Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "CNN"
channel.
-
1500
-
1200
-
1100
-
777
-
759
-
531
-
498
-
467
-
436
-
368
-
315
-
262
-
242
-
233
-
221
-
216
-
205
-
181
-
169
-
164
-
157
-
156
-
149
-
144
-
128
-
127
-
126
-
122
-
120
-
112
-
106
-
103
-
100
-
90
-
89
-
89
-
86
-
85
-
80
-
72
-
68
-
67
-
63
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
60
-
59
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
49
-
48
-
46
-
45
-
44
-
43
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
@IAMNOTAYOUTUBER The fake Shaman AND his lawyer ARE LYING on that point: the judge saw VIDEO of the Shaman walking into the Capital on his own initiative.
And if you saw the video in the Senate chamber, where the fake Shaman was bellowing nonsensical gibberish, and left the threatening note for Pence, there is a cop there -- by himself against the mob -- who is calm, and working to persuade the mob to leave. That was smart policing: he was outnumbered.
And the cop who was dragged into the mob and beaten, who radio, badge, and ammunition was stolen, and the mob tried to get his gun while shouting, "Shoot him with his own gun!" later, in interview, said that you get the idea to shoot, but how many could he have shot before he was overwhelmed?
Certainly there are members of the Capital Police who are racists, and Trump supporters -- some 20 or so have been suspended pending investigation. The question is whether they had the AUTHORITY to simply let people in, while there is a metal detector at the entrance.
But that isn't what happened with the fake Shaman.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Kevin Newhart At least Democrats don't engage in insurrection, which the Founders classified as TREASON, and for which they sentenced insurrectionists to death. And as for the "Whiskey" rebels, that was AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, in keeping with the first Militia Clause in the Constitution:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS."
The second Militia Clause begins:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The Congress hall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia."
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
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
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
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
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
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
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
There is no "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't. The word for that crime is INSURRECTION. From the Constitution:
"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."
And from _Presser v. Illinois:
(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."
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
@troycote9447 Educate yourself, dunce --
___
"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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@blacklung8433 I've from time to time seen that assertion -- but never with any EVIDENCE for it.
"Shays's" insurrection occurred under the Articles of Confederation, AFTER the so-called "revolution," and it was suppressed by the well-regulated Militia, and the insurrectionists were charged with, tried for, and convicted of treason, and sentenced to death. There was no war at the time.
Under the Constitution, and AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, the "Whiskey" insurrection occurred, and it was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington. The insurrections were charged with, tried for, and convicted of treason, and sentenced to death. And there was no war at the time.
The treason clause says nothing about war, except that of "levying war against the United States," or essentially siding with the enemy. Wars are not conducted exclusively or even only by militaries.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
They are NOT "militia" --
See _District of Columbia v. Heller_, 554 U.S. 570, 621 (2008), citing _Pressor v. Illinois_, 116 U.S. 252 (1886):
The Second Amendment "does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations".
From _Presser_:
"(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."
That is not a new idea; this law is from October 1658:
"Military, [S. 11] . . . . It is Further Ordered, that henceforth all warrants for impressing [e.g., drafting] & raifing of fouldiers for any expedition, fhall be directed to the Committy of militia of the feverall Townes who may execute the fame by the Coftable & the faid Committee are hereby impowred & required to fupprefs all raifing of fouldiers, but fuch as fhall be by the authority of this government."
In contemporary English:
"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."
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 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/
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
-
@olecrowey As concerns Clarence Thomas?
Different classes, races, and individuals have different experiences. What you are saying is that the experience unique to African-Americans in the United States is irrelevant. And you are obviously wrong -- and I suspect you know you are wrong.
The many efforts to have Congress adopt an anti-lynching law were not defeated by the fact that lynching was almost exclusively done to African-Americans. They were defeated by racist approval of the lynching of African-Americans.
In short: stop accusing others of "racism" by asserting a racist "argument" -- by which you call yourself out as being a racist. Racists have been whining for decades against Affirmative Action because it "benefits" as small minority of minorities. They DON'T whine about the fact that the vast majority "quota" is WHITE.
Yes you are racist: you focus on the nominee's skin color, and that is your bogus measure of her "merit". To you she is Black, therefore has NO merit.
What "merit" has Amy Coney-Barrett as compared with any of the potential Biden nominees other than skin color? The person most commentors believe will be nominated by Biden has been a judge for years longer than was Coney-Barrett. That potential nominee has also authored decisions of substantial consequential Constitutional merit, whereas Coney-Barrett's written decisions would fill one slim volume.
That potential nominee also happens to have been the author of the decision knocking down ex-president Trump's BOGUS assertion of "executive privilege," which the Supreme Court UPHELD 8-1. The only Justice who voted against it was Clarence Thomas, whose wife is instrumental in presenting cases to that very court -- which, were Thomas ETHICAL, would REQUIRE he RECUSE himself from those cases, but he does not because he is not.
MERIT INCLUDES ETHICS.
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
-
Doug Lowe The Second Amendment is part of the Constitution. The ENTIRE Constitution is in effect at the same time. This is in the Constitution you gun-nuts have never 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, SUPPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions.
There is NO RIGHT to "take up arms" against the gov't/RULE OF LAW -- see the Founders' responses to "Shayss" and "Whiskey" rebellions. Short ad sweat: the rebels were charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to DEATH.
And this:
Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia.
The topic of the Second Amendment is the well regulated Militia, which is "the people" of "the right of the people". It is REGULATED under both FEDERAL and STATE CONSTITUTIONS AND LAWS. It is not an ad hoc gaggle of private illiterate gun-nut assholes who are addicted to IQ-destroying lead.
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
-
@ufarkingicehole MSNBC showed the ENTIRE video, as did other media outlets -- except such as FOX.
But now we have the UNDER OATH TESTIMONY of Travis McMichael, and he actually confessed details that made it clear that Arbery wasn't a threat, and that HE didn't feel threatened, and that their alleged effort to effect a "citizen's arrest" was based ENTIRELY on ASSUMPTIONS that were FALSE.
And there were other FACTS: there was SUBSEQUENT video SHOWN BY THE MEDIA of a WHITE couple who did exactly what Arbery did: entered the UNSECURED -- therefore NO "breaking-and-entering" -- new-construction house, looked around, and then left -- without "stealing" anything.
There were NO "No Trespassing" signs.
Neither Arbery nor the white couple violated ANY law.
BUT: three white men, all three armed, one Black guy, unarmed, and it's "self-defense"? Only racists would defend that BASELESS claim.
AGAIN: they had PHONES; they could have called 911. INSTEAD they took the law into their own hands, killed a man for no reason EXCEPT that he was SUSPICIOUS because BLACK, and now they are properly on trial for MURDER.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sadienailedit7467 A jumble of right-wing nonsense. But throw in the cord "constitutional" and that makes it sure, eh?
First, the essence of democracy is elections, and the Constitution stipulates that there SHALL be elections. Trying to get around DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATION -- that the United States is a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY -- doesn't cut it.
Second, "taxation without representation" was resolved during the 1760s, before the so-called "revolution" (it was actually a civil war). And it was a false slogan, as at the time Benjamin Franklin represented the colonies in Parliament.
Further, it was a defense of SMUGGLING -- which was a crime (research the seizure of John Hancock's ship "Liberty"). England lowered the price of East India Company tea below that of the SMUGGLED tea, and the Founders got their panties in a twist and whined about it.
In sum: being blind to the warts of US history is not "patriotism"; it is deliberate ignorance.
"Most people"? Have you FACTS to back that up? Or is that simply a variation on Trump's always-unevidenced propaganda technique "many people say"?
As for Bolton's claim that he was willing to testify at the impeachment IF SUBPOENED: patriotism doesn't require a subpoena.
What you dunces NEVER include -- why would you, in view of the fact that you REJECT it? -- is the RULE OF LAW. Many of the issues involved have ALREADY BEEN LITIGATED, and this specific initiative is cognizant of and compliant with the law. And, of course, the hysterical extremist right-wing -- which rejects the rule of law altogether -- will take it to court, and we'll see how that plays out.
Paranoia is unhealthy. The cure for the non-clinical variety is EDUCATION.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@marylamb7707 The reading comprehension problem is yours: I REFUTED your political generalization, your false effort to pretend that "republic" and "democracy" are the same thing, with a specific, that specific being LAW.
Those who DENY the United States is a democracy assert that it is a REPUBLIC.
You always assert both that the majority is "centrist" -- which is the fact, but also claim you are a "conservative," which is not a centrist. And, of course, in your prior comment you slung that you view as a dirty word: "left"
And you avoid that refutation -- no mention of LAW -- by engaging in personal attack. Because you make no effort to learn the fundamental point I made:
"Justice and the Rule of Law are to be ABOVE politics." -- John Adams.
John Adams was the foremost constitutionalist among the Founders. He wrote the Massachusetts constitution, establishing separation of powers, which was the model for the US Constitution.
In NO constitution will you find the term "conservative" in order to elevate that as "law". Rather, the Founders were liberals who established as liberal DEMOCRACY, NOT a "liberal republic".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Mikesorrento3344
"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.
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
To say that Sanders is more of a Democrat than Republican Bloomberg doesn't make sense -- which I attribute to you being a newbie to politics. In other words, it is lame if you believe it's a defense of Sanders to change the subject to to attacking someone else. In still other words: Sanders and Trumpp "fans" are exactly the same: criticize the candidate, and they attack the critic -- which isn't a defense of the candidate.
WITHOUT your corrupt "reasoning: the FACT is that Sanders IS NOT a Democrat, isn't REGISTERED with the Democratic Party as a Democrat, and is far-Left even of Progressivism.
Another FACT Sanders "fans" ignore: during his TWENTY-FIVE YEARS in Congress, Sanders was TOTALLY INEFFECTIVE. So tell us: how, suddenly, will he BECOME effective, while his "fans" are boasting that he's NEVER CHANGED since his earliest years in politics. What that means in REALITY is that he HASN'T LEARNED OR GROWN, for if he had, his views would have CHANGED.
Ultimately, Sanders "fans" is defending that which is actually inflexibility and a REFUSAL to COMPROMISE. COMPROMISE is the ESSENCE of DEMOCRACY. And THAT is why he both HASN'T CHANGED, and has for exactly as long been ENTIRELY INEFFECTIVE.
Compare that to Warren, who is an Eleanor Roosevelt Progressive, ACCOMPLISHED the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau -- while at the very same time Sanders accomplished NOTHING -- except to vote AGAINST the "Brady Bill" FIVE TIMES, and voting to PROTECT the gun industry, BOTH of which were top priorities of the far-RIGHT ANTI-Socialist terrorist organization NRA.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@another4778 This is utter nonsense:
"mass mail ballots blanketing the country".
You don't know HOW elections work.
But tell us, moron: why 60-plus courts, including TRUMP judges, DISMISSED Trump's FRAUDULENT "election fraud" cases.
And why the TRUMP Supreme Court refused to even HEAR his FRAUDLENT "election fraud" claim.
BECAUSE, moron, there was and is NO EVIDENCE of fraud.
GET IT THROUGH YOUR SELF-DESTRUCTIVE HATE: EVERY election, on the STATE level, is AUTOMATICALLY AUDITED, AS REQUIRED BY LAW, to ensure that the certified number is correct. There were, as example, THREE audits in Georgia, including one demanded by Trump, and ALL THREE found the same results:
TRUMP LOST.
ALL the battleground states Trump challenged conducted post-election audits. The results were THE SAME as the immediate results, in EACH of those states.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bryanb3352 Read this as many times as necessary to penetrate your ignorance --
___
"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: Second Edition"_, 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.
2
-
@bryanb3352 Try again --
___
"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.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It's obvious that more guns are not the solution to gun violence.
___
Refuting the NRA's Two Second Amendment Lies
The gun industry's propaganda arm 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's 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's Debates of the writing of the Amendment.
The facts from those Debates:
The purpose of the Amendment was to establish a National Defense, relying on the well-regulated Militia, as substantiated by the Militia Act of May 8, 1792:
"An act more effectually to provide for the NATIONAL DEFENCE by establishing an uniform MILITIA throughout the United States."
The Militia is not an individual; it is a public institution and an arm OF gov't, regulated and governed under both Federal and state constitutions and laws. 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, via its propaganda front NRA, claims that Madison wrote the Second Amendment. If both of those are facts, then the word "people" is consistent in meaning from the 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 the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment, which became the Second Amendment -- but which it never quotes. [In brackets 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" debated regarding the amendment was the last clause --
": but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." --
That clause is clarified by this provision in the New York constitution adopted on April 20, 1777:
"XL. And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times here-after, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service. That all such of the inhabitants of this State being of the people called Quakers as, from scruples of conscience, may be averse to the bearing of arms, be therefrom excused by the legislature; and do pay to the State such sums of money, in lieu of their personal service, as the same may, in the judgment of the legislature, be worth.[FN 13] And that a proper magazine of warlike stores, proportionate to the number of inhabitants, be, forever hereafter, at the expense of this State, and by acts of the legislature, established, maintained, and continued in every county in this State.
"FN 13. This exemption-fee was fixed at £10 per annum by the act of April 3, 1778, organizing the militia of the State."
And that clause --
": but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." --
was obviously voted down before the proposed amendment was submitted to the states for consideration. Thus the Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring not only the existing state constitutions and laws which eventuated in the US Constitution, and the Congress's own legislative history -- the Debates of the writing of the Amendment are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- could Scalia falsely hold that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right".
2. That the purpose of the Second 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 execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions".
And on May 2, 1792, the Congress enacted this Militia Act:
"An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."
And the Founders themselves twice established the precedent on the point:
Under the Articles of Confederation, "Shays's" insurrection was suppressed by the state's Militia, reinforced by a DRAFT, and the insurrectionists charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
Under the Constitution -- more than two years AFTER the Amendment was ratified -- the "Whiskey" insurrection was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington, and the insurrectionists 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 outlier Heller and its progeny.
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@raptureready5004 I am 76. My pacifism crystalized in September, 1965 of my 17th year, during the Vietnam era. I was active -- nonviolently -- against that involvement beginning in June, 1965 through until its end 10 years later.
I'm against killing of any kind, including murder.
I'm one of those "Boomers" you history-illiterates attack. Let's see if you can sustain interest in an issue for longer than five minutes -- you knew nothing and cared not at all about the problems in the health care industry until you "thought" this murder was an opportunity to stir the pot for more violence.
Those problems impact mostly the elderly. I've been confronting them directly for more than 10 years.
Violence only has one result: more violence. But, ignorant and law-illiterate punk, ours is "A system of Laws, and not of men." -- John Adams. I defend the rule of law because it is the ultimate bulwark against chaos, out of which arises tyranny. Rule of law that too many blindly ignore, reject, and attack. Perhaps you get your defense of murder and domestic terrorism from Trump and the MAGA dregs who LOVE your contribution to their violent chaos and terrorism.
"Justice and the Rule of Law are to be ABOVE politics." -- John Adams. Note how Republicans, Trump, and MAGA, substitute politics for rule of law. You are indistinguishable from them.
Oh? -- you don't yet see that you have become the very thing you (claim to) rail against?
A few more facts that matter:
My generation of "Boomers" not only got the US out of Vietnam but also ended the draft.
What have YOU don't against killing and war? Defending murder and domestic terrorism is PRO-war.
We showed that a Vice-President (Agnew) could be got.
We showed that a president (Nixon) could be got.
We mainstreamed the environmental movement -- which is why your generation is aware of it. (I learned about Climate change in junior high/middle school science in the early 1960s.)
We invented the personal computer.
We invented computer bulletin boards, and email communications.
We invented the Internet.
We invented -- for better and worse -- "social media".
What have you done for the world? Accused us "Boomers" of "fucking up the world" because so astonishingly history-illiterate that you don't know that the world has always been fucked up? Compare that with the list above of the few accomplishments of my generation.
Instead of hating -- you're "anti-war"? -- on "Boomers" -- we won't be around much longer -- focus on the assholes in YOUR generation; there are plenty, and you're stuck with them. The best you can do is to not be one of them. But you aren't doing well in that concern -- personally attacking me because you haven't a response to the ISSUE: defending murder and domestic violence is immoral and promotes more of the same. If it gets further out of control and there are more shoot-outs in the streets, you'll hopefully take a SERIOUS look at your claim to be "anti-war".
___
From "A Man for All Seasons":
In the following, Roper was Thomas More's hot-headed and impulsive son-in-law--
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you -- where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws, from coast to coast -- man's laws, not God's -- and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
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
-
@arjaygee Suggest you read more of the Constitution than the misinterpreted phrase ripped out of the controlling and limited context of the Second Amendment, the subject of which is well-regulated Militia, for which "the right of the people to [keep and] arms" is a redundancy incorporated from the four state constitution Militia Clauses on which it was based --
"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".
Insurrection is "Levying war against the United States," as was the Confederate insurrection, which was TREASON.
I have the advantage of researching these issues for more than thirty years. The FOUNDERS prosecuted the "Shays's" insurrectionists under the Articles of Confederation -- charging them with, trying them for, and convicting them of, TREASON, and sentencing them to DEATH.
And the FOUNDERS prosecuted the "Whiskey insurrectionists, under the Constitution, and AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, charging them with, trying them them for, and convicting them of, TREASON, and sentencing them to DEATH.
Do you really wish to assert that the Confederate insurrection was NOT "Levying war against the United States"?
The First Amendment also accommodates Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. by protecting PEACEBLE assembly; VIOLENT assembly is ILLEGAL. And when that VIOLENT assembly is an attack on gov't, it is INSURRECTION, and that is OBVIOUS TREASON.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@arjaygee Violent attack on the gov't is insurrection. The intent of the insurrection is to overthrow the gov't. The intent to overthrow the gov't is TREASON.
It's in the Constitution.
Apparently you believe that, in order to call an insurrection "insurrection," and therefore "treason," the Congress must first issue a "just in case" "declaration of war," in advance of an unexpected insurrection -- and only THEN can it be called treason.
There was no war, and no war declared, after the so-called "revolution," when "Shays's" rebellion occurred. The same goes for the "Whiskey" insurrection: there was no war, and no war declared. Nonetheless, in both instances, they were insurrections, and the insurrectionists were charged with, tried for, and convicted of TREASON.
As said, the themes are consistent from the legal history leading up to and beyond those insurrections. The definitions of the words didn't change from Articles of Confederation to Constitution, and the responses were identical.
One of the police officers who testified to to the Select Committee said that one of the insurrections said to him directly: "We are here to overthrow the gov't." Another of those law-illiterate crackpots, as he was walking into the Senate chamber said, "Why don't we set up a gov't while we are here?" There was already a gov't "set up," but the intent was to overthrow the existing gov't.
The Constitution address that:
"Art. I., S. 8., c. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia[/National Guard] to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, [and] SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS."
The Civil War was an insurrection by the seceding states, levying war against the United States, and thus was TREASON.
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
-
"No Collusion"?
Trump's July 27, 2016 Solicitation of Crime with Russia: the Law v. Trump.
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.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rekcusdoo Yes, sure, you have a Juris Doctorate, which is why you don't know that the mainstream media interviews veteran prosecutors when the issue is LAW. In addition:
___
"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.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rekcusdoo So you're a Trumpeter, claiming to have a "Juris Doctorate," admitting you're not a medical doctor and yet judging medical doctors' informed views.
You assert that the veteran prosecutors I've named quoted the law "wrong" -- but don't provide a single example. Because you're an alleged "Juris Doctor" who doesn't know that you are responsible for not only your assertions buts also to back them up.
In an early comment you asserted that Watergate was a "nothing burger". Watergate began with a burglary -- which is a CRIME, not a "nothing burger". Judge Sirica, a REPUBLICAN, broke the case opening by hammering them with stiff sentences that persuaded them to talk.
Those burglars were also paid "hush money" -- bribery is a crime -- which were tracked to C.R.E.E.P. -- the Committee to Reelect the President -- whose chair was Nixon's Attorney General John Mitchell. Investigation found that he, John Mitchell, approved the hush payments. In other words: he committed a CRIME.
And Mitchell was one of at least 42 Nixon administration officials and/convicted for their crimes in behalf of Nixon.
You, with your alleged "Juris Doctorate," aren't playing with the typical Trumpeter, who is dumber than dead rocks. I was in my late 20s during Watergate and followed all the fine detail in both print and broadcast media. I wasn't born yesterday and have an education in law.
"A system of Laws, and not of men." -- John Adams.
"Justice and the Rule of Law are to be ABOVE politics." -- John Adams.
Take your rejection of the rule of law to the "FOX" comments section -- if they aren't blocking comments in order to suppress critical alternative views.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@baanjones5910 No mental "catchers mitt" to comprehend the information that fits the mitt.
They don't know basic civics -- how the gov't is structured and is to function. Per the Constitution, "We the people" are the gov't; instead they are of the crackpot view that the gov't is a foreign, hostile entity.
And they have no idea how much Federal monies support, as example, their infrastructure -- I'm certain that with all the hurricanes they love it when the FEDERAL gov't's FEMA shows up, which is funded by TAXES from ALL 50 states.
It's extremely difficult when people too stupid to understand the difference between fact and "opinion," fact and nonsense, rely willy-nilly on a mishmash of sources but trust only those that confirm their paranoid suspicions and existing ignorance.
They will tell you, "They ALL lie!" but if you endeavor to pursue that issue -- no, they ALL do not lie -- one begins to encounter the usual right-wing conspirabunk they swallow and regurgitate.
Push a little further about the FACTS about such as Trump's career criminality, as example, or even the EVIDENCE-based indictments and they will literally run away in order to NOT hear it.
Trying to educate them about how the gov't works and one runs into a cloud of obstructing carp about "They ALL lie!" even though one is talking about structure and functioning of fov't, not about persons.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rudee315 Watch the video so your comments actually deal with the issues:
You don't know why she postponed he case EITHER. But we know what you WANT to believe: the lifelong con man and criminal Trump is actually honest, contrary to all the EVIDENCE that PROVES those facts.
Trump has lost THREE cases -- all adjudicated so by juries of Trump's peers without their politics being known or relevant. In one of those cases he was adjudicated as being a RAPIST.
Judge Canon is a TRUMP appointee, and she came from the "Federalist Society," about which you don't seem to know anything, even that it exists, and is opposed to YOUR interests.
So is Alito from the "Federalist Society," who has shown by his actions that he supports the criminals who engaged in the January 6th insurrection. Alito swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution; the Constitution includes the following:
"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.
Because the Constitution PROHIBITS insurrections.
On the panel is a judge. She points to the inexperience and lack of confidence of Judge Canon as ONE reason for her FAILING to actually rule on motions instead of letting them pile up unaddressed while postponing a case of paramount importance and seriousness. Had she sufficient maturity she would ask senior judges for guidance. Or, if honest, would ask to be removed from the case because she is in over her head.
But she has also made rulings that favor Trump's FALSEHOODS about the "Presidential Records Act" -- which means the exact opposite of his claim.
As for this part of your comment:
"so people first do your search then open your mouth, there is a reason for everything."
It is YOUR responsibility to do the [re]search to back up YOUR assertions, instead of lazily -- and stupidly -- expecting everyone else to fulfill YOUR responsibility FOR you.
The judge on the panel has credibility. You have no credibility.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is no "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't -- the legal term for which is INSURRECTION; that's why we have VOTING.
From the Constitution:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The COGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions."
And Presser v. Illinois succinctly states why the well-regulated Militia/National Guard is governed and regulated UNDER the gov't as an arm OF gov't:
"(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."
The FEDERAL gov't has the same authority by the Constitutional provision authorizing it to FEDERALIZE state militia/National Guard, as it did in opposition to the "Whiskey" insurrection, which was crushed AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ANGRYBIRD-8 American national security has established security structures that defend the country. You call it "hegemony". So tell us, history-illiterate: what are the three basic purposes of NATO?
And don't leave out Russia's hegemony by being expansionist by, as example, invading Ukraine based on the claim that NATO members are on the other side of the Russian border and therefore a "threat" to Russia. THINK IT THOROUGH:
Putin is threatening to invade actual NATO members. What would be the result? NATO members would STILL be on the Russian border, and he would characterize THEM as "threats".
NATO is a mutual DEFENSE pact against historically-expansionist -- hegemonic -- Russia, not really different than the the mutual defense pact "Confederation of New England Colonies" of the 1600s.
The enemy of stability in the world order is Russia, and North Korea, who are hegemonic, not the United States -- except when the Republicans, like Kissinger and Colin Powell are in charge of foreign policy. For them -- for McCain -- it's never talking diplomacy; it's always go immediately to "Bomb, bomb, bomb." LBJ is attacked for escalating the number of troops in Vietnam -- but those same people DON'T attack Nixon for EXPANDING the war beyond Vietnam into neutral Cambodia and Laos.
You need to learn HISTORY -- and not only the far-Left criticism of the US doing anything at all in the world, but also those of the adversaries against which US national defense is structured. NATO is the first line of defense of the UNITED STATES against historically-expansionist Russia. Destroy NATO -- as RUSSIA wants -- and it's UNITED STATES boots on the ground in Europe for a THIRD time.
And you can be certain that that would result in YOUR ass being DRAFTED.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jman6214 Well, you've got an ENTITLED candidate, and his "fans," who believe they should be able to DICTATE to the Democratic Party what it WILL BE AN DO, from OUTSIDE the Party. They demand respect for their poppycock, but have no conception of respect for OTHERS.
In 2016, Sanders showed himself to be a vindictive prick, which his "fans" mistake for "principle". Even though not a Democrat, because of his prolonged whining of, "I'm a VICTIM!" he was allowed to participate in writing the rules for this go-around. And NOW he's bitching AGAINST those rules because they are the opposite of an outcome he DEMANDS. Look at Iowa, which cuacus is the same as it has been for decades, and is a three-step process: step one is the voete-count, which is not the determining factor; the third step is awarding of delegates, which is what counts. So what did Sanders do when he got fewer delegates? -- he claimed he got more votes, therefore WON.
When he likes the rules, he uses them as a cudgel against everyone else. When he doesn't like the rules, he rejects them, and whines about being a "victim," and uses THAT as a cudgel.
He's as dishonest as the day is long, if not longer. And the entitled CHILDREN who call themselves his "fans" don't see his manipulations because they do the same int their own lives. And their central corruption is accusing OTHERS of being "corrupt" -- without ever providing a shred of EVIDENCE that isn't unadulterated name-calling.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JohnDoe-cl4oo "That makes no sense considering a dictatorship requires Government."
I didn't say they make sense.
"The literal constitution highlights that government was intended to be limited, "
Where does it say that? What the Founders wanted was to establish a STRONG CENTRAL FEDERAL gov't SUPREME over the states.
And the stipulations that the Constitution can be amended, and stipulates how that is to be done, means the document is progressive, and intended to last be being responsive to changes in reality.
And, again, the Federal Constitution is EXPRESSLY the SUPREME Law of the Land.
"along with the bill of rights and what the founders actually discussed."
Yes: the Bill of Rights constrains GOV'T -- including state gov'ts where the Supreme Court has held so. Thus the Second Amendment prevents the Federal gov't from preventing the states keeping their well-regulated Militia. AT THE SAME TIME the Federal Constitution includes these provisions:
"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 respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS."
Shortly after ratifying the Bill of Rights the Congress enacted two Militia Acts:
May 2, 1792: "An Act t provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."
May 8, 1792: "An Act more effectually to provide for the national defence by establishing an uniform militia throughout the United States."
And two years and one day later, in response to the "Whiskey" insurrection -- because the Second Amendment DOES NOT authorize "taking up arms" against the gov't:
May 9, 1794: "An act directing a detachment from the militia of the United States."
And again:
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."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
@seankelly6461 That's exactly what Trump claimed -- and it is a LIE.
READ BOTH the 12th Amendment, and the "Electoral Count Act". You know, stick to the LAW, not to your favorite seditious conspiring bloated career criminal traitor.
___
"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.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@williamlacentra2808 "the Constitution which came first to protect State rights --is an absolute document."
False: the "states' rights" ANTI-Federalists OPPOSED ratification of the Federal Constitution because of its SUPREMACY clause.
"The amendments -called the bill of rights, was the individual rights bill-which amendments were and can be changed--modified or added".
And several of those Amendment to the Constitution -- 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th, as example, nullified and countered portions of that "absolute" document. In other words, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights/Amendments are ONE document.
---don't be confused with the permanent State Constitutional rights".
Are you saying that state constitutions can't be amended? If so you're dead wrong. The Massachusetts constitution, ratified in 1780, has been amended 117 times. And the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Federal Constitution nullified any provisions in state constitutions which were contrary thereto.
your PSEUDO-"LAW" is IDEOLOGY, NOT 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
-
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
-
@donaldspaulding6973 Are you pushing the idea that there is a solution to the "real" threat of the gov't "taking your guns" -- a dumb-assed right-wing paranoia, the "solution" to which based on the lies against the Second Amendment originating with the fascist takeover of the NRA?
To see through those lies requires more than an elementary school education and a "functioning" gullibility that is drawn to violence as the simpleton's first and only "solution" to every frustration, including frustrations caused by ignorance of the actual legal history.
___
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's Debates of the writing of the Amendment.
The facts from those Debates:
The purpose of the Amendment was to establish a National Defense, relying on the well-regulated Militia. That fact is underscored by the Militia Act enacted on May 8, 1792:
"An act more effectually to provide for the NATIONAL DEFENCE by establishing an uniform MILITIA throughout the United States."
The Militia is not an individual; it is a public institution, an arm OF gov't, regulated under both Federal and state constitutions and laws. 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 the 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" debated was that last clause -- "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service" -- and it was obviously voted down before the proposed Amendment was ratified. Thus the Second Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring the legislative history -- Congress's 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" insurrection was suppressed by the state's well-regulated Militia, and the insurrectionists charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
Under the Constitution, AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, the "Whiskey" insurrection was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington, and the insurrectionists 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrrey8937 These are what the FOUNDERS thought of your "religious" bullying in effort to assuage your doubts by imposing your "religious" pornography on everyone else -- IN ADDITION to Christ telling you to keep it private and between you and your imagined-up "God":
___
From the North Carolina constitution adopted on December 18, 1776:
"XXXI. That no clergyman, or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the Senate, House of Commons, or Council of State, while he continues in the exercise of the pastoral function.
. . . .
"XXXIV. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State, in preference to any other; neither shall any person, on any pretence whatsoever, be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith or judgment, nor be obliged to pay, for the purchase of any glebe, or the building of any house of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes right, or has voluntarily and personally engaged to perform; but all persons shall be at liberty to exercise their own mode of worship:--_Provided_, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt preachers of treasonous or seditious discourses, from legal trial and punishment."
___
From the constitution of Georgia adopted on February 5, 1777:
"Art. LVI. All persons whatever shall have the free exercise of their religion; provided it be not repugnant to the peace and safety of the State; and shall not, unless by consent, support any teacher or teachers except those of their own profession."
"Art. LXII. No clergyman of any denomination shall be allowed a seat in the legislature."
___
You either respect and conform your behavior to the Constitutional separation of "religion" and gov't, or you make of yourself a hateful domestic enemy of it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrDeplorable-sw9cz The hypocrite is YOU: you know NOTHING of the ACTUAL history of the Founders, either collectively or individually. And it's obvious you've never READ the "Declaration of Independence," which DOES NOT include the word "revolution," which applied exclusively to England, and which includes a list of grievances against King George III, these two of which grievances are directly on point:
"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."
Nor have you bothered to READ the Constitution, ALL of which is in effect at the same time, NOT ONLY the "Bill of Rights. Relevant provisions in the Constitution:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia[/National Guard] 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".
Are the fake "militia" that urges "taking up arms"" against the gov't -- INSURRECTION -- armed by CONGRESS?
Your state constitution --- which you've also not bothered to READ -- stipulates that the commander-in-chief of the Militia is your state's governor. Is your state governor the commander-in-chief of the armeed anti-gov't gangs of domestic terrorists?
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
-
1
-
1
-
@nityanandapillai8524 US law that has existed for at least 100 years.
Let's be clear based on the FACTS of HISTORY:
1. Hitler came to power when he explained to the German aristocracy and industrialists that the alternative to him was the COMMUNISTS.
2. Before he went after the Jews, Hitler targeted for extermination --
A. Communists -- which are far-LEFT politically.
B. Socialists -- which are Left of Liberal but to the Right of Communists.
Because, the name of his political party notwithstanding, Hitler was not a socialist. He was a FASCIST, which is far-RIGHT.
3. Trade unionists/union organizers. Because organized wealth and dictators want the masses to be DISORGANIZED.
4. Hitler ALSO -- OBVIOUSLY -- hated LIBERALS, who are to the Right of Socialists. Liberals are the MODERATE CENTER.
The Western democracies were founded on the ENLIGHTENMENT -- "woke" -- philosophers; LIBERALISM. The United States, specifically, was established during a time when all the gov'ts were "divine right monarchies and dictatorship. But it was established as a SELF-GOVERNED DEMOCRACY, in which "We the people" -- the ELECTORATE, through ELECTED representatives -- is the gov't.
By ANY measure that is PROGRESSIVE.
And the US Constitution also incorporates the means to AMEND the Constitution in order to accommodate changes in political and legal reality -- which is also PROGRESSIVE.
What that means is that the purpose of the US gov't is to serve -- meet the needs of -- "We the people," as determined by "We the people" through elected representation. "We the people" pays its own way for the entirety of that through TAXATION.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@edwardl.990 I explained it:
The 6 "Federalist Society" religioFREAKS on the Supreme Court DENY that there is a right of privacy -- on which "Griswold" and "Roe" are based -- because the words "right of privacy" don't appear in the Constitution.
In contrast, they are pro-gun-nut -- even though "Christians" are commanded to "turn the other cheek" -- even though these words ALSO don't appear in the Constitution:
"Individual right to own guns".
I'm not the issue, but the Founders were LIBERALS who founded a liberal -- pluralistic -- democracy. And AGAIN:
"Justice and the Rule of Law are to be ABOVE politics." -- John Adams.
In contrast, you ignore "Justice and the Rule of Law" in order to wallow in POLITICS.
Perhaps that's why you don't comprehend LAW when it is put in your face. Here's another opportunity to get used to the idea that, as "Conservative" Judge Luttig said that "the most foundational truth is RULE OF LAW".
___
"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.
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
-
@sparkie996 That's correct: English is not my second language; it is my first, primary, language. Perhaps, pro-Fascist Putin TROLL, you can enlighten us to your idea of "cues that a native English speaker would understand" by identifying a few of such cues -- beyond your personal attack against me as effort to avoid addressing my comment.
Until then I'll point out to you that since Putin' began illegally invading sovereign Ukraine a number of Russian oligarchs, in Russia and countries other than Russia, have been killed Russian-gangland style: shot several times in the back of their heads. Russia asserted that they were suicides.
And for many years, including the most recent instance, noteworthy Russians -- opponents and critics of Fascist Putin -- have died by falling out of upper-story windows. When Putin has chosen to address those deaths -- a significant number -- he has called them "suicides". What casts the claims that they are suicides with suspicion are the CIRCUMSTANCES: the next-latest was a wealthy oligarch who "fell" out of a HOSPITAL window. Are we to assume that the oligarch went to the hospital to ensure that he was healthy enough to commit suicide?
And the latest, a member of Russia's Ministry of Defense, also just happened to 'fall" out of a window to her death. One would assume that members of the Ministry of Defense would be forewarned to stay away from windows.
One of the most famous was a lawyer who was imprisoned of false charges, and beaten and tortured -- THEN fell out of a window.
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
-
"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.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mark-db8id Pelosi's communications are IRRELEVANT to the issue, moron: the authority over deployment of the National Guard is in the Executive branch, under the Dept, of Defense, not under the Congress.
The Constitution includes four Militia Clauses, which include the Second Amendment, which is no more or less than that. The first is this:
"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."
BASIC CIVICS:
The Congress "provides for" by MAKING LAWS. The EXECUTIVE branch has the responsibility to ENFORCE the laws.
In other words, the Founders SEPARATED the control of the military, and the funding and regulating of it. The Executive branch controls the military; the Congress establishes the funding and regulation of it.
The delay in the deployment of the National Guard on January 6 is on the Dept. of Defense, which is in the EXECUTIVE branch, and under the president as Commander-in-Chief.
That delay was DIRECTLY the responsibility of TRUMP.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gregoryguidry4958 Another name-calling law-illiterate --
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maxoblivion They aren't educating the ineducable.
The legal profession has long neglected their responsibility to educate the public -- because, law-illiterate, not having an education in law means you don't have a clue unless it is explained to you by those who do have such education.
Finally they are providing that education -- it is essential to understand how the gov't functions, how legal process works, the difference between FACT and "opinion". The difference between LAW and NON-law. The difference between bullshit and competence.
You don't learn any of that by refusing to learn: legal professionals who are, as example, trial veterans, can EDUCATE you to those essentials. It isn't "spin," or 'opinion," or "entertainment".
I'd ask what you believe with conviction, but it's obvious you don't actually believe anything: the cynic is YOU. And that is based on the false assumption that you are SUPERIOR to everyone who knows stuff you can't be bothered to learn because you can always mischaracterize everything in order to remain petulant based on nothing at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ivanbluetarski9071 No: in the videos that is Trump hanging out and partying with Epstein.
___
"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.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nomore475 Those who oppose gun control are defenders of mass murder.
And while they claim a Constitutional "right," they have no actual regard for the rule of law, for what the law actually is --
___
Refuting the NRA's Two Second Amendment Lies
The gun industry's propaganda arm 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's 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's Debates of the writing of the Amendment.
The facts from those Debates:
The purpose of the Amendment was to establish a National Defense, relying on the well-regulated Militia, as substantiated by the Militia Act of May 8, 1792:
"An act more effectually to provide for the NATIONAL DEFENCE by establishing an uniform MILITIA throughout the United States."
The Militia is not an individual; it is a public institution and an arm OF gov't, regulated and governed under both Federal and state constitutions and laws. 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, via its propaganda front NRA, claims that Madison wrote the Second Amendment. If both of those are facts, then the word "people" is consistent in meaning from the 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 the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment, which became the Second Amendment -- but which it never quotes. [In brackets 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" debated regarding the amendment was the last clause --
": but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." --
That clause is clarified by this provision in the New York constitution adopted on April 20, 1777:
"XL. And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times here-after, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service. That all such of the inhabitants of this State being of the people called Quakers as, from scruples of conscience, may be averse to the bearing of arms, be therefrom excused by the legislature; and do pay to the State such sums of money, in lieu of their personal service, as the same may, in the judgment of the legislature, be worth.[FN 13] And that a proper magazine of warlike stores, proportionate to the number of inhabitants, be, forever hereafter, at the expense of this State, and by acts of the legislature, established, maintained, and continued in every county in this State.
"FN 13. This exemption-fee was fixed at £10 per annum by the act of April 3, 1778, organizing the militia of the State."
And that clause --
": but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." --
was obviously voted down before the proposed amendment was submitted to the states for consideration. Thus the Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring not only the existing state constitutions and laws which eventuated in the US Constitution, and the Congress's own legislative history -- the Debates of the writing of the Amendment are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- could Scalia falsely hold that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right".
2. That the purpose of the Second 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 execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions".
And on May 2, 1792, the Congress enacted this Militia Act:
"An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."
And the Founders themselves twice established the precedent on the point:
Under the Articles of Confederation, "Shays's" insurrection was suppressed by the state's Militia, reinforced by a DRAFT, and the insurrectionists charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
Under the Constitution -- more than two years AFTER the Amendment was ratified -- the "Whiskey" insurrection was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington, and the insurrectionists 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 outlier Heller and its progeny.
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@masonainsworth It is a principle of law that justice and the rule of law are ABOVE politics. That's why politicians, upon election, cannot legally prosecute their political opponents.
In other words: it isn't a crap shoot, all up for grabs.
In dictatorships, "successful" politicians do go after the POLITICAL opponents with the power of the law, imprison, and even execute, them. That's why Trump's "Lock her up!" was immediately alarming: no evidence, no trial, just incarcerate.
Adams was the foremost constitutionalist among the Founders. He was being aspirational in that statement, or in his statement, "A system of Laws, and not of men" -- the oath is to the constitution and laws, not to the person in whatever the office. THAT TOO separates law and politics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Founders on the Second Amendment:
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
-
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
-
@FestusParker-sm9gg Are you qualified to "diagnose" others' metal status? No, you are not: you are throwing out red herrings in effort to continue to avoid, and continue to not answer, the question:
What alternative "critique" do you have for those who feel entitled to deliberately violate social norms and laws? Start with individuals such as Marjorie "Jewish Space Lasers" Taylor Greene and Lauren "Hand Job" Boebert.
Or focus on Trump, who repeatedly violated the gag order -- which are Constitutional: it is ILLEGAL to intimidate, threaten, and tamper with witnesses and jurors -- when in reality there was a simple and legal way around it: testify in his own defense under oath.
I challenge your specious generalization away from the issue in order to avoid such as those specific instances of individuals who flout social norms and laws, while hiding behind bogus claims of being "religious," and specious assertions of "rights" and "law" that are attacks on the rule of law itself, all in defense of indecency against the very "religion" with which they pretend to adhere.
The Founders established the legal fundamentals against that kind of subjectivist rejection of objective limitations necessary to civil society:
From the 1784 New Hampshire constitution:
"Part I.--The Bill of Rights.
"III. When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to insure the protection of others [AND OF THEMSELVES]".
And they put that lawless subjectivism in its place for the benefit of all:
___
From the North Carolina constitution adopted on December 18, 1776:
"XXXI. That no clergyman, or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the Senate, House of Commons, or Council of State, while he continues in the exercise of the pastoral function.
. . . .
"XXXIV. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State, in preference to any other; neither shall any person, on any pretence whatsoever, be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith or judgment, nor be obliged to pay, for the purchase of any glebe, or the building of any house of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes right, or has voluntarily and personally engaged to perform; but all persons shall be at liberty to exercise their own mode of worship:--_Provided_, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt preachers of treasonous or seditious discourses, from legal trial and punishment."
___
From the constitution of Georgia adopted on February 5, 1777:
"Art. LVI. All persons whatever shall have the free exercise of their religion; provided it be not repugnant to the peace and safety of the State; and shall not, unless by consent, support any teacher or teachers except those of their own profession."
"Art. LXII. No clergyman of any denomination shall be allowed a seat in the legislature."
___
From New York constitution adopted on April 20. 1777:
XXXIX. And whereas the ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function; therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under any pretence or description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding, any civil or military office or place within this State.
___
Those provisions, and their equivalents in the other state constitutions, eventuated in the First Amendment separation of "religion" and gov't.
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
-
@bryanb3352 Another law-illiterate pops off with disinformation:
Constitutional provisions are implemented by means of STATUTES. An example is the 14th Amendment implemented as the "Ku Klux Klan Act". The SEVERAL Militia Clauses in the Constitution are implemented by means of "Militia Acts".
Those who pop off about "the CONSTITUTION!" have invariably NEVER READ IT. THIS is in the Constitution:
"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."
This is also in the Constitution:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia . . . reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS."
The purpose of the Second Amendment, according to the DEBATES of the first CONGRESS that WROTE it, was to establish a NATIONAL DEFENSE based on the well-regulated Militia. "Well-regulated" means UNDER the rule of law. And as those two Constitutional provisions SHOW, the well-regulated Militia is ALWAYS UNDER the US Constitutions and laws.
And -- this is also beyond your knowledge -- ALSO ALWAYS UNDER state constitution and laws.
Last but not least, as to the source of your falsehood:
1. The "Declaration of Independence"" -- which you've ALSO NEVER READ -- has never been LAW.
2. The "Declaration" applied EXCLUSIVELY to ENGLAND.
3. The Founders "took up arms" and "overthrew" this many gov'ts:
ZERO.
Because the Founders were all along in control of their colony gov'ts.
1
-
1
-
@bobbunni8722 This will doubtless be over your head:
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nickpowell7432 I adhere to the facts. One of those facts is the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Ergo, those who personally attack me want to be personally attacked, so I oblige them.
Our democracy is founded on the rule of law. The Republican Party, Trump on down, are at war with the rule of law. If you don't care about that reality, then you to will be the VICTIM of the consequences. But you won't be able to blame anyone outside yourself.
So, no: I don't lie to myself. That you believe the law doesn't matter, that civil rights don't matter, then you are lying to yourself: without written law, and enforcement of their protections, you have no rights.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tgray1 "Justice and the Rule of Law are to be ABOVE politics." -- john Adams.
Learn to separate the two.
As for the charges dismissed -- you OMIT that the judge ALSO said that the charges need more information, and then they can be refiled.
Presenting only the part of the fact you like, and leaving out the part you don't like, results in you pushing the "public opinion" you WANT to happen.
Leaving out part of the whole fact is dishonest. And that is the basis for your bias of pushing the POLITICAL, and to hell with facts and rule of law.
I'm beyond fed up with law-illiterates REJECTING the rule of law in the name of a false "freedom". This is the fundamental principle by means of which the Founders refuted that delusion, from the 1784 New Hampshire constitution:
"Part I--The Bill of Rights.
"Article I.
. . . .
"III. When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights, in order to insure the protection of others [AND OF THEMSELVES]".
To make that more clear:
EVERY right is inextricably entwined with RESPONSIBILITY.
EVERYONE has the same rights, equally; therefore EVERYONE has the RESPONSIBILITY to LIMIT the exercise of their rights so as not to violate or infringe the rights of others.
That is LAW, not politics. Ignorance of the law is a plague -- but is not an excuse. The Trump smear campaign, in the bogus form of a legal case that he did not win, has nothing whatever to do with the RICO case against him and his co-conspiring fellow criminals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Art. I., S. 2., C. 5. The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Art. I., S. 3., C. 6. The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Art. I., S. 3, C. 7.Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Art. I., S. 5., C. 2. Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Art. II., S. 2., C. I. The President shall have Power . . . to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in cases of Impeachment.
Art. II., S. 2., C. 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Two more "victims" of the NRA, the gun industry, and the US Supreme Court. And that's all about MONEY --
___
Refuting the NRA's Two Second Amendment Lies
The gun industry's propaganda arm 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's 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's Debates of the writing of the Amendment.
The facts from those Debates:
The purpose of the Amendment was to establish a National Defense, relying on the well-regulated Militia, as substantiated by the Militia Act of May 8, 1792:
"An act more effectually to provide for the NATIONAL DEFENCE by establishing an uniform MILITIA throughout the United States."
The Militia is not an individual; it is a public institution and an arm OF gov't, regulated and governed under both Federal and state constitutions and laws. 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, via its propaganda front NRA, claims that Madison wrote the Second Amendment. If both of those are facts, then the word "people" is consistent in meaning from the 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 the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment, which became the Second Amendment -- but which it never quotes. [In brackets 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" debated regarding the amendment was the last clause --
": but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." --
That clause is clarified by this provision in the New York constitution adopted on April 20, 1777:
"XL. And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times here-after, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service. That all such of the inhabitants of this State being of the people called Quakers as, from scruples of conscience, may be averse to the bearing of arms, be therefrom excused by the legislature; and do pay to the State such sums of money, in lieu of their personal service, as the same may, in the judgment of the legislature, be worth.[FN 13] And that a proper magazine of warlike stores, proportionate to the number of inhabitants, be, forever hereafter, at the expense of this State, and by acts of the legislature, established, maintained, and continued in every county in this State.
"FN 13. This exemption-fee was fixed at £10 per annum by the act of April 3, 1778, organizing the militia of the State."
And that clause --
": but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." --
was obviously voted down before the proposed amendment was submitted to the states for consideration. Thus the Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring not only the existing state constitutions and laws which eventuated in the US Constitution, and the Congress's own legislative history -- the Debates of the writing of the Amendment are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- could Scalia falsely hold that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right".
2. That the purpose of the Second 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 execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions".
And on May 2, 1792, the Congress enacted this Militia Act:
"An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."
And the Founders themselves twice established the precedent on the point:
Under the Articles of Confederation, "Shays's" insurrection was suppressed by the state's Militia, reinforced by a DRAFT, and the insurrectionists charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
Under the Constitution -- more than two years AFTER the Amendment was ratified -- the "Whiskey" insurrection was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington, and the insurrectionists 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 outlier Heller and its progeny.
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
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
-
@seriously6654 Clinton was attempted payback for Nixon, moron. They were attempting, in their own current words, to overturn that election. That was an abuse of power by the House, as a private sexual affair does not subvert the Constitution or threaten the gov't/system of laws.
And how CORRUPT was that abuse of power? Henry Hyde, who lead the mob, was at the same time having an extramarital affair with a woman whose marriage he broke up.
And at the same time, Gingrich was deposed as House Speaker in part because of his extramarital "dalliances". He was to be replaced by Johnston, but Johnston was Outed" as having an extramarital affair.
It wasn't the Democrats who exposed the illegal quid-pro-quo; it was the anonymous whistleblower, who essentially reported that the military aid to Ukraine was being held up. In order for that to have been LEGAL, Trump would have OBEYED THE LAW and informed Congress at minimum as to WHY he was withholding it. He didn't, so violated that LEGAL REQUIREMENT.
He also violated the Congressional authorization, which direct the aid to Ukraine, and stipulated when it MUST be delivered, which authorization he signed -- then violated.
You Trump supporters are most tiresome because you're all so stupid. You don't know relevant from irrelevant, can't handle a whole fact when you can ignore the parts you don't like. You are supporting an effort to destroy the Constitution -- not that I expect you to understand the enormous consequences of that. If you anti-Americans succeed, prepare yourself for working in a coal mine with no pay.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Travel Crawl Sri Lanka is not the US. The following is the short and sweet of the rule of law in the United States:
___
_No law protects private "militia"_:
See _District of Columbia v. Heller_, 554 U.S. 570, 621 (2008), citing _Pressor v. Illinois_, 116 U.S. 252 (1886):
The Second Amendment "does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations".
From _Presser_:
"(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."
That is not a new idea; this law is from October 1658:
"Military, [S. 11] . . . . It is Further Ordered, that henceforth all warrants for impressing [e.g., drafting] & raifing of fouldiers for any expedition, fhall be directed to the Committy of militia of the feverall Townes who may execute the fame by the Coftable & the faid Committee are hereby impowred & required to fupprefs all raifing of fouldiers, but fuch as fhall be by the authority of this government."
In contemporary English:
"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."
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 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
-
@scottharrison8701 Let's be MATURE, shall we -- I'm sure you aren't so stupid and intellectually lazy that you CAN'T make the effort:
If you are going to claim a statement is a "lie," then BACK UP YOUR CLAIM with EVIDENCE.
Want to see Trump plead the 5th? -- se the excerpts from filmed depositions shown on MAINSTREAM media. FOX won't even tell you that it had to pay almost 1 billion dollars to Dominion Voting Systems for DEFAMING the corporation -- which is a reason Tucker Carlson was FIRED.
And the DEFAMATION was PROVEN with DOCUMENTS -- emails, texts, even recordings -- from WITHIN FOX by Hannity himself and others.
So TRY to be an ADULT with the ability to REASON and adhere to ACTUAL FACTS, EVIDENCE, and LAW --
In the New York criminal trial for BUSINESS RECORD FRAUD, committed in order to PROTECT THE CAMPAIGN, see the Michael Cohen invoice, requested and required by Trump book-fixer Allen Weaselberg -- who is currently serving a second sentence at Riker's Island for perjury.
ON that invoice WEASELBERG ITEMIZED the amounts of money to be paid to Cohen, which when added together totaled $420,000.
INCLUDED in that total was the amount of TAXES Cohen would have to pay for that which was FRAUDULENTLY represented as "income" for Cohen.
Since when does YOUR employer pay YOUR taxes FOR you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidbybee9930 That illiterate comment is false.
First, let's try a little THINKING::
IF it were "legal" for Trump to order Seal Team 6 to assassinate his political opponents, then there WOULDN'T BE an impeachment because he could also have Seal Team 6 assassinate any Congressman who proposed it, and any Senators who acted on the House impeachment resolution.
In further fact, the US Supreme Court wouldn't dare rule against him for fear of ALSO being assassinated.
Now let's get to the ACTUAL FACTS:
Trump has EXPRESSLY SAID, ON VIDEO AND IN COURT THROUGH HIS LAWYERS, that he has ABSOLUTE immunity.
His lawyer, in court in DC, FALSELY asserted that one must be impeached and convicted OR one can't be criminally prosecuted.
Nixon wasn't impeached. But he was PARDONED against prosecution because the CONSTITUTION says the OPPOSITE of Trump and his lawyer's FALSE assertions:
Being impeached and removed DOES NOT protect one from being criminally prosecuted:
"US Constitution, Art. I, S. 3, C. 7. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States:
"BUT the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
There is no REQUIREMENT that the "Party" be impeached, or impeached and removed, for the "Party" to be criminally prosecuted.
Nixon -- a lawyer -- knew that. And Ford and his legal advisors knew that. Nixon was not impeached, therefore there was no Seante trial on the impeachment. That is why Nixon was offered pardon, and he accepted it -- even though the US Supreme Court had already held that ACCEPTING a pardon is an ADMISSIION OF GUILT.
And Trump can't pardon himself because it would be both a conflict of interest and a violation of fundamental due process: no person can be both judge and jury over his own case.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Brandon "What ever" should be "whatever".
I adhere to facts and law against which you spew anti-American lawlessness.
It remains the LAW -- which New York con-man and career criminal Trump, and his dupes, such as you -- REJECT, because that's what criminals do:
ALL information generated by gov't employees, even the non-classified, is owned BY THE GOV'T, NOT by the employee. None of that is new or rocket science.
And there is classified gov't secrets that can't be declassified by anyone, including a president, under any circumstances.
And this is in the Constitution you fools repudiate:
"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" against the gov't is defined in LAW as INSURRECTION, which the Founders classified as TREASON. There is no "right" to commit treason.
This is the Supreme Court's response to your law-illiterate NON-law anti-gov't gibberish:
-----
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" -- "private paramilitary organizations" -- as "paramilitaries" and PROHIBIT them. One cannot legitimately claim to be defending the Constitution and laws by violating the Constitution and laws.
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
-
@girlonfire00net Are you certain that you, unlike all other humans, can predict the future?
22 Republicans are up for re-election. 75 per cent of VOTERS DEMAND witnesses. How many will take their chances twisting in the wind, while the flood of revelations continues?
My first hero was Republican Abraham Lincoln. I became a Democrat when JFK ran for election to the presidency. I, with others on the Left, were demanding LBJ be tried for war crimes -- then Nixon declared his candidacy and I said, "Forget LBJ -- let's get this gangster." Though I rue that I wasn't on Nixon's "Enemies List," I console myself with taking credit for getting Nixon.
The Republicans have, ever since -- being the party of holding fake grudges -- been out to get even. The Clinton impeachment was an abuse of power by the House -- and an effort to "overturn that election," as they say and reject doing today.
Candidate Nixon undermined the LBJ administration. President Nixon's Watergate break-in was about stealing the election. Reagan undermined the Carter administration, in order to "win" the election. Reagan provided missiles to "terrorists," said he didn't believe he did, and the Republicans pretended along with him that he didn't.
In 2000, Scalia initiated the SC's usurpation of the Congress' exclusive authority and power to resolve election disputes in order to appoint the loser of the election. In so doing, the SC violated the law by voting twice in the same election.
Trump and his criminal gang colluded with Russia -- more than 200 contacts during the campaign -- then lied to cover it up.
It began with Lee Atwater's "politics of personal destruction": don't merely defeat one's opponent, but also DESTROY the opponent. That became, "Lock her up!"
And Bushit 2's campaign manager, Karl Rove, said that the goal is to establish a "permanent Republican majority" -- a one-party state. A dictatorship. Trump is the eventuation of that effort to overthrow not merely an election but the rule of law, the Constitution, itself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bsmith5433 When will you be providing FACTS to EVIDENCE that anti-American smear?
Even REPUBLICAN Senators state the FACT that the House Managers PROVED Trump's guilt. Only by LYING can you deny it. And by lying, which is immoral, you prove YOURSELF a hypocrite by pretending to be concerned with morality.
You are defending an international criminal enterprise which is attacking the foundation of the United States: the Constitution and rule of law. You are either too young, or too damned stupid, to understand the ramifications.
Let's be clear, moron: rights do not exist if they are not written down, as law. Rights do not exist outside of and in conflict with law. It is law the secures them, and laws which protect them, and law which provides remedies to their infringement. You don't get to be free without the rule of law; you get to be a paranoid barbarian always on the defensive. The Founders themselves made this clear:
From the New Hampshire constitution of 2784:
"Part 1--The Bill of Rights.
"Article III. When men enter into a society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society" -- such as those of the lawless barbarian, the result being social stability and public safety -- "in order to insure the protection of others" AND OF THEMSELVES.
That is sufficiently fundamental, and in easily understood language, that if you pull your head out of the quicksand, you just might grasp it.
Reality is not a joke, and it will slap you down if you treat it as such.
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
-
@fishpawnz838 I'm okay with the fact that the fake "investigation" of the investigators collapsed.
___
"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.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fishpawnz838 Your stupid name calling marks YOU.
"Justice and the Rule of Law are to be ABOVE politics." -- John Adams.
___
"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.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@John-je7hi Why is it that every rime an illiterate extremist right-winger is exposed as a fraud, the illiterate extremist right-wingers defend the fraud by avoiding the issue?
FACTS MATTER as concerns one of FRAUD Greene's FALSE assertions:
1. The "Declaration of Independence" has never been LAW.
2. The "Declaration" DOES NOT include the word "overthrow".
3. The "Declaration" applied EXCLUSIVELY to ENGLAND. The authors of it, the Founders, "attacked" and "overthrew" exactly this many gov'ts;
ZERO.
Because the gov'ts at issue were all along, from their foundings, controlled by the FOUNDERS.
4. We know the "Declaration" applied EXCLUSIVELY to England because (a) that is the only gov't with whom the Founders were at war, and (b) by the list of grievances in the "Declaration" that were directed, BY NAME, at King George III of ENGLAND.
These are two of those grievances:
"He [KING George III] has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures."
"He [King George III] has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."
Those were carried forward into the Constitution AS LAW:
Art. I., S. 8, C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the [well-regulated] Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Unions, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions."
Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the [well-regulated] Militia . . . reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers and the Authority of training the [well-regulated] Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS."
Whenever you or your fellow FRAUDS "think" to invoke the rule of law, first know what you're talking about. Until then sit down and shut your illiterate rule-of-law-rejecting anti-American yaps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@k333rl Senator Rand Paul recently pushed Putin's LIES about Ukraine "always" being a proper part of Russia. Let's look at how that "freedom to believe FALSEHOODS" applies here at home:
1. Alaska belonged to Russia.
2. Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas, belonged to Mexico.
3. Louisiana belonged to France.
4. Florida belonged to Spain.
5. The Thirteen Original Colonies belonged to England.
No: one does not get to pretend that OBJECTIVE REALITY -- FACTS -- doesn't exist so one can "decide for oneself" between this, that, and the other without any regard for facts and truth. Objective reality is not an "opinion".
"[P]eople should be smart enough" -- then what explains the fact that so many -- including you -- aren't? The gov't doesn't teach logic -- so where is one to learn that? By believing horseshit that not only doesn't square with itself but that also NEGATES itself?
You fail not only to distinguish between "belief" and "thinking" -- they are not the same thing -- but also push the falsehood that simply believing a falsehood is sufficient to make it a truth. So anyone can believe anything, regardless objective reality and facts and truth, and that's acceptable. So for you any lie is as good as any fact or truth; it's all a matter of "individual choice". How does that work out in the real world when stubborn reality refuses to accommodate your falsehoods?
The issue for you and your fellow paranoid freaks is that you are law-illiterate. Indeed, you actually believe the falsehood that "freedom" and "law" are antithetical. CLUE: you wouldn't know what "rights" to claim were they not SECURED IN WRITTEN LAW.
In short, you bamboozle yourself, and really don't know what to believe, so you persist in the intellectual laziness of defending the non-existent "right" to reject logic, fact, rule of law -- gov't is by definition rule of law; the Constitution is RULE OF LAW and includes LIMITS, and not only on GOV'T:
"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 [i.e., LAW ENFORCEMENT], SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions."
Thus there is NO "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't/rule of law.
And the First Amendment is in accord with that:
"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people PEACEABLY to assemble."
So, yes: the gov't's FIRST obligation being to protect public health and safety, it has the authority to PROHIBIT VIOLENCE. That includes PROHIBITING SPEECH that incites VIOLENCE and INSURRECTION.
Get it through you confusion: to attack the gov't -- rule of law -- is to attack YOUR OWN RIGHTS, the exercise of which is LIMITED for the protection of the rights of ALL who are NOT you.
Disinformation is FALSEHOOD. Is it SMART to deliberately choose to believe FALSEHOODS? Is that how one pursues truth? Or do you actually believe there is no truth because so sub-literate that you don't even know the basics of logic on which to engage in that pursuit?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SkaalKesh "Whatever. I could bring up more like Ruby Ridge,"
Ruby Ridge was about a WHITE SUPREMACIST/SEPARATIST -- RIGHT-wing -- who sold an ILLEGAL WEAPON and was intent on escaping arrest. He used his family members as a shield.
Will you next be defending the RIGHT-wing cause celeb of Waco?
And out of that the OK City bombing?
Snowden violated the law at the level of TREASON, then instead of standing his "righteous" ground fled to Putin's Russia -- WITH National Security information.
Assange, another fake "hero," was on the lam from Sweden where he was facing rape charges.
"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.
1
-
@SkaalKesh All talk, no EVIDENCE.
I have and education in law -- you do not. You're drunk on the smell of someone else's law-illiterate cork.
The NRA and gun-nuts are not sources of reliable information --
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
-
@SkaalKesh The person who compiled it is a top-notch investigator.
But it was not used by Robert Mueller.
Thoughts on pushing Russian propaganda? --
___
"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.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kurtisengle6256 When civilians "took up arms" against the government during the Founding era, the Founders charged them with, tried them for, and convicted them of, TREASON, and sentenced them to DEATH. See "Shayss" and "Whiskey" insurrections -- the latter of which occurred AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified.
Add in this fact: in EVERY state, the commander-in-chief of the Militia is the state's governor. If those protesters are the Militia, then they are engaged in mutiny against their commander-in-chief, which is a courts martial/death penalty offense. If they are not -- and they are not -- the Founders established the precedent of finding them guilty of TREASON, and sentencing them to DEATH.
The ONLY way for them to be legitimate as Militia they must either ENLIST in the National Guard, or be DRAFTED into it.
Last but not least, the ENTIRE Constitution is in effect at the same time, and includes this provision:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power to provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS." Those ENGAGING in "taking up arms" agsinst the gov't/rule of law are INSURRECTIONISTS.
This is also in the Constitution:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia." So where did these fake "militia" get their non-self-defense ASSAULT weapons?
The Congress "provides" by enacting LAWS, in this context "Militia Acts," which REGULATE the "well-regulated Militia". These FAKE "militia" are operating OUTSIDE the law -- which was addressed in the "Declaration of Independence" as a COMPLAINT AGAINST King George III:
"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."
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
-
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
-
@k333rl "J Nagarya the interesting thing with rights in the US is that most if not all amendments AFFIRM our rights. they don't give us the rights. from the constitution our rights are not given by the govt. we have them regardless of what govt is in power."
Then where do those "rights" originate? And don't try the "God" nonsense: first, it can't be proven that there's a "God"; and, because the Founders had experience with "RELIGIOUS" tyranny -- research the colonial history of "the Bible Commonwealth" -- Massachusetts-Bay -- and the CORRUPT "RELIGIOUS" TYRANNY that burned "witches" -- they SEPARATED "religion" from gov't in the First Amendment.
There is ALSO in the Constitution a PROHIBITION AGAINST "religious tests" -- i.e., one cannot discriminate against candidates for public office based on their "religion" because there is NO gov't-established "religion" in the United States.
"and you ask where you stand on banning books. should 'mein kampf' be available for students to read?"
"Know thine enemy" --
I thought you were all about "freedom of speech" and "freedom of belief". It's obvious you don't know how EDUCATION works. Yes, it should be available for students to read -- IN THE CONTEXT OF HISTORY.
That HISTORY INCLUDES the BANNING and BURNING of BOOKS. So your idea that on one hand, disinformation that undermines democracy -- which is founded on the RULE OF LAW -- should be allowed, without any limitations, but on the other hand, books about which you know NOTHING SHOULD BE BANNED -- doesn't work as LOGIC.
How about Marx? Should students be able to read Marx -- KNOWING that reading Marx doesn't make one into a "Marxist"? Certainly. As certainly, if one is going to call a thing or person "Marxist" shouldn't one FIRST KNOW what "Marxism" ACTUALLY is?
As Lenny Bruce put it: "We have to know about all the BAD, BAD shit in order to be PROTECTED from it."
I know you don't read, but perhaps you watch movies: have you seen "Fahrenheit 451"? That is about book-burning. HITLER was BIG on book burning. Those who want to ban books FEAR ANY ideas different than their own -- which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the First Amendment they simultaneously EXPLOIT by pushing DISINFORMATION.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@unclelumbago5654 Nope. DHS monitors foreign information sources, which as we know often includes the establishment of accounts domestically. If you happened to interact with those foreign sources, then your communications will naturally fall under scrutiny. But your communications are not the target.
Thankfully the non-grunt, the non-stupid, are able to distinguish between the two.
It is precisely your ignorance that swallowed the lies from Trump about his campaign being "spied on". It was not. What happened was that members of his campaign were communicating with Russians, and they were caught up in the standard monitoring of Russians. Not knowing how that works freaks Trump supporters because they want TrumPutin to defeat US democracy and rule of law. The following isn't so difficult to grasp:
___
"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.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@garyoldham4449 "Imagine if you were supposed to be charged with misdemeanor but they exaggerated it to felony charges."
Imagine if you actually knew what you are talking about. Or at least had the intelligence to listen to seasoned prosecutors, who are not on the case, who explain the New York law and how it works to people WILLING to LEARN FACT, instead listening to political hacks on FOX and other right-wing law-rejecting propagandists.
FOX is being sued for DEFAMATION; and the discovery by Dominion Voting Machines has been included in court briefings. That discovery EVIDENCE of emails and texts, and such, BETWEEN FOX EMPLOYEES, from RUPERT MURDOCH ON DOWN, which PROVE that OFF screen everyone at FOX KNEW that the election WAS NOT STOLEN. But for fear they'd lose their audience if they didn't CONTINUE to LIE to their audience, AS THEY ALWAYS HAVE, and therefore LOSE MONEY, they LIED TO YOU FOOLS who WANT to be LIED TO.
Yeah, I know: FOX ISN'T TELLING YOU that FOX IS BEING SUED FOR LYING AGAINST DOMINION VOTING MACHINES.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I am beyond fed up with you LAW-ILLITERATES jumping to judgmental conclusions about Garland based on NOT KNOWING what the DOJ is or isn't doing.
Learn, first and foremost, how not to be an ass.
Garland has said, publicly, several times, and in plain enough English for even you morons to understand, that he will follow the facts wherever they lead, and apply the law to them. THAT is how LAW works.
"A system of LAWS, and NOT of men." -- John Adams.
"Justice and the Rule of Law are to be ABOVE politics." -- John Adams.
John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark conspired DIRECTLY with Trump. BOTH have been subject to WARRANTS FOR SEARCH. It won't stop there.
FEW believed it was possible to "get" a president. It took time to build -- the "Watergate" hearings served that purpose -- and we not only "got" Nixon but also as a bonus got his VP Agnew. REPUBLICAN Nixon was forced to resign, and REPUBLICAN Ford pardoned him.
Trump was thrown out of office. He will be indicted, and there will be no pardon this time.
1
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
@jrwoods5311 The gov't isn't a business -- isn't that what you said? And now you are comparing "private business" with gov't.
As is typical of you right-wingers, you don't make sense.
Nor do you provide any evidence for your assertion that "the system is failing". AND you keep ignoring THIS FACT:
"Per the Constitution, "We the people" are the gov't. So where, pray tell, should we place the responsibility for the alleged failure -- on those elected? Or on those who elect them?
Your head is up someone's ass -- perhaps your own -- because you don't understand these most basic facts:
1. Our democracy -- MAJORITY rule -- is based upon the rule of law.
2. Every right is inextricably entwined with RESPONSIBILITY.
3. Democracy is not a spectator sport. It is the DUTY of citizens to participate by VOTING, or even running for office. Instead as percentage of the electorate is corrupted into not voting, or into bashing the gov't -- which is "We the people".
I'd ask that you learn the basics, and learn how not to contradict yourself, but it's obvious you already know0it-all -- everything is the fault of the gov't, but not of "We the people"/the gov't.
The first obligation of gov't is to protect public health and safety, including AGAINST private businesses that endanger public health and safety. But all you consider is money. What a shabbily poor -- and confused -- existence you live.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Diddy_Doodat Unlike you, I wasn't born yesterday. And it's obvious that when anyone screams against the results of an election during this primary, s/he is a whiny widdlle Sanders "fan".
When it comes to election ON THE GROUND, the polls of this kind are CORRECT. The national polls were "incorrect" because they neglected to include the influence of the Russian collusion/subversion, the effects of the fake email "scandal," and the unprecedented Comey announcement.
State polls and politics are not point-for-point comparable. As I quoted Tip O'Neill (look him up), "All politics is L-O-C-A-:L."
And as I said, I wasn't born yesterday. I've been a civil rights activists since 3rd grade -- which occurred during the 1950s. I learned about Climate Change in school science in the late 1950s-early 1960s -- it is not a "new" prediction. I personally knew Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin (look them up) -- who were both far-Left and assholes, and I was to THEIR Left. It was their stirrings up of violence amid a wholly non-violent peace movement that got NIXON elected TWICE.
In sum, mouthy punk, I've been politically aware, informed, and engaged, for more than 60 years.
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
-
@avictorbell2835
No: ever since the USSR collapsed the front line has been the border between Russia and Eastern Europe -- as Russia has declared and shown by invading Eastern European nations since WW II. The USSR had been established by VIOLENTLY SUBJUGATING Eastern Europe including Ukraine.
NATO -- North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a treaty between the US and Europe, which the US rebuilt after WW II -- was established for three basic reasons:
1. To put an end to the inter-European wars, which had been going on for at least centuries, and had twice become world wars that sucked in the US.
2. To protect Europe against an historically imperialist USSR/Russia.
No matter what country borders Russia, Putin will claim that country is a "threat" and therefore he needs to subjugate it to protect Russia. And if he subjugates Ukraine, he will then insist that the next country on his border is a threat. That's how Stalin built the USSR.
As part of WW II, Ukraine was invaded by Russia, and then by Nazi Germany. Initially Ukraine, especially in its west, believed Hitler was saving them from Russia, so welcomed them -- but see the film "Come and See". That's where Putin gets the lie that Ukraine is "Nazi".
That is the typical rhetoric: Hitler rose to power by "warning" against the Communists -- the far-LEFT. Putin's actions are identical to those of the far-RIGHT Nazis -- so he's smearing those he is attacking as being the "Nazis," which are the extreme opposite of the far-LEFT "Communists".
3. So the US doesn't yet again get pulled into another European war.
Better a united Europe fight Russia there, than the US fight Russia there. Better a united Europe defend itself against Russia then the US have to do it for them yet again.
And NATO has succeeded as intended. Germany is NOT the issue. The outcome of WW II had the United States returning home -- but the USSR occupying Eastern European nations, including half of Germany, instead of returning to its traditional borders.
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Warp10x No one is "against" the Second Amendment. But the intelligent know that it isn't the entire Constitution -- which you've obviously never read.
The entire Constitution is in effect at the same time; and it includes --
"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."
And:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia . . . reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS."
The "Bill of Rights" was written by CONGRESS -- both House and Senate. And those DEBATES prove that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to establish a NATIONAL DEFENSE relying on the well-regulated MILITIA, which fact is underscore by the May 8, 1792 Militia Act:
"An act more effectually to provide for the NATIONAL DEFENCE by establishing an uniform MILITIA throughout the United States."
Thus the well-regulated Militia is governed and regulated under BOTH US and state constitutions AND LAWS.
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
-
@devinstanley3272 I've attended two universities.
It depends on the area of study. It is difficult to share "opinion" in the hard sciences. In the arts it is pretty much required. And in philosophy, at least as a major, one must inevitably have and express opinions.
It also depends on the professor. As result of a confluence, during my first year at university I dove in to pursuing creative writing in a Humanities seminar. And the more creative I got -- always adhering to the basics of the course -- the more As I was given. (My focus was on the writing -- though I did "include" the curricula. All in all, it's how much one can produce, and get away with in doing that.)
Many who have the most to say critically about the value of college/university education have never actually been to either. The Republicans began their attack on higher education in the 1980s, and that propaganda spread mostly to those who feel inadequate in relation to education.
I've been reading "You Must Revise Your Life," by the late poet William Stafford. In it are several brief essays about how he taught college classes. Though he doesn't say it directly, most students have by then been brought up following the rules, always figuratively buying the teachers favor by giving them apples, and therefore expecting guidance.
I've had professors who lectured; and I've had professors who allowed the students to lead. There was always assigned reading, but that didn't mean one necessarily read all that, so long as any required writing was focused on one, and substantive, and included at least a quote or two from it. It wasn't that long (writing beyond and outside the norms is arduous work) before I was getting As with a single footnote.
The substance was not only showing that I absorbed and understood the material, but also my critical evaluation of it. I both included and went beyond it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
From the Tennessee Constitution, Art. II., Legislature:
Section 13. Senators and representatives shall, in all cases, except treason, felony, or breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during the session of the General Assembly, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
Section 27. Any member of either House of the General Assembly shall have liberty to dissent from and protest against, any act or resolve which he may think injurious to the public or to any individual, and to have the reasons for his dissent entered on the journals.
1
-
@henryroman5415 The state constitution is the supreme law of the state. The "permanent rules," which are to implement the constitution, are subordinate to the constitution and must be consistent therewith or are null-and-void. And so "permanent" that they often change.
From the Tennessee constitution (as of 2014), Art. II., Legislative Department:
Section 27. Any member of either House of the General Assembly shall have liberty to dissent from and protest against, any act or resolve which he may think injurious to the public or to any individual, and to have the reasons for his dissent entered on the journals.
The white majority, in the state where the KKK originated, told two uppity Blacks to sit down and shut up. Following the lead of the people, wherein the power of the legislature originates, the two Blacks protested the largesse that defends the "right" to commit mass murder over the illegality of committing mass murder, are then expelled from their elected position in order to silence their and the people's right to dissent, protest, and have that made a matter of the record. Instead the two legislators were punished for dissenting and protesting.
In addition, state law is subordinate to the US Constitution per the Supremacy Clause, and thus the First Amendment rights of the two legislators were violated. The Supreme Court already settled this issue, 9 to 0, when Julian Bond was refused his seat because he had spoken out against US involvement in Vietnam. There is no requirement that ANY US citizen MUST either support gov't policy or STFU.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@petitedoll1 The Founders were Liberals -- and it doesn't surprise that you're all about childish name-calling, COMRADE.
Hitler also hated Liberals. So does Putin.
"Justice and the Rule of Law are to ABOVE politics." -- John Adams. Your political wallowing and political name-calling is refusal to learn how to deal with law and justice. Here is some actual law, from the Founders themselves:
___
From the North Carolina constitution adopted on December 18, 1776:
"XXXI. That no clergyman, or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the Senate, House of Commons, or Council of State, while he continues in the exercise of the pastoral function.
. . . .
"XXXIV. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State, in preference to any other; neither shall any person, on any pretence whatsoever, be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith or judgment, nor be obliged to pay, for the purchase of any glebe, or the building of any house of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes right, or has voluntarily and personally engaged to perform; but all persons shall be at liberty to exercise their own mode of worship:--_Provided_, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt preachers of treasonous or seditious discourses, from legal trial and punishment."
___
From the constitution of Georgia adopted on February 5, 1777:
"Art. LVI. All persons whatever shall have the free exercise of their religion; provided it be not repugnant to the peace and safety of the State; and shall not, unless by consent, support any teacher or teachers except those of their own profession."
"Art. LXII. No clergyman of any denomination shall be allowed a seat in the legislature."
___
One difference between you and I is that I have an education in law, and you don't begin to know what you're talking about -- you're all name-calling, buzz words and smears -- no law, no facts.
I asked you how you are okay with Trump facing 91 FELONIES. You ignore that instead of addressing it because that's what you fruit-fringers do: you ignore facts you don't like. You make allegations without a shred of EVIDENCE to back them up, which doesn't surprise because you reject not only the EVIDENCE on which are based those 91 FELONIES, but also reject the rule of law under which Trump is indicted and being prosecuted.
And you're obviously okay with the fact that Trump is a rapist. I hope you don't ever have a problem pregnancy that can only be resolved by the medical procedure called "abortion".
1
-
@petitedoll1 FACTS: Trump has been indicted by grand juries of his peers with 91 FELONIES based on HARD EVIDENCE.
FACT: Trump was found by a jury of his peers to have RAPED E. Jean Carroll. And then assessed for more than 5 million dollars for defamation. And when he continued to defame her, and he was sued again, he continued to defame her even while sitting in the court room. And again a jury of his peers found him liable for 83.3 million dollars.
Trump has yet to post the required bond in order to appeal that verdict because he doesn't have the money that he has all along been lying he has. He is not a billionaire, and believing his lies that he is won't make YOU a billionaire.
And in the New York fraud trial, based on HARD EVIDENCE in he form of DOCUMENTS generated and obtained from Trump's criminal enterprise, he was assed with more than a half-billion dollars as fine. He hasn't posted the required bond in order to appeal in that case either -- because he is NOT the billionaire he has constantly lied that he is. Ignoring the law on the point. he attempted to appeal it anyway; the judge told him he must pay the bond in order to appeal. And then suggested in effect:
"Perhaps you should ask the banks you defrauded for a loan."
The difference between you and I is that I have a education in law, and adhere strictly to law and facts. But you can't back up any of your assertions, including thee smears against Biden, with EVIDENCE; and you can't because there is no such evidence.
It isn't complicated for an adult to understand if they are ethical, moral, and not therefore a liar: an assertion without evidence is not evidence. It is not a fact. And it certainly isn't law. All you are doing is repeating baseless -- totally lacking in evidence -- LIES. That means you have no ethics, no morals, no integrity. You are simply and foolishly drunk on whine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ScrapKnight2005 How you operate your motor vehicle is regulated because you are not the only member of society. It is regulated in order to protect PUBLIC SAFETY.
What you law-rejecting law-0llitertes refuse to accept is that OTHERS ALSO HAVE RIGHTS.
PAT ATTENTION, FOOL:
Laws prohibiting MURDER LIMIT how you can use your firearm. Is that your idea of "infringement"?
Those who know these issues have long recognized that you are beyond defending putative "gun rights" to defending mass murder. And that makes you a SOCIOPATH.
In reality EVERY right is inextricably entwined with RESPONSIBILITY. You DO NOT have the right to be an asshole when being that you INFRINGE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. You REJECT that reality because you're an ineducable PUNK.
___
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's Debates of the writing of the Amendment.
The facts from those Debates:
The purpose of the Amendment was to establish a National Defense, relying on the well-regulated Militia. That fact is underscored by the Militia Act enacted on May 8, 1792:
"An act more effectually to provide for the NATIONAL DEFENCE by establishing an uniform MILITIA throughout the United States."
The Militia is not an individual; it is a public institution, an arm OF gov't, regulated under both Federal and state constitutions and laws. 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 the 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" debated was that last clause -- "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service" -- and it was obviously voted down before the proposed Amendment was ratified. Thus the Second Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring the legislative history -- Congress's 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" insurrection was suppressed by the state's well-regulated Militia, and the insurrectionists charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
Under the Constitution, AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, the "Whiskey" insurrection was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington, and the insurrectionists 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
-
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
-
"No Collusion"?
Trump's July 27, 2016 Solicitation of Crime with Russia: the :aw v. Trump.
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.
1
-
@SuperMutant2099 Read it again, fantasist:
___
"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.
1
-
1
-
@SuperMutant2099 According to Trump, the stolen emails he received and possessed were from RUSSIA.
And you believe Trump would never lie because he has you SNOWED, snowflake.
___
"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.
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
-
@spearfisherman308 THESE FACTS:
___
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
-
@Alex Alex "the problem with liberals is that they only listen what they want to hear, if someone says a contradicting point of view they will insult him not listen".
Do you confuse that name-calling as being something other than insult, in view of the fact that you view the word "liberal" as a dirty word and insult?
Do you confuse your name-calling for "proving" something beyond the fact that you wallow in name-calling?
I mean, have you a point to communicate, or have you not yet been graduated from elementary schoolyard name-calling?
This is in the Constitution, which is LAW:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia, . . . reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS."
What "contradicting point of view" exists in LAW?
FACTS MATTER:
1. The Constitution is LAW. Law REGULATES.
2. Congress "provides" by MAKING LAW.
3. I'll simplify that Constitutional provision for you:
"reserving to the States . . . the Authority of training" -- which "training" is done by the STATE -- the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS."
The Founders didn't trust democracy -- but didn't reject it. They also didn't trust militaries -- but recognized their necessity. Democracy was institutionalized as the Congress. The military was placed under the regulation and governance of BOTH Congress and state constitutions and laws.
In short, the Founders were nut beer-gut cornpone "philosophers" preaching gibberish to slack-jawed gullibles who had to periodically remind themselves to breathe.
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
-
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
-
@Wordalways
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blacklung8433 It isn't sophism to point to the fact that the Founders established the legal precedent, under the Constitution, AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, that "insurrection" is "treason". Yes, law evolves, and elaborates. Constitutional provisions are implemented by means of statutes. The 14th Amendment, as example, is implemented by means of the 1871 "Ku Klux Klan" Act. Nor do you point to anything in my comments as being "sophism". (Sophistry? Your first comment was that there can't be treason without war -- the Founders certainly didn't believe that -- but provided no EVIDENCE for that assertion.)
Here, at random, is a statute which refutes current claims about the purpose of "militia" being properly anti-gov't -- to "take up arms" against "tyranny" -- which is, in law, the crime of insurrection; and which the Founders classified as treason; and which has no actual basis in the legal history: I haven't "translated" it into current English, so you'll have to work your way through the "long s"; but note the word "Impreffed" -- for which the modern terms are "conscription" and "draft".
The "General Court" was the gov't/legislature:
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.
In sum: the fantasy that the militia is to operate OUTSIDE the law as a "check" against "tyranny" has always been FALSE.
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
-
The polls are ARTIFICIALLY "close" because some aggregators include the junk Republican "polls" which are intended to make it appear close so when Trump is blown out -- I've been saying for months that this is building to a landslide for Harris/Walz -- he will whine that the election was "stolen".
The official state voting data is in stark contrast to the polls: see "The TEC Show" on youtube. In Michigan, as example, women are outvoting men 57 to 43.
And the Harris-Cheney town halls in Republican areas revealed that the breaking points for sane Republicans are the January 6th insurrection and the Dobbs decision. And that includes men.
And there is an additional significant "silent bloc" of Republicans not saying who they're voting but it is Harris/Walz.
Last but not least, see the extraordinary, brutally beautiful speech delivered by Michelle Obama in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Barack has the warmth and humor and that smile, but her speech at the DNC topped him, and this speech tops that.
I've been saying since December of last year that women, instead of getting tricked into debating abortion for 5 decades, should have responded by teaching the rest of us -- most opponents have been men -- about problem pregnancies. Because that is the issue: problem pregnancies. Michelle Obama speaks to that -- women's reproductive experiences are the central substance. And it is directed at male voters.
The whole speech is a powerful and factual barnburner -- you will be riveted:
Michelle Obama Speech in Kalamazoo, MI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtQqGOOLh8o
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
-
@uonecar Actually I'm opposed to all war. But I'm also sufficiently realistic to recognize that sovereign Ukraine is being illegally invaded by Russia -- and you history-illiterates are defending Russia.
LEARN:
1. For at least hundreds of years there were constant wars between western and Eastern European nations -- primarily, in Western Europe, between Britain, France, and Germany -- typically any two of them were allied against the third.
2. Twice such wars became world wars, and sucked the United States into their wars. (Do a search on youtube for "FrenchTastic" and "Normandy" for a video tour of the AMERICAN section of the D-Day cemetery in Normandy -- the cemetery Trump refused to visit because he didn't want his hair mussed by the very light rain).
The AMERICAN section is acre after acre after acre after acre of white crosses -- each the grave of an AMERICAN service member -- Trump said that those who died for the country are "suckers" and "losers". The alternatives to those deaths was Hitlerian fascism.
3. NATO was established by the United States -- it is a treaty, which in keeping with the Constitution is part of the US Law of the Land; which means no president can withdraw from it -- for three basic reasons:
A. To put a stop to the many hundreds of years of wars among Western and Eastern European nations -- and it has been a spectacular SUCCESS at that.
B. To PREVENT the US being sucked into another world war a THIRD time. That too has been a success -- and it is US NATIONAL SECURITY.
C. To established a mutual defense pact against historically-imperialist/expansive Russia. How in hell do you think Russia became the USSR!? It did so by FORCEFULLY SUBJUGATING the Baltic and Eastern European nations, including Ukraine.
Now pay attention to the actual meaning of Putin's LIE that a NATO member being on the opposite side of the border from Russia is a "threat," which is his excuse for intending to invade, as example, Poland -- to eliminate the so-called "threat".
And where would Russia be if it invaded, as example, Poland? It would have, on the opposite side of that border, a NATO member -- which he would claim is a "threat". So rinse and repeat the invasion excuse.
As said, I'm opposed to all war. But I'm not stupid -- I know the history. Better to defend democracy by providing Ukraine military aid (the US provided RUSSIA military aid against Hitler) than see Ukraine again subjugated, and NATO attacked, and therefore AMERICAN BOOTS ON THE GROUND IN EUROPE A THIRD TIME.
1
-
@uonecar Let's be clear -- unlike your sucking down the Republican lies:
the money allocated for the defense of Ukraine is not sent to Ukraine. It is used to replenish the WEAPONRY that the US is providing to Ukraine.
And stop the stupid and bullshitting: there is no way the Republican Party -- see Iraq, Afghanistan -- and its constant upping the budget for the defense industry, and its working with the NRA/gun industry and its implementation of DOMESTIC mayhem -- is an anti-war party. Iraq, especially, was an ILLEGAL invasion based on FALSIFICATIONS against Saddam Hussein:
HISTORY: Jimmy Carter put Iraq on the "Rogue State" list, and refused to provide it any war-making materials. Reagan, having a hyped-up grudge against Iran, took Iraq off that list so he could supply Saddam Hussein weapons to use against Iran. The "Iran gassing their own people" was a lie: the gas used was produced by Britain and the US, and provided by Reagan, and Hussein used it against Iran.
I'm an idealist -- I oppose all war. But that is tempered by my knowledge of history. Trump is a DOMESTIC enemy who REJECTS the rule of law. And you want to defend him as because he LIES about getting out of wars!?
Look what Trump did in Syria: the Kurds were the US's allies, and doing the actual fighting and dying, while the US backed them with military hardware and logistics. Trump pulled out the troops and left the Kurds to fend for themselves, and they were slaughtered.
Tell us how making enemies, and making promises that can't be trusted, creates friends and allies instead of enemies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CatLoverx900 Republican Dick Cheney had five deferments because, he said, "I had better things to do" than to serve his country. Then, as an "expert" on war, experience of which he avoided, he authored the illegal invasion of Iraq and got the US bogged down in that debacle.
Republican John Ashcroft got 7 deferments to teach an "emergency" business course -- as if there were ever a shortage in capitalist America of "business" teachers. Ashcroft is also the "Christian" extremist who covered up the breasts of the statue of Lady Liberty in the Dept. of Justice, and in so doing violated the First Amendment separation of "religion" and gov't.
Attacking Joe Biden is typical of the morally and ethically bankrupt, intellectually dishonest, and irresponsible Republicans who can't handle or respond honestly to legitimate criticisms of career criminal, adjudicated rapist, and convicted felon Trump.
In sum: YOU are a LIAR.
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
-
@Daddys_Home_002 We know what was in Trump's FRIVOLOUS "case/s" because he and his lawyers were spewing the LIES that the election was stolen.
The PROBLEM -- AGAIN, MORON -- is that the election WAS NOT STOLEN, therefore there was no EVIDENCE that it was stolen.
That is precisely why more than 60 cases were -- even by Trump-appointed judges -- DISMISSED. AS A MATTER OF REASON, FACT, AND LAW, an ALLEGATION is NOT EVIDENCE. ALL those dismissals, INCLUDING the REJECTION of Trump's repeat of the SAME LIES by the Supreme Court, were based on the FACT that THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE to back up the ALLEGATION.
Recall Rudy Giuliani asserting, "TRUTH ISN'T TRUTH!" Is that a TRUTH?
WATCH the interview with Giuliani, UNDER OATH, in which he ADMITS that he didn't "check" to determine whether the ALLEGATIONS were TRUE.
Recall Sydney Powell asserting that no one in their right mind would BELIEVE the lies she told.
You did not see "fraud"; what you saw is the elections systems worked exactly as required -- which included mandatory audits. Your PROBLEM is that you're IGNORANT of how elections work, therefore a SUCKER for LIES against the elections system.
With all the Trump lawyers working to "uncover" election "fraud," why then did it turn out that NONE of their "evidence" passed the smell test? Again -- and this is the last time I'm going to entertain your stupid anti-American disinformation -- because the FAKE "evidence" was FALSE, made-up horseshit for gullible fools just like you.
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
-
@Xxwill55xX George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. John Adams didn't, and was opposed to slavery.
You refer to the "Alien & Sedition Acts" -- which were ENACTED BY CONGRESS. Until then, Adams wasn't able to sign it.
So why single out Adams, and deceitfully leave out the Congress? Because you put politics above the rule of law. And, as is typical, you have to engage in deceit in effort to defend Trump.
You're welcome to point to any of the Founders as being perfect human beings -- except, of course, John Adams, because you don't like the Constitutional principles he enunciated and emphasized, because they are as a noose around Trump's neck:
"A system of LAWS, and NOT of men."
.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"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.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Another law-illiterate heard from --
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@squiggyg.8415 Still high on the Republican tradition of Smear and Fear politics, eh?
Perhaps you should actually follow what is actually happening in Congress: both President Biden's brother Jim, and hunter Biden, testified to Comer and Gym Jordan's hogwash "investigation". It turns out that Comer/Jordan's "star witness" -- who is now sitting in jail -- was an asset of Russian intelligence LYING to the FBI. So all of the lying was blown out of the water and the facts emerged as they had always been, from the beginning of the traditional Republican Politics of Smear and Fear against them:
NO ACTUAL SCANDAL.
And we all STILL don't know if the ALLEGED "laptop" ever existed.
In sum: Comer/Jordan's FIRST "star witness, who is still on the run from law enforcement, was connected to Chinese intelligence; and their SECOND "star witness" confessed to the fact that he was an asset for Russian intelligence who LIED to the FBI, and is now sitting in jail.
As with "Benghazi," as with "Hillery's EMAILS!" -- another waste of multiple-millions of TAXDOLLARS funding the traditional Republican Politics of Smear and Fear based exclusively on mendacity and LIES.
But you LOVE all that waste, all that destruction, because you don't realize that it adversely impacts YOU.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cynjwilliams6886 Educate yourself:
"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.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seanmccartney5177 And the "missing" is what?
When the issue is law, it makes sense to LEARN from those who have expertise in law. It makes sense also to learn from those who have expertise in the RELEVANT area of law. When the issue is Federal law, MSNBC provides actual former seasoned Federal prosecutors who have prosecuted under the RELEVANT FEDERAL laws being discussed.
CNN does a little of that.
There is another purported "network" on youtube -- Meides -- which consists to two CIVIL practice lawyers, who have NEVER been CRIMINAL law prosecutors, along with several other non-lawyer political commentators.
One of them -- Ben -- slings the same bigot's slurs and name-callings at Trump, and such as Judge Cannon, as the right-wing does, but is apparently either too stupid to look at how he is identical to the malefactors in doing that, or lives the same bigotries. Or he is deliberately using an exceedingly cheap -- and destructive -- means to produce panderer's click-bait. So he perpetuates the same crude discourse that is the problem.
The more mature lawyer of the two -- Popok -- posts "Hot Takes" that are so poorly prepared that they are a garbled mix of "clarification" of law and politics, and undifferentiated tangents, that one can't make sense of either, except that his politics are ostensibly "liberal".
MSNBC's seasoned prosecutors are exceedingly careful and clear by adhering strictly to the law, including caveats. They DO NOT mix in their or anyone else's political views and thus corrupt and bury their message.
I make those distinctions based on the fact that I have an education in law, so wonder what sort of presentations these lawyers make to juries that are successful at anything other than confusing them.
"Justice and the Rule of Law are to be ABOVE politics." -- John Adams.
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
-
The US has been in a Constitutional crisis since Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election.
For those who CONTINUE to deny the reality --
____
"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.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bigverybadtom Trump "University" was a FRAUD. To commit a FRAUD is to LIE.
The Trump "charitable" foundation was a FRAUD. To commit a FRAUD is to LIE.
He was found LIABLE for MASSIVE fraud in the valuations and devaluations of his properties. FRAUD is LYING.
He was CONVICTED of the CRIME of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS in order to FALSELY influence the election. FALSIFYING is LYING.
When asked if he would take the stand and testify under oath at his CRIMINAL trail, he responded, "ABSOLUTELY."
Then when weaseling out of doing so he first asserted that the "gag" order prevented him doing so. In FACT AND LAW there was a simple and legal way around the gag order:
To testify UNDER OATH. But he REFUSED to do so because he knew he had only two options:
Either admit to the facts PROVEN by the DOCUMENTS which were generated by and obtained from the TRUMP organization, some of which had been personally signed, on his personal bank account, by TRUMP.
OR commit perjury in the fact of the OVERWHELMING evidence from his own hand.
EVERYTHING he said about the falsification of business records was and is PROVEN to be LIES BY HIS OWN ORGANIZATION RECORDS INCLUDING THOSE HE PERSONALLY SIGNED.
But let's go back to the Big Lie: that the election was stolen. In Georgia, AS EXAMPLE, there were three post-election audits which found no significant fraud. We have the TAPE RECORDING/S, made by REPUBLICAN state officials, of his STATE LAW PROHITED effort to EXTORT based on LIES about the election.
He filed more than 60 lawsuits in multiple states alleging the election was stolen. ALL were dismissed for LACK OF EVIDENCE. Are we to believe his lawyers DIDN'T KNOW the suits were bogus?
You don't get to pretend that there are no FACTS simply by LYING that there are no "facts" based on doing everything you can to AVOID the facts. You Trump Derangement Syndrome DUPES are not clever; you are COWARDS. you DON'T DARE WATCH the January 6th Congressional Committee hearings in which the WITNESSES -- ALL of them TRUMP SUPPORTERS from the White House, the DOJ, and the Trump Campaign -- exposed Trump for what he is. As example, directly from one of the Trump White House inner circle, is the FACT that Trump was TOLD by the Secret Service that many of his supporters at the "really" WERE ARMED WITH GUNS. Further, there is VIDEO footage of some of them in trees with guns, and police radio traffic of them being armed.
Yet Trump to this days denies it.
If Trump says anything it is a LIE.
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
-
@fletcherhamilton3177 Where is the EVIDENCE of the alleged "fraud"? There is none, which is why you provide none.
To "take up arms" against the gov't is defined IN LAW as INSURRECTION. The only "reason" to VIOLENTLY attack the gov't is to overthrow it. What you morons don't know -- and don't know that you don't know -- is that the Founders "attacked" and "overthrew" this many gov'ts:
ZERO.
Because all the colony/state gov'ts were under the control of the FOUNDERS.
And this is in the Constitution -- all of which is in effect at the same time, and which you "love" but have never 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.
As is this, in relevant part:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia."
You make bald-faced assertions, the only EVIDENCE concerning which there is REFUTES your repetition of the BIG LIE fed you by New York con-man and career criminal TRUMP.
Ask yourself: Why do you WANT to believe LIES.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Founders on the Second Amendment:
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danielviets4427 "I’m sorry that you hate freedom of speech. But that’s a foundation of our country. It’s the first amendment for a reason."
Thank you for further substantiating your law-illiteracy, in this instance with a favorite FALSE gun-nut defense of the NRA's Second Amendment lies.
FACTS MATTER:
As submitted to the states for consideration and ratification the proposed "Bill of Rights" consisted of TWELVE proposed Amendments. The FIRST TWO were REJECTED making the Third the First and the Fourth the Second.
Think about the rights of others -- such as those who are smeared with disinformation? I've been a civil rights advocated since third grade, when 9-10 years old. When you reject the necessary limits on the exercise of rights to promote lawless bullying. This is an on-point example of how that is properly curtailed:
In LAW pointing an UNLOADED gun at another is the CRIME of "Assault with a Deadly Weapon". The element CENTRAL to the crime is the UNLOADED GUN. Why? Because BOTH there are LIMITS on the exercise of rights AND OTHERS ALSO have rights.
FACTS MATTER:
___
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
-
@danielviets4427 1. It can't be proven that there's a "creator".
2. The First Amendment separates "religion" and gov't.
3. You wouldn't know what rights to claim if they weren't secured IN WRITTEN LAW.
Again, I have an education in law -- and you are a law-illiterate who REJECTS the rule of law and the Constitutionally-established LIMITS on their exercise.-- which, ironically, rejects WITH THE LAW the very rights you like to claim.
___
"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.
1
-
1
-
@JayPlateFaceVideos No, they did not. It was the politics that drowned out the media.
The "New York Times" reported from the nuclear scientists that the "aluminum tubes" could not be used for nuclear purposes as the G. DUI Bushit/Cheney administration were claiming.
You don't know that because you wallow in far-Left sloganizing.
During the 1960s as a full-time "anti"war activist I saw the "New Left" ALIENATE the MODERATES we needed to reach in order to get the US out of Vietnam. And by causing that alienation they got NIXON elected, and that prolonged the war into the mid-1970s.
You fools ignored the facts -- as example, he stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Trump doing his own serial lying about releasing his tax records -- and bought into Sanders' demagoguery, he being the exact opposite extreme of Trump. And when he lost, having smeared the majority of MODERATE "centrists" as "corrupt," thus ALIENATING THEM, because the Democrats voted for the ACTUAL Democrat, you decided to "blow up the system" -- and now "Roe" and a series of other decisions based on the RIGHT OF PRIVACY, which the Trump court has ERASED, are GONE.
Ask yourself how you narrow-minded pseudo-"progressive" know-it-alls succeeded in causing such radical REGRESSION. Look at the damage done, and continuing, and ask yourself how your childish simpleton's rants about buzz-phrases has IMPROVED the situation.
I opposed every US military action beginning with Vietnam, while I was in high school. I was the only member of my class to do so and took the heat. But the support of Ukraine is exactly right, and the first time the US has been right on an issue of military action, since WW II and Korea.
I learned of climate change in junior high science in the early 1960s. My "Boomer" generation, and our elders, established "Earth Day" in 1970, and we established the ecology movement. But what do we get now? -- younger generations who are ignorant of HISTORY -- which is not slogans -- bashing THEIR elders as having fucked up the world.
The world is fucked up because humans are imperfect. And look at the cluster fuck YOUR generation has caused: instead of bashing your elders based on age discrimination, focus on the assholes in YOUR generation -- those are who you will have to live with after we are gone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1