Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "Bash presses Mayorkas about '1984' comparisons to disinformation board" video.
-
9
-
6
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
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
-
@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
-
@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
-
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
-
@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