Border Crisis/Government Shutdown

[Jake Broe Stan]

The very fact that they had to amend the law in order to allow the potus to do all that stuff, is proof that you are wrong.

Had the potus already had that power, there would have been no need to include US citizens in the Trading with the enemies act.

Everything the potus did, (close the banks and steal the People's money) is based on the trading with the enemies act.


Bullshit. We did not have any of that before the potus had war powers over US citizens.



Your gov had a big role in causing that.

Presidents have had the power since the founding of the country. Before that we had war, murder, anarchy, and all the other terrible parts of humanity while there was a lack of any government control in the colonies (regardless of which government you wanted to win the war)(see the southern colonies).

Before that is was even worse. Natives weren’t referred to as savages because they were nice people.

You really should read a history book sometime.

 

[CDDP]

 

[Joe King]

They didn’t amend the law.

They most certainly did. They completely rewrote Sec 2 (b)

They more clearly defined the president’s authorities.

No, they used an ex-poste facto law to supposedly legalize what FDR did 5 days earlier.

In some cases Congress transferred some of their authority to the executive branch which is also completely constitutional.

They transferred legislative power of war to the executive under the guise of an emergency that the gov itself created.

 

[Joe King]

Only an idiot could read this:

(b) The government of any nation with which the United States is at war, or any political or municipal subdivision thereof, or any officer, official, agent, or agency thereof.

....and think it says the same thing as this:

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

They most certainly did. They completely rewrote Sec 2 (b)



No, they used an ex-poste facto law to supposedly legalize what FDR did 5 days earlier.



They transferred legislative power of war to the executive under the guise of an emergency that the gov itself created.

It doesn’t matter why Congress transferred their powers to the executive branch. They can do it for any reason and do it all the time.

You do realize that Congress can create laws to clarify what has already happened right? They are simply acknowledging and reinforcing the legality of what was done.

So let’s say that the legislative branch and executive branch were both acting unconstitutionally as you are claiming… surely the judicial branch handed down a ruling saying as much. If they didn’t that would mean that what Congress and the executive did was in fact constitutional and that couldn’t be the case in your reality. Which opinion covers this particular issue?

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Only an idiot could read this:

(b) The government of any nation with which the United States is at war, or any political or municipal subdivision thereof, or any officer, official, agent, or agency thereof.

....and think it says the same thing as this:

View attachment 210781

They don’t say the same thing but they do mean the same thing.

Anybody acting as an “agent” already covered US citizens.

 

[Joe King]

It doesn’t matter why Congress transferred their powers to the executive branch. They can do it for any reason and do it all the time.

It most certainly does matter. We have a system of government with limited power. That means that there are some things the gov can't do. Treating the People as the enemy is one of those things.

You do realize that Congress can create laws to clarify what has already happened right?

They can't pass a law that legalizes an un-Constitutional action in the past.

So let’s say that the legislative branch and executive branch both acting unconstitutionally as you are claiming… surely the judicial branch handed down a ruling saying as much.

I don't think it's ever been ruled on by the SC.

If they didn’t that would mean that what Congress and the executive did was in fact unconstitutional and that couldn’t be the case in your reality. Which opinion covers this particular issue?

The SC hasn't ruled on a lotta stuff. Drug Enforcement Act is another un-Constitutional law that the Court has gone out of its way to avoid giving a ruling on.

 

[Joe King]

They don’t say the same thing but they do mean the same thing.

No they do not. If they meant the same thing, there would have been no need to change it. It was rewritten in such way so as to include US citizens, when previously it did not.

Anybody acting as an “agent” already covered US citizens.

It only applied to agents of foreign nations we are at war with. In 1933, we were not at war with any nations.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

It most certainly does matter. We have a system of government with limited power. That means that there are some things the gov can't do. Treating the People as the enemy is one of those things.





They can't pass a law that legalizes an un-Constitutional action in the past.




I don't think it's ever been ruled on by the SC.



The SC hasn't ruled on a lotta stuff. Drug Enforcement Act is another un-Constitutional law that the Court has gone out of its way to avoid giving a ruling on.

If they haven’t been ruled unconstitutional then they are constitutional. The Constitution doesn’t care about your feelings and misinterpretations.

You’re also completely wrong about treating US citizens as the enemy. The president, Congress, and the judicial branch take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend The Constitution from all foreign & DOMESTIC threats. In addition, Article II of The Constitution clearly authorizes the president to use whatever force necessary to put down insurrections.

Anyone deemed any enemy combatant or enemy agent is fair game. Even engaging in digital warfare makes a US citizen an enemy combatant.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42337#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20in%202004,In%20Hamdi%20v.

The Supreme Court in 2004 affirmed the President's power to detain “enemy combatants,” including those who are U.S. citizens, as part of the necessary force authorized by Congress after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

No they do not. If they meant the same thing, there would have been no need to change it. It was rewritten in such way so as to include US citizens, when previously it did not.


It only applied to agents of foreign nations we are at war with. In 1933, we were not at war with any nations.

Congress rewrites laws all the time to create more clarity. I’m sorry that triggers you into conspiracy theory.

Being at war wasn’t required. Only a state of national emergency which existed because of the depression.

 

[Joe King]

If they haven’t been ruled unconstitutional then they are constitutional. The Constitution doesn’t care about your feelings and misinterpretations.

Just like omitting testimony in court is the same as lying, intentionally not taking a case that they know won't stand up, is the same.

The court picks and chooses the cases it takes. They aren't going to hear a case that would result in their own apple cart being kicked over.

You’re also completely wrong about treating US citizens as the enemy.

Then why did they use the trading with the enemies act as the basis for the emergency banking act? And have to amend it in order to do so?

The president, Congress, and the judicial branch take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend The Constitution from all foreign & DOMESTIC threats.

For rebellion, yes, but not just because the People wanted back what was rightfully theirs. Ie: their money.

In addition, Article II of The Constitution clearly authorizes the president to use whatever force necessary to put down insurrections.

The People merely wanting their property returned, was not an insurrection.

Anyone deemed any enemy combatant or enemy agent is fair game. Even engaging in digital warfare makes a US citizen an enemy combatant.

True, but the People were not enemy combatants.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Just like omitting testimony in court is the same as lying, intentionally not taking a case that they know won't stand up, is the same.

The court picks and chooses the cases it takes. They aren't going to hear a case that would result in their own apple cart being kicked over.




Then why did they use the trading with the enemies act as the basis for the emergency banking act? And have to amend it in order to do so?


For rebellion, yes, but not just because the People wanted back what was rightfully theirs. Ie: their money.


The People merely wanting their property returned, was not an insurrection.


True, but the People were not enemy combatants.

If people are violating the law then they are in a state of rebellion. Laws come from and are a part of government. To violate them is to attack government.

18 U.S.C. 2383 says, “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be….”

Rebellion or Insurrection | 18 U.S. Code § 2383

Review 18 U.S.C. 2383 rebellion or insurrection law which makes it a crime to incite, assist with, or participate in a rebellion against United States authority.

www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com

You’re first two paragraphs are a level of conspiracy theory and fraudulent legal analysis that’s hard to believe could even be written but yet here you are…

Article I of The Constitution makes clear that currency (money) is the property of Congress and that they have the sole right to it. This is another one of those times where if you were educated in the law, like I am, you wouldn’t make such an obviously false assertion.

What Power Does Congress Have Over Money? - FindLaw

The Constitution gives Congress the power over the currency of the United States including the power to coin money and regulate its value. Congress also has the power to charter banks to circulate money. The converse power of the creation of currency is to regulate any and all counterfeit currency.

constitution.findlaw.com

The Constitution gives Congress the power over the currency of the United States including the power to coin money and regulate its value. Congress also has the power to charter banks to circulate money. The converse power of the creation of currency is to regulate any and all counterfeit currency.

Coining Currency​

Article I, Section 8, Clause 5:​

United States Library of Congress, The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; . . .

 

[Joe King]

If people are violating the law then they are in a state of rebellion.

It is not, and was not a violation of the law for the peope to want their money back from the banks.

At the time, the law said that the money was the People' money.

Laws come from and are a part of government. To violate them is to attack government.

So when you speed, or do a rolling stop, you really think that constitutes an attack on gov? lol

Article I of The Constitution makes clear that currency (money) is the property of Congress and that they have the sole right to it. This is another one of those times where if you were educated in the law, like I am, you wouldn’t make such an obviously false assertion.

The Constitution also says that if/when the gov takes something, it must give fair compensation for that thing. So no, the gov cannot just take your money. At least not in 1933 they couldn't. Now we have un-Constitutional use of civil forfeiture laws.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

It is not, and was not a violation of the law for the peope to want their money back from the banks.

At the time, the law said that the money was the People' money.




So when you speed, or do a rolling stop, you really think that constitutes an attack on gov? lol



The Constitution also says that if/when the gov takes something, it must give fair compensation for that thing. So no, the gov cannot just take your money. At least not in 1933 they couldn't. Now we have un-Constitutional use of civil forfeiture laws.

There is no way the law said that “the people’s money”, as I’ve already laid out, because it would be a violation of Article I. Article I existed long before anyone in 1933 (besides it being the supreme law of the land).

And yes, anybody that violates in law in America could be considered any enemy combatant. That is why it’s important to recognize the paradise we have here with a government that isn’t hostile towards its citizens and upholds their rights.

Maybe you cannot read well so I’ll explain it again. Currency can never be a citizen’s property. It is always the property of Congress. They simply allow you to hold it and use it.

 

[Joe King]

There is no way the law said that “the people’s money”,

The People owned the wealth that the money represented, and if the gov takes that without the People having committed a crime, , then the Constitution says that they must be fully compensated equal to whatever was taken.

The gov cannot just take your money. Certainly not in '33.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

The People owned the wealth that the money represented, and if the gov takes that without the People having committed a crime, , then the Constitution says that they must be fully compensated equal to whatever was taken.

The gov cannot just take your money. Certainly not in '33.

Money doesn’t represent wealth. Apparently economics isn’t your thing either.

Money is simply a tool to facilitate economic activity. That is why it’s owned by government and regulated by government.

The government didn’t take people’s money. It kept its own money.

 

[CDDP]

 

[CDDP]