Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "NBC News"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MM-vj4gc Michael Cohen was the first to predict that, if Trump lost the election, then Trump wouldn't go peacefully. And Trump didn't go peacefully. So Cohen's prediction on that point was proven TRUE.
I accept truth, when it is truth, regardless source.
As well, when he testified UNDER OATH, he provided HARD EVIDENCE to back up his statements.
John Dean did his time, without complaint, and subsequently vindicated himself. But unlike Cohen he was not a hatchet man. So it will take a significantly longer, if ever, for Cohen to entirely vindicate himself.
1
-
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
-
@Anon54387 Ahistorical gibberish -- and you've obviously never read either the Constitution or the "Declaration of Independence," which latter has never been law, and applied EXCLUSIVELY to ENGLAND.
Moreover, the Founders "attacked" and "overthrew" ZERO gov'ts, because the gov'ts in question were all along under the control of the Founders.
All the rest of your gibberish is totally ignorant in that it REJECTS the very rule of law in which are secured the "rights" you claim. You can't have it both ways.
"Revolutionary" Sam Adams was a propagandist, and his goal was not "revolution" but the re-establishment of Puritan "virtue" -- and he never missed and opportunity to foment violence up to and including killing.
Last but not least, from the Constitution you've never bothered to READ:
"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.
To "take up arms" againist the gov't is INSURRECTION; research what the Founders did to "Shays's" and "Whiskey" insurrections -- which latter was CRUSHED AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Anon54387 The British order pertaining to Lexington-Concord were (1) to seize cannon and powder -- which were under the control of the gov't, and (2) to not seize anything private.
You are dirt-ignorant of the actual history. This is how many gov'ts the Founders "attacked" and "overthrew":
ZERO.
Because all the gov'ts in question were all along under the control of the colonists.
The "Declaration of Independence," which you've NEVER READ, applied EXCLUSIVELY to ENGLAND -- the Founders were not declaring independence from themselves. We know that because the "grievances" in it are directed by name at King George III. These two of those grievances are directly on point:
"He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures."
ALL military forces, including well-REGULATED Militia, were kept strictly UNDER the RULE OF LAW. And the commander-in-chief, also established in law, was the state's GOVERNOR.
"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."
The "Civil Power" is the gov't. OBVIOUSLY the Founders objected to ANY military force being OUTSIDE the rule of law, because they were opposed to MILITARY OVERTHROW of their gov'ts -- whether by standing army, or by armed gang engaged in INSURRECTION.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@A G Schiff's Intelligence Committee DID SUBPOENA Bolton, and his deputy Kupperman, moron,. Kuppermann went to court, and Bolton refused, saying he'll rely on what the court rules on Kuppermann.
FOX didn't tell you that because FOX is lying to you.
They also subpoenaed McGahn, who went to court, the court told him to take it to Congress, and he appealed.
Meanwhile, the days until the next election, which Trump has repeatedly and publicly invited other foreign powers to subvert, are diminishing.
All of this has been explained, over and over again, by the Democrats, and in the media,. all of which is INDEPENDENTLY DOCUMENTED.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Have YOU read the Constitution -- ALL of which is in effect at the same time --
"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, [and] SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS."
"Art. I., s. 8., C. 16. The Congress shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia".
That isn't Jefferson, but these are GRIEVANCES AGAINST King George III in the "Declaration of Independence, which you've ALSO never read:
"He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures."
"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."
The "Civil Power" is the GOVERNMENT -- RULE OF LAW.
The TYRANNY is the Janurary 6 insurrection-- which the Founders classifed as TREASON. And the SEDITION -- undermining the rule of law -- in Maricopa, AZ.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danjenkins8981 Not at all. The Committee hearing witnesses are all but perhaps two REPUBLICAN TRUMPERS. The evidence the Committee has been presented is "cross-examined" by the prosecutors on staff for veracity and corroboration.
Or do you mean the DOJ investigation? First, learn how investigations are conducted, then realize that indictments are tried in court against a defense based on the same evidence.
So none of it is "one-sided".
During the House impeachment inquiry of "Watergate, the Republicans on the Committee defend Nixon by questioning witnesses and evidence, but in the end the evidence was overwhelming and they voted to impeach.
Today's Republican Party -- such as Gym Jordan -- doesn't govern or deal in good faith: we see that when a Committee is holding a hearing on a specific topic, and the Republicans -- Gym Jordan among the worst -- engage in food-fights in effort to subvert the Committee process.
In addition, Gym Jordan is a material witness: we do not have the defendant in a proceeding sit as judge on the defendant for reasons that should be obvious.
But if you want to erroneously claim that the Committee (or the DOJ) process is "one-sided," then blame REPUBLICAN Kevin McCarthy. He was FOR a commission with equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats, all having equal powers.
He had a Republican negotiate that deal with the Democrats -- then, when the deal was agreed McCarthy pulled the rug out from under it. Republican Senator McConnell did the same.
So all that was left was to establish a Committee to investigate the insurrection. McCarthy tried to put two material witnesses on the Committee -- Gym Jordan and Banks -- to which Pelosi correctly objected. So McCarthy pulled all the Republicans from the Committee, except Liz Cheney and Kinzinger, because they were known to be OBJECTIVE.
Actually, of course, neither the Committee nor the DOJ processes is one-sided: they are functioning as Congressional committees are intended to function: doing the work, instead of turning everything into a circus. And the DOJ is conducting its investigation in keeping with procedures established over hundreds of years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@casper3130 Gun control law has existed since the advent of guns. This is a familiar law -- note the date it was enacted:
___
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.
___
And as law evolves, I have numerous other subsequent and more extensive gun control laws extending to and through the 1700s and into the 1800s. ALL enacted by the Founders.
1
-
1
-
@billbillerton6122 This is gun control, and a familiar law. Not the date it was enacted:
___
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