inventory was given to Trump's lawyer.
The problem with you and your ilk is that you ignore the facts -- including the fact that Trump fires lawyers who won't tell his lies -- and cherry pick which lies to repeat.
The lawyer who was talking propagandist on right-wing OAN said BOTH that she was not allowed to be present during the search, so they weren't allowed to see what the FBI was doing, AND that Trump watched the search on CCTV. Both CAN'T be true.
The DOJ doesn't comment on ongoing investigations in order to protect the integrity of the investigation, and in order to protect the civil liberties of potential targets -- in this instance TRUMP. That is why the warrant was sealed. But it was TRUMP who made it public -- because HE RECEIVED COPY OF THE WARRANT AND INVENTORY.
Then he began demanding that the DOJ release the warrant. So, as Trump made the matter public, AG Garland made his brief statement, including the FACT that TRUMP had every right to release HIS copy of the warrant.
But, because Trump didn't actually want the warrant public because it REFUTES his bullshit attacks on the DOJ and FBI, Garland filed motion to unseal the warrant. And the neutral court unsealed the copy of the warrant held by THE COURT.
I never knew that so many Americans are dumber than dirt -- as gullible as toddlers -- until Trump showed the world that there are Americans who can be suckered into going to jail for Trump, while he profits FINANCIALLY from their doing so.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Corwin1141 BASIC LAW:
There are three primary sources in law:
1. The legislative history -- the DEBATES of the WRITING of the Amendment.
2. The Constitution, all of which is in effect at the same time, and which is deliberately general in order to accommodate the unforeseen.
3. Constitutional provisions are implemented by means of STATUTES, which are more detailed and specific.
This is how the law works:
The SOURCES of the Amendment were the Militia Causes from four existing state constitutions. All four distinguished between two military forces: "the right of the people," etc. -- the well-regulated Militia -- and standing armies.
The DEBATES of the WRITING of the Amendment show that the INTENT of the Amendment was to establish a NATIONAL DEFENSE relying on the well-regulated Militia. That is the subject of the Amendment: well-regulated Militia.
That fact is underscored by the Militia Act -- STATUTE -- enacted on May 8, 1792:
"An act more effectually to provide for the NATIONAL DEFENCE by establishing an uniform MILITIA throughout the United States.
There was only ONE "individual right" debated in the several drafts of the Amendment:
": but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service in person."
That phrase was obviously VOTED DOWN before the Amendment was submitted to the states for consideration and ratification.
And note that the first three words of the Constitution are, "We the people" -- not, "We the individual".
The Constitution, all of which is in effect at all times, incorporates FOUR Militia Clauses, the Second Amendment being the fourth. This is the first:
"Art. I., S. 8., C.15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide" -- which it does by enacting STATUTES -- "for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions."
This is the second:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power to provide" -- by means of STATUTES -- "for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia . . . reserving to the States [GOV'TS] respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and te Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS."
I have an education in law and have been researching these very issues for more than 30 years, which research begins with the laws enacted from the foundings of the several colonies to and through ratifications of state and Federal constitutions. Which means I don't buy the propaganda pumped out by the gun industry -- whose only concern is PROFITS -- and its political front NRA.
I adhere exclusively to the law and facts.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@uria702 So the grade for a course, which lasts approximately fifteen weeks -- one of the two semesters per year -- is at the end of the COURSE/semester, not at the end of the several years of legal education.
That is no different than any other course of study, whether undergraduate or graduate.
And, yes, most/all professors, in order to teach, must be tenured; and in order to be tenured, they must publish; and in order to publish, they don't have time to teach (outside lectures). So assistant professors do all the scut-work including grading. (I had the experience of one of my papers, in a history of literature class, "rise to the top," so the actual professor co-signed the "A".)
And I'm well aware of the "Socratic method," as it applies across disciplines where there is a question of subjectivity, and the goal is the search for truth, which "process" includes critical evaluation of one's own thinking.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Someone using the fake screen name "Chris Cuomo" -- obviously a right-winger who is ignorant and determined to remain ignorant. As example, in the following he strikes out on at least three counts:
"who decides what constitutes evidence, and what weight that evidence bears, and what constitutes proof?
The rule of law.
In the United States, under the US Constitution, "religion" is separated from gov't, and gov't is by definition RULE OF LAW.
"Do you decide that for everyone, or does everyone decide for themselves?"
You live in a SOCIETY based upon RULE OF LAW that applies to EVERYONE. PROOF is decided by consensus based on OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. In this context, the alleged murder DECIDED FOR HIMSELF -- which is EXACTLY what YOU are saying should be done.
Meanwhile, Christ ALLEGEDLY said to keep one's "religious" practices PRIVATE else they be merely to impress OTHERS.
" I bet if i were to ask you "define 'evidence' as it pertains to evidence of God" you couldn't give a definition. atheists don't care about evidence."
The ISSUE is whether the alleged "evidence" is CREDIBLE -- whether it withstands objective scrutiny. I would assume that is the FIRST concern of "atheists"; and the FAILURE of such as you to provide CREDIBLE "evidence" for your view.
First, the "evidence" that there IS a "God" is thousands of years of "argument" by theologians, based upon alleged assertions made by illiterate sheepherders who apparently heard voices written as a "bible" many decades AFTER Christ was executed. The FLAW in the theologians' "arguments FOR their being a "God" begin with the BIASED PREMISE that there IS a "God" -- leaving out the actual intellectual honesty of being UNBIASED on the question. That is why, when challenged, St. Augustine asserted: "I believe BECAUSE there is no evidence" -- which is as irrational as can be. "I can walk across the street amid the traffic and not be injured by simply BELIEVING that I can do that and not be injured" makes as much sense: NONE.
Second, it is EVIDENCE that you're a simpleton that you not only leave out the REALITY of your existing IN A SOCIETY WITH OTHERS, but you also ASSume that anyone who doesn't agree with your belief is therefore an "atheist". There is a moderate position: agnostic. Agnostics acknowledge also that they DON'T know. They DON'T know that there ISN'T a "God" or "afterlife"; but they ALSO know that the "evidence" for such is NOT CREDIBLE. BIGOTS such as you FEAR admitting that YOU DO NOT KNOW that there's a "God" or an "afterlife" -- because you are desperate for them to exist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Refuting the NRA's Two Second Amendment Lies
The gun industry political front NRA tells two lies about the intent of the Second Amendment.
1. That the Second Amendment protects an "individual" "right" to possess guns.
Comparison with the several prior Supreme Court decisions, and the legislative history -- the Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- shows that Scalia's "Heller" decision is an outlier. In "Heller" he falsely held that the Amendment protects an individual right -- for which he was excoriated by legal experts across the political spectrum for ignoring this adjudicatory standard:
When a conflict over the interpretation of a law cannot be resolved within the text of the law, one reverts to the legislative history of the law -- in this instance Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment.
The facts from those Debates:
The subject of the Amendment is well regulated Militia, and its purpose to establish a National Defense, relying on that Militia. The Militia is not an individual, and is a public institution, regulated under both Federal and state constitutions and laws; thus the Amendment is irrelevant to the issue of private, individual gun ownership:
James Madison is called "the father of the Constitution," and the gun industry/NRA claims that Madison wrote the Second Amendment. If both of those are facts, then the word "people" is consistent in meaning from beginning of the Constitution to the end of the first 10 Amendments. The first three words of the Constitution are "We the people," not, "We the individual".
This is the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment, which the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment -- but which it never quotes. [Here I clarify it for the logic-impaired]:
"The right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [this phrase is the well-regulated Militia, and was drawn from four state constitution Militia Clauses] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person."
Source: Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Paperback, 1991), Edited by Helen E Veit, et al., at 12. (This volume is readily available from Amazon.)
Note the word "compelled": Militia service was a DUTY -- not a "right". And note the words "people" and "person": if a person -- individual -- claimed "religious" exemption from that DUTY, his case was scrutinized individually.
The only "individual" "right" Congress debated was that last clause -- "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service" -- and it was obviously dropped from the proposed Amendment before it was ratified. Thus the Second Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring the legislative history -- Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- could Scalia falsely hold that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right".
2. That the purpose of the Amendment was to establish a "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't -- which is refuted by the Constitution itself:
Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.
The Founders themselves twice established the precedent on the point:
Under the Articles of Confederation, "Shays's" rebellion was suppressed by the state's legitimate well-regulated Militia, and the rebels charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
And under the Constitution, AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, the "Whiskey" rebellion was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington, and the rebels charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
The Congress, as a co-equal branch of gov't, has the authority and power to overturn Supreme Court decisions.
Overturn "Heller".
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@daviddenson3324 Hillary DID NOT do anything near what Trump did. Clinton was IN GOV'T when she was dealing with classified information.
And you HATERS omit the inconvenient facts:
1. At the time Hillary was Sec. of State, the OFFICIAL State Dept. communication channel had been repeatedly hacked and classified information dumped publicly.
Her private services was never hacked.
The deleted emails were recovered by the FBI, and nothing of consequence was found. The several classified documents on her server had been RECEIVED by her.
So yes, you are defending Trump by pretending that dozens of boxes filled with GOV'T PROPERTY, the second batch of which Trump LIED about having turned over when he had not. His lawyer signed a declaration attesting to the fact that Trump had turned over ALL gov't property -- which turned out to be a LIE.
2 Trump STOLE gov't property, which includes classified information. You OMIT the fact that the Presidential Records Act also covers non-classified documents, which were included among the documents seized from MAGA-Lardo.
ALL information generated by gov't employees belongs TO THE GOV'T, NOT to the employee.
3. Hillary didn't obstruct justice -- which Trump did by LYING that he'd turned over all the gov't property he STOLE. Hillary didn't operate a system that was insecure, and was still IN GOV'T at the time.
Nothing happened to her? Forget the amnesia: Comey re-opening the investigation just before the election -- BEFORE determining that the emails in question were DUPLICATES of emails that had already been investigated -- cost her the election.
4. You are attacking the FBI based on NO EVIDENCE -- you not only, weirdly, defend Comey, but also trash the current DOJ and FBI based on Comey's actions.
The problem when one ignores the facts, and thus makes bald-face fact-free assertions, you are not being objective. You are not being honest.
The fact is that you are pretending to be objective, but, in fact, you are a Trumper who is attacking the FBI because it's investigation is exposing Trump for what he is and has always been: he has NEVER accepted "NO!" including the "NO!" that is the rule of law.
1
-
1
-
@daviddenson3324 How it went down? You're "argument" is simply this:
One murderer got away with murder, so no other murderers should be prosecuted. Hillary ALLEGEDLY committed "crimes" -- according to Republicans who smeared and "investigated" her for 30 years, and in every instance ACQUITED her because their smears against her were always FAKE "scandals".
Hillary sat an answered questions without evasion or equivocation for 11 hours straight. Never once, in all those decades, did she plead the 5th. Trump repeatedly said that only the MOB pleads the 5th -- then in one deposition he pled the 5th hundreds of times.
And you want to WHINE that Hillary's ALLEGED "crimes" were as bad as Trumps!?
There isn't a single instance in the history of the United States of a Democratic president engineering and directing an attempted overthrow of the gov't. Trump did that. And you want to WHINE that Hillary wasn't "locked up" without evidence, without trial -- without DUE PROCESS?
There's no "how" about it; the two cases are in no wise equivalent in fact or degree. A few emails, WHILE Hillary was Sec. of State, on a private server as a non-hacked alternative to the hacked State Dept. system. DOZENS of boxes of GOV'T PROPERTY, including classified information, STOLEN by Trump and brought to his private unsecured residence.
Watch the January 6 hearings: all but two of the witnesses who testified are TRUMP REPUBLICANS, and most of those were IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
And the HARD evidence -- from REPUBLICAN sources -- shows Trump was planning the overthrow of the gov't from BEFORE the election.
And on January 6 he was informed by the Secret Service that the mob he'd brought to Washington was ARMED with handguns, AR-15s -- in violation of D.C. law -- and other weapons. He KNEW they were armed when he sent them to the Capitol to "fight like hell".
There is NO equivalent of that anywhere else in US history.
You can readily find the hearings -- they are all over youtube as broadcast by all major media outlets. Even FOX broadcast them. And one can see them without commentary by going to the Committee website. Simply Google "January 6th hearings".
1
-
@daviddenson3324 I do't twist your words; I cut to the chase -- the underlying "argument" you are asserting, which is bogus.
Forget the amnesia: let's look at the 2015-16campaign:
1. The FBI was OPENLY investigating Hillary's STOLEN emails. OPENLY investigating is a violation of DOJ policy.
2. At the same time there was a CONFIDENTIAL investigation -- in keeping with DOJ policy -- of the contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian -- which the Mueller investigation subsequently SUBSTANTIATED occurred.
3. Shortly before the election, IN VIOLATION of DOJ policy, REPUBLCICAN Comey announced reopening the Hillary email investigation because emails were found on Anthony Weiner's laptop -- WITOHUT first determining whether those emails were DUPLICATES of emails the DBI had already reviewed. It turned out they were DUPLICATES, so PUBLICLY announcing the reopening of the investigation was a further breach of investigative protocol.
As result, Comey helped elect Trump. And you want to push the nonsense that what Hillary was ALLEGED by REPUBLICANS and Trump did, and Comey's assistance to Trump's campaign, were somehow equivalent!?
Or that Trump's THEFT of GOV'T PROPERTY, some of which is classified, AND his refusal to turn them over to the gov't, AND his LYING that he had turned them all over which was LYING TO THE GOV'T, is the equivalent of Hillary's campaign being destroyed by REPUBLICAN Comey's breaches of DOJ policy, for which HILLARY should be prosecuted!?
Try backing off and relocating your sense of "How to Be HONEST". Trump is NOT the victim, except of his own REFUSAL to take "NO!" even when the "NO!" IS THE LAW.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bonanimathambo8721 Yeah -- I've noticed for decades the "conservative" attacks on liberals. Attacking liberals for bullshit "reasons" isn't tolerance -- you apparently haven't yet learned to use dictionaries to adhere your use of words to their standard definitions.
Or do you view standard definitions as "liberal" therefore to be rejected? If so, then that would explain your incoherence.
The fact is that the Founders were Liberals who established a pluralistic democracy. From "Websters":
"[A] state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in and development of their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization".
And, of course, your false claim to tolerance is to split the United States into two factions: "conservatives" and "liberals," and declare that liberals are the enemies of the United States.
Your "conservatism" is the lowest form of bigotry: you can't handle, and you hate -- the opposite of tolerance -- anyone who is or believes differently than you.
Clarence Thomas gets to express his freedom of speech as LAW -- but let's condemn a law student -- you are a law-illiterate so not qualified to judge -- for having the temerity to criticize Thomas for his backward and extralegal "law"-making.
The cure for you is to learn how to mind your own business -- behave in keeping with the "conservative" mantra of individual RESPONSIBILITY -- and get a life worth living so you no longer have time or inclination to bully and attempt to impose your malicious poison on everyone else.
There are, of course, reasonable limits to "tolerance" -- such as objecting to the elimination of a right -- the right of privacy -- simply because it underpins Court decisions one opposes on extremist and false "religious" grounds -- a "religion" not everyone shares, and under the First Amendment need not share.
FACTS MATTER, against the blatant LYING of the 6 "Federalist Society" religiofreaks on the Court:
1. The 1600s anti-"witch" English judge is misquoted by Alito. That judge in fact held that abortion became illegal at "quickening".
And he based that on the "Bible," which says the same thing.
"Quickening" is when a fetus begins to move within the womb. That is roughly equivalent to the "viability" which had been established in "Roe" and "Casey".
2. The United States is not under the jurisdiction of English law -- recall the "Declaration of Independence" and the phrase therein "dissolve the bonds". Those "bonds" were English law as nominally applied in the colonies. Only nominally because the several colonies had evolved their laws divergent from England into their own independent systems of law.
You don't know the history of anything; you cling to superficial mythologies. Nor is your anti-abortion view informed with cognizance of or account for PROBLEM pregnancies. The state anti-abortion laws being enacted have NO accommodation of the REALITY of problem pregnancies, which can require abortion to save the health and life of the mother.
Last but not least, John Adams was the foremost constitutionalists among the Founders. He wrote that Massachusetts constitution, which was the model for the US Constitution. Two of his fundamental principles:
"A system of Laws, and not of men."
"Justice and the Rule of Law are to be ABOVE politics."
And yet you wallow in politics, lead around by the nose by so-called "conservative" politics which do the opposite of "conserving".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MAXIMA347 You don't know what you're talking about:
"Sex" = anatomy.
"gender" = psychosexual identity.
The two are not always congruent; that's why there are, as example, heterosexuals and homosexuals. And that is in the nature of things.
Beyond that: why is it any of your business what others do in their private lives sexually? What do you go to after that -- those who read books?
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS applies to ALL. There is no exception just because you have an uneducated view stirred to hatred by others.
And you don't actually address the FACT, law-illiterate, that regardless the fact that a Black can't change their skin color, they were subjected to slavery AND MURDER BECAUSE they were DIFFERENT.
Your mindset is ultimately dead set against the EXISTENCE of ANYONE who has DIFFERENT BELIEFS than you. And -- yeah -- you claim you are defending the Constitution -- except, of course, the First Amendment protections of freedom of conscience, belief, speech, and expression, and freedom to choose "religions" other than YOURS, or even NO "religion".
YES: in order to freely choose one's own "religion" one must be free to NOT choose any of the many other "religions".
You aren't about freedom; you're about the "freedom" to hate, the consequences of which without question impacts YOU. "Griswold" -- legalizing contraception -- was based on the RIGHT OF PRIVACY. Thereafter "Roe" was based on the RIGHT OF PRIVACY. Do YOU have a right of privacy? -- not according to THIS Supreme Court. Because the right UNDERLYING those two decisions was the RIGHT OF PRIVACY.
See what happens? When you deny OTHERS their rights you DENY YOURSELF the SAME rights. THAT, child, is EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW: what OTHERS can't do YOU can't do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Corwin1141 The SUBJECT of the amendment is "well regulated Militia".
The "Bill of Rights" was written by the fist Congress -- BOTH Senate and House -- under the newly-ratified Constitution.
The purpose of the Second Amendment (which was originally, as proposed, the fourth) was to establish a NATIONAL DEFENSE relying on the well-regulated Militia.
That is underscored by the second Militia Act -- Constitutional provisions are implemented by means of STATUTES -- enacted on May 8, 1792:
"An act more effectually to provide for the NATIONAL DEFENCE by establishing an uniform MILITIA throughout the United States."
In short: as constitutions are deliberately general in order to accommodate the unforeseen, Constitutional provisions are implemented by means of STATUTES, which are specific. One doesn't "get" from only the Constitution that the well-regulated Militia is REGULATED UNDER law -- it is not the "general population," or a subset of the general population.
And from the Constitution -- it incorporates FOUR Militia Clauses, the Second Amendment the FOURTH in that scheme -- one also learns that the well-regulated Militia is an arm OF gov't, for the DEFENSE of gov't -- which is by definition RULE OF LAW. This is the FIRST of the four:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for" -- by means of STATUTES -- "calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions."
INSURRECTIONS are violent attacks AGAINST GOV'T.
It isn't complicated IF one knows HOW the law is structured: there are three primary sources: legislative history -- in this instance the DEBATES of the WRITING of the "Bill of Rights"/Second Amendment, the Constitution, and the STATUTES IMPLEMENTING Constitutional provisions.
One finds an excellent summary of the distinction between the general "right of the people" and the actual well-regulated Militia in _Presser v. Illinois_, from which this is the holding:
___
(115) ". . . . It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions . . . have . . . the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations . . . . (116) The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine."
1
-
1
-
@DaTooch_e Inform yourself --
___
No law protects private/fake "militia"
This chronology illustrates both the evolution, elaboration, and increasing specificity of law, and its continued consistency over centuries:
____
Militia Act from October 1658 (rendered in contemporary spelling):
"Military, [S.] 11. . . . It is Further Ordered, that henceforth all warrants for impressing [e.g., DRAFTING] & raising of soldiers for any expedition, shall be directed to the Committee of militia of the several Towns who may execute the same by the Constable & the said Committee are hereby impowered & required to suppress all raising of soldiers, but such as shall be by the authority of this government."
For emphasis:
"the said Committee are hereby impowered & required to SUPPRESS all raising of soldiers, but such as shall be by the authority of this government."
The Colonial Laws of Massachusetts. Reprinted from the Edition of 1660, with the Supplements to 1672. Containing Also, the Body of Liberties of 1641. (Boston: Rockwell & Churchill, City Printers, Published by Order of the City Council of Boston, 1889), William H. Whitmore, Record Commissioner, at 179.
In the above, "Committee of Militia" is part of the town gov't. Above the town gov't and "Committee" was a military command structure, in law, which included, at the top, the governor as commander-in-chief of the Militia. The governor was not going to "take up arms" against the gov't/himself.
___
Rendered in contemporary spelling:
At a GENERAL COURT Held at Boston the 3d of May 1676.
This COURT taking into Consideration the great Disappointment the Country hath suffered by reason of non-appearance of Soldiers Impressed [DRAFTED] for several expeditions: Do judge meet that every person Impressed [DRAFTED] as a Soldier for the Service of the Country, and neglecting to make his appearance according to Order: every such Foot Soldier shall pay the sum of four Pounds, and every Trooper shall pay the sum of six Pounds: and if their neglects or refusal be accompanied with Refractoriness, Reflection or Contempt upon Authority, such person shall be punished with Death, or some other Grievous punishment.
And the Committee of Militia in the several Towns where the offence is committed are hereby impowered and required to call before them all such as shall be Delinquents as is above expressed, and on Conviction of their neglect to give Warrant to the Constable to levy the said fines, which said fines shall be improved to purchase Arms for the Towns use; Provided it shall be in the power of the Council upon Petition of any person aggrieved, and just reason alleged and proved to make abatement of the said fines as in their wisdom and discretion they shall judge meet. And it is hereby Ordered that the return of all neglects and defects in the cases aforesaid, be sent to the Committee of Militia in the several Towns, who are hereby required to take care for the strict Execution hereof.
By the COURT Edward Rawson Secr.
The Colonial Laws of Massachusetts. Reprinted from the Edition of 1672, With the Supplements Through 1686. (Boston, MA: Rockwell and Churchill, City Printers, 1890), Edited by William H. Whitmore, at 343.
Law REGULATES -- which includes imposition of PENALTIES.
___
The "Declaration of Independence," which applied exclusively to England, includes a list of grievances against King George III, these two of which are directly on point:
"He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures."
"Legislatures" MAKE LAW, which REGULATE.
"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."
"Civil Power" is the gov't, which is by definition rule of law. As John Adams, who participated in writing the "Declaration," and authored the Massachusetts constitution, said: "A system of Laws, and not of men."
___
June 21, 1788: Ratification of the US Constitution completed:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions."
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia . . . reserving to the States [GOV'TS] respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS."
"Art. 4, S. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and . . . against domestic Violence."
"Amendment I. Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people PEACEABLY to assemble."
"Amendment XIV., S. 3. No person . . . who, having previously taken an oath . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof", shall be eligible for any US or state gov't office, civil or military.
___
The first Congress, both House and Senate, under the newly-ratified Constitution, debated and wrote the proposed Bill of Rights. The Debates of that which became the Second Amendment show its purpose was to establish a National Defense relying on the well-regulated Militia -- standing armies being feared.
September 28, 1789: Proposed Bill of Rights submitted to the states for consideration and ratification consisted of TWELVE proposed amendments; the first two were rejected, making the 3rd the 1st, and making the 4th the 2nd.
December 15, 1791: Ratification of remaining Ten Amendments completed.
___
Constitutional provisions are implemented by means of statutes:
May 2, 1792: "An Act to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions."
May 8, 1792: "An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defense by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States."
More than two years AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, Congress enacted a Militia Act in response to the "Whiskey" insurrection:
November 29, 1794: "An Act to authorize the President to call out and station a corps of Militia, in the four western Counties of Pennsylvania, for a limited time."
And this is how, per Art. I., S. 8., C. 16, the Militia is ARMED:
July 6, 1798: "An Act providing Arms for the Militia throughout the United States.
Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be provided, at the charge and expense of the government of the United States, thirty thousand stand of arms, which shall be deposited by order of the President of the United States, at suitable places, for the purpose of being sold to the governments of the respective States, or the militia thereof, under such regulations, and at such prices as the President of the United States shall prescribe. . . .
___
Source of all US statutes above: The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, from the Organization of the Government in 1789, to March 2, 1845. Vol. I. (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1845), By Authority of Congress, Edited by Richard Peters.
___
From Supreme Court decision _Presser v. Illinois_, 116 U.S. 252 (1886):
"(115) . . . . It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions . . . have . . . the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations . . . . (116) The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine."
___
From _District of Columbia v. Heller_, 554 U.S. 570, 621 (2008) citing _Presser_:
The Second Amendment "does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations".
___
In fact, all 50 states classify such fake "militia" as "paramilitaries" and PROHIBIT them.
Pick your state:
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/our-work/addressing-the-rise-of-unlawful-private-paramilitaries/state-fact-sheets/
___
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bullshit.
Get a clue: when a person claims they have "proof" -- but never produces it -- they don't have proof.
The Boston University School of Medicine did a forensic analysis of the PRIMARY evidence, of which VIDEO was made and broadcast on PBS. The PRIMARY evidence they examined and showed were the photographs and x-rays of JFK's skull. The entry and exit wounds, and the damage to the skull, are exactly as reported by the Warren Commission.
Same goes for Governor Connolly's shirt with the bullet that hit sideways and, because hot, burned the fabric.
Also run was a test of the Italian Mannlicher-Carnero rifle which was purposely designed so that after a given distance from the barrel the bullet "tumbles'. This the bullet scorch on Connolly's shirt showing that the bullet hit sideways.
There is nothing "illegal" in the gov't withholding information to protect national security. But what MATTERS are the claims about documents that cannot, based on the claims being made about them, be known to exist -- but which are nonetheless CLAIMED to exist. And beyond that: the presumed contents of documents which cannot be proven to exist let alone known as to imagined contents.
There is one FBI document -- it was publicly released in 1976 -- that the incompetent conspiracy nuts make claims about, but the contents of which REFUTE. It is an FBI memo written on 11/22/1963 at the Dallas FBI office. It memorializes a phone call from George H. W. Bush with his theory of who the assassin was.
The conspiracy nuts claim that document PROVES that George H. W. Bush was in Dallas on that date and therefore had a role in the assassination. But if one actually READS the document one learns that the phone all by George H. W. Bush originated in MIDLAND Texas, NOT in Dallas.
The same kind of deceit was done with the warrant for arrest of David Koresh of the "Branch Davidians" in the 1990s. It was posted online by Atty. Linda Thompson, and she made claims about it that were DISPROVEN by the actual contents of the warrant. But those who wanted to believe her the anti-gov't hogwash believed what she said of the warrant but DID NOT READ THE WARRANT.
I was 14 when the assassination occurred; and through the decades I read numerous books on the assassination, and went back and forth about it. Remember Marr's Crossfire -- in which he claims there were 4 shooters? Horseshit: the head and skull photos and ex-rays show there was one assassin, from behind, and all bullets entered from behind. Only one hit the skull -- at the top rear -- and blew out through the right temple.
All the bullshit began with readers who are illiterate in how to read written materials -- foremost being Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment. Lane claimed, whether true or not, that he was Oswald's lawyer, and his book was the DEFENSE BRIEF. A BRIEF in a court case IS NOT OBJECTIVE -- it is ONE-SIDED. As a defense lawyer, it was Lane's JOB to declare Oswald innocent, point fingers away from Oswald, and challenge the evidence.
Lane's theory of the case never got tested -- OR PROVEN -- because the case never went to trial. But those who WANT to believe there was a conspiracy, and know nothing about legal process, will swallow what he asserted as if the absolute totally object fact.
Except for the numerous hucksters exploiting the assassination -- and the conspiracy nuts -- for $$$$$$$, the fake conspiracies come out of GRIEF, as attempts to understand that which makes no sense. It makes no sense because we don't know why.
We do know, though, that very shortly after the assassination, Oswald left the area, and on the way to wherever he was going, he murdered Officer Tippett, which was WITNESSED. And when he was caught in the movie theater -- why was he not returning to finish his workday at the depository? -- he had that gun. Are those the actions of a guy who was innocent?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jasons73 Those aren't facts. Those are Trump lies.
This is how it works, MORON:
US intelligence monitors FOREIGN actors, Russians included. If an American wonders into that monitoring -- by, as example, having a phone conversation with a FOREIGN actor, then that is noted, and if necessary investigated. That's what happened to Michael Flynn: intelligence was monitoring the Russian actor, and Flynn called that Russian actor.
No phone taps, no spying.
And let's look at some more facts, sub-literate anti-American:
Trump and his campaign denied having ANY contacts with Russians -- well, there was Michael Flynn who had contact with a Russian agent. The Mueller investigation FORCED the Trump campaign and others around con-man and career criminal Trump to ADMIT they'd had contact with Russian -- after having LIED about it. In the end it was found that there were more than 200 contacts BY the Trump campaign WITH Russian agents.
In addition, the Mueller investigation DOCUMENTED at least half half-dozen instances of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE -- which is a CRIME. But instead of DISHONESTLY avoiding the issue by spewing gibberish let's deal with the PRESENT:
Trump STOLE gov't property, some of which is classified. And he has told a changing series of LIES about since the warrant for search found MORE boxes of STOLEN gov't property AFTER he lied that he'd turned over all he had.
READ the warrant -- or watch CREDIBLE news media -- and the meanings of the three CRIMINAL statutes Trump violated will be explained to you by veteran prosecutors.
Or you can continue to be a law-illiterate anti-American defending a con-man and career criminal who wouldn't give you the time of day even while he sucks your wallet dry.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Tink70 I'm "impressed" with your literacy.
This is a familiar law. Note the date it was enacted:
___
At a
GENERAL COURT
Held at Bofton the 3d of May
1676.
This COURT taking into Confideration the great Diffappointment the Countrey hath fuffred by reafon of non-appearance of Souldiers Impreffed for feveral expeditions: Do judge meet that every perfon Impreffed as a Souldier for the Service of the Country, and neglecting to make his appearance according to Order: every fuch Foot Souldier fhall pay the fum of four Pounds, and every Trooper fhall pay the fum of fix Pounds: and if their neglects or refufal be accompanied with Refractorinefs, Reflection or Contempt upon Authority, fuch perfon fhall be punished with Death, or fome other Grievous punifhment.
And the Committee of Militia in the feveral Towns where the offence is committed are hereby impowered and required to call before them all fuch as fhall be Delinquents as is above expreffed, and on Conviction of their neglect to give Warrent to the Conftable to levy the faid fines, which faid fines fhall be improved to purchafe Arms for the Towns ufe; Provided it fhall be in the power of the Council upon Petition of any perfon agrieved, and juft reafon alleadged and proved to make abatement of the faid fines as in their wifdome and difcretion they fhall judge meet. And it is hereby Ordered that the return of all neglects and defects in the cafes aforefaid, be fent to the Committee of Militia in the feveral Towns, who are hereby required to take care for the ftrict Execution hereof.
By the COURT Edward Rawson Secr.
"The Colonial Laws of Massachusetts. Reprinted from the Edition of 1672, With the Supplements Through 1686." (Boston, MA: Rockwell and Churchill, City Printers, 1890), Edited by William H. Whitmore, at 343.
___
FYI:
___
No law protects private fake "militia":
See _District of Columbia v. Heller_, 554 U.S. 570, 621 (2008), citing _Pressor v. Illinois_, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), both of which are available via "Google" search:
The Second Amendment "does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations".
In fact, all 50 states classify such fake "militia" as paramilitary organizations and PROHIBIT them.
Pick your state:
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/our-work/addressing-the-rise-of-unlawful-private-paramilitaries/state-fact-sheets/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AberdolphLinklr I hear your racism as substitute for knowing what you're talking about.
1. Mexican and Central American criminals are buying guns in Texas and bringing them back to their own countries.
2. I'm not your "friend": I adhere to facts, law and reason. REPUBLICAN Texass Gov. Abbott signed laws eliminating background checks, thereby making it legal for criminals to buy guns legally.
3. Non-criminals will "always" have guns until they kill someone thus making themselves into criminals.
4. The illegal guns in Chicago are trafficked in from lax-gun control REPUBLICAN-controlled Indiana. Illegal guns are trafficked into New York state from Vermont and other states with lax-gun control The solution is FEDERAL law to interdict that illegal inter-state trafficking in order to protect STATES' RIGHTS.
I don't do propaganda, law-illiterate; I do LAW:
___
No law protects private fake "militia":
See _District of Columbia v. Heller_, 554 U.S. 570, 621 (2008), citing _Pressor v. Illinois_, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), both of which are available via "Google" search:
The Second Amendment "does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations".
In fact, all 50 states classify such fake "militia" as paramilitary organizations and PROHIBIT them.
Pick your state:
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/our-work/addressing-the-rise-of-unlawful-private-paramilitaries/state-fact-sheets/
___
And this is a familiar law -- gun control law has existed since the advent of guns.
Note its date of enactment:
___
AT A COUNCIL Held at Boston, March 28, 1678.
Whereas many Complaints have been made, that feveral Persons have been killed by such as have pretended to have fhot at Fowle, birds &c. and that in or near Highwayes; and many take the boldnefs upon them, Youths and grown Perfons, too frequently to fhoot within the Limits of Towns, Orchards, Gardens, &c. with bullets, greater or fmaller fhot, on pretence of fhooting at Marks, Birds, Fowle &c. whereby Perfons are endangered to be killed in their Gardens, Orchards, or adjacent Commons; To prevent fuch inconveniences and mifcheifs for the future,
It is hereby Declared and Ordered, That all or any Perfon or Perfons of what age or Condition foever, that fhall henceforth prefume to fhoot off any Gun or Guns, charged with Bullet or Bullets, Swan, Goofe, or other fhot towards any Mark or place that the Militia in fuch Town or Towns have not appointed; or fo near or into any Houfe, Barn, Garden, Orchards or Highwayes in any town or towns of this Jurifdiction, whereby any perfon or perfons fhall or may be killed, wounded, or otherwife damaged, fuch perfon or perfons fo offending fhall be proceeded againft either as Murtherers, of fuch as have wounded or damaged any perfon or perfons in fuch place or places, fhall be liable to anfwer it, and to make full fatiffaction in all refpects to fuch perfon or perfons both for cure and damage; and be alfo liable to fuch further punifhment as the Authority of the place that hath Cognizance of the offence fhall appoint : And where either they be Servants or Youths under their Parents or Mafters and fhall not be able to make fuch fatifaction, fuch Parents or mafters fhall be liable to make full and due fatifaction in all respects : And the Select men of each town are hereby appointed to fee that this be put in execut[ion.]
By the Council. Edward Rawson Secr'
____________
William Whitmore, "The Colonial Laws of Massachusetts-Bay. Reprinted from the Edition of 1672, with the Supplements Through 1686" (Boston: Rockwell and Churchill, City Printers, 1890), Edited by William H. Whitmore, at 349.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@billy909420 He was pushing a "narrative": a defense of Clarence Thomas.
I suggest you look at the decisions targeted by Clarence Thomas for overturning based on his and his fellow extremist Justices denial that there is a right of privacy.
Get the clue: underlying "Roe" and all the decisions targeted is the RIGHT OF PRIVACY, which Thomas and his cohorts DENY EXISTS because the words "right of privacy" do not appear in the Constitution. That denial applies across the board, not only to those decisions.
It was stunning that one commenter who views the mainstream media as "biased" stated that he'd heard this media outlet is "biased," but then discovered it is "conservative" -- meaning NO "biased". Apparently "conservatives" don't recognize that, whereas facts are neutral, like them or not -- "conservative" is a BIAS.
Again: legitimate journalism reports the facts, regardless whether "liked". Picking a fight with an interviewee in order to defend a "conservative" Justice is not journalism; it is politicized "opinion" infotainment for those who don't know the difference between journalism and propaganda. Who prefer propaganda to facts they don't like.
The mainstream media conforms to a standard that has existed in print journalism for many, many decades: there is the news -- facts -- and, as a SEPARATE SECTION, "Opinion". FOX obliterated the line by mixing the two, and then leaving out the facts altogether. That is what "conservative" media has become: full-on propaganda presented as "fact".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1