Political Affiliation Poll

[Jake Broe Stan]

heere heere

No, it is only when you cross state lines that it is considered interstate commerce. Abortion itself has nothing do do with it

so you think that individuals rights to guns is a no no, but the right to email is ok, even though it has been proven several times that the 2nd applies to the individual?

People are crossing state lines to get abortions. Payments for those services are crossing state lines as well. It is clearly an interstate commerce issue.

I think that an individual’s right to free speech in an email comes from an interpretation of the 1st amendment in the same way that an individual’s right to own a handgun comes from an interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I support both interpretations because I support the expansion of rights (generally) but those rights don’t exist in the plain text of The Constitution. Those rights were only created via interpretation in the same way the right to an abortion was created via interpretation.

What I was correcting @Joe King on was the false notion that certain things are off limits to the federal government. Nothing is off limits to the federal government given the right amount of votes and public support. If, for example, the People elected a Congress that repealed the 2nd amendment and then the required number of states ratified said repeal then people would no longer have a right to firearms regardless of whether they were in the militia / government.

Furthermore, in the same way that The Supreme Court eliminated the right to an abortion via a new interpretation of The Constitution they could also eliminate the right to individual firearm possession in this country with a new interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

EVERY state that addressed the Second Amendment disagrees with your assessment.

Your first argument is that "the people" equals a government right didn't hold water. If that were the case, the citizenry would not have a Freedom of Speech, the Press, or Religion as the First protects a Right of the people. Read the First Amendment. You tried to defend the decisions of the Supreme Court when, if you are a lawyer as you claim, know that the vetting process for federal judges comes by way of the American Bar Association. Again, that is a liberal organization. Finally, in that vein, you support the living document view in spite of what both Washington and Jefferson stated. So, now we come to this.

The best authority on what the Second Amendment means comes down first to what the man who wrote the Amendment had to say AND what any judges he nominated might say. Next, in order to determine what best evidence is would be the lower court holdings and what the FIRST United States Supreme Court holdings said that may impact the lower court holdings.

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

Here is it abundantly clear that Madison is speaking of an individual Right. Surely you are not going to argue that "the people" of other nations meant that no other nation had a military, are you? AND, if you want to know who "the people" were, I would refer you to Dred Scott v. Sanford.

And what did the United States Supreme Court Justice, nominated by the man who wrote the Second Amendment have to say about what it means?

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

And what did the lower courts say?

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth.(1822) The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

In wording that holding the way they did, the United States Supreme Court upheld the lower court rulings in the states. EVERY state that considered the Second Amendment disagrees with your assessment. Cruikshank makes it clear. The Rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights is not granted by the government. They exist without the Bill of Rights. This country was founded on the premise that you have unalienable Rights. The earliest court decisions held that those unalienable Rights are natural, inherent, preexisting, absolute, irrevocable and above the law. It wasn't until Heller that the high Court concocted a way around all that by using the word "unlimited" and that, sir, is due to the simple fact that they claim your Second Amendment Rights were incorporated into the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment and such amendment is about government granted privileges and immunities, NOT unalienable Rights.

Take the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment out of the Heller decision and your Rights are absolute. The word absolute in a layman's context is a synonym for unlimited. They could only limit your Rights by incorporating them into an amendment that has the government as having bestowed upon you your Rights as contrasted to a Creator as per the Declaration of Independence.

If you feel insulted, my aim is not to pick on you, but to show you that I understand you are taking the position of pabulum puking prostitutes that destroyed our Republic. While they may have the power to do so, you and I know that they lack the authority. At some point the people (the citizenry) will recognize the current tyranny for what it is and if they find out what I know, then all bets are off.

Yes, the People can keep and bear arms via their militias.

None of those quotes say anything about the individual right to own a firearm and they would have if that’s what the FF intended. The 2nd amendment was ratified as a means for southern states to quell slave uprising. It’s an objective fact in the same way that water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius.

Thank you for proving my point.

These claims of “illegal ratification” and The American Bar Association do nothing but further reinforce that you don’t adhere to the law and Constitution as it is written / interpreted but instead whatever brainwashed conspiracy theory you’re peddling that day. Do better because you’re undermining The Founding Fathers and the republic they created for us.

 

[TheResister]

Yes, the People can keep and bear arms via their militias.

None of those quotes say anything about the individual right to own a firearm and they would have if that’s what the FF intended. The 2nd amendment was ratified as a means for southern states to quell slave uprising. It’s an objective fact in the same way that water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius.

Thank you for proving my point.

These claims of “illegal ratification” and The American Bar Association do nothing but further reinforce that you don’t adhere to the law and Constitution as it is written / interpreted but instead whatever brainwashed conspiracy theory you’re peddling that day. Do better because you’re undermining The Founding Fathers and the republic they created for us.

You're lying and presuming that the people on this board are too stupid to understand plain English. The quotes are, as they clearly indicate: the general citizenry (who happen to comprise the militia as differentiated from the organized militia.) Nunn v. Georgia made that abundantly clear.

As for the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment, there is no conspiracy "theory" to it. It is simply a legal point of view and, as I've told you, under your living document theory (and I'm not as stupid as the left to claim a view is a conspiracy theory) the law can change on a dime. FWIW, here is what a judge (and judges are practicing attorneys) had to say regarding that blight called the Fourteenth Amendment:

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

So, you are a conspiracy theorist, a left wing pabulum puking liberal and spewing that socialist view of America. No need to feel insulted. Just accept what you are and admit what you're selling.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

You're lying and presuming that the people on this board are too stupid to understand plain English. The quotes are, as they clearly indicate: the general citizenry (who happen to comprise the militia as differentiated from the organized militia.) Nunn v. Georgia made that abundantly clear.

As for the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment, there is no conspiracy "theory" to it. It is simply a legal point of view and, as I've told you, under your living document theory (and I'm not as stupid as the left to claim a view is a conspiracy theory) the law can change on a dime. FWIW, here is what a judge (and judges are practicing attorneys) had to say regarding that blight called the Fourteenth Amendment:

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

So, you are a conspiracy theorist, a left wing pabulum puking liberal and spewing that socialist view of America. No need to feel insulted. Just accept what you are and admit what you're selling.

You’re the one who is lying and trying to change plain English. All militias are organized and under the sovereignty of the state or federal government. Simply being a citizen doesn’t make one a part of the militia. Being a citizen only makes one eligible to be conscripted into the militia. Articles 1 & 2 of the Constitution plainly spell this out as well.

You’re proving my point for me again. Saying the 14th amendment is illegally ratified would be accurately described as a “theory” and most accurately described as a “conspiracy theory”. There is no basis for it in law. The Supreme Court has upheld the 14th amendment at every juncture and it was ratified according to the constitutionally prescribed process.

You need to start living in reality and stop attack the republic our Founding Fathers created.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

@TheResister I don’t mind agreeing to disagree with you.

The important of this discussion we are having is the recognition that I’m merely acknowledging The Constitution as written and The Supreme Court’s interpretation of it. What you’re describing would be a new interpretation of the 2nd amendment based not on what is written into The Constitution but what you feel The Constitution should say and protect.

It’s the same point I was making with @Joe King

You can feel however you want but you shouldn’t misconstrue reality with what you want to be. The Constitution & this republic is far too important for that.

 

[TheResister]

@TheResister I don’t mind agreeing to disagree with you.

The important of this discussion we are having is the recognition that I’m merely acknowledging The Constitution as written and The Supreme Court’s interpretation of it. What you’re describing would be a new interpretation of the 2nd amendment based not on what is written into The Constitution but what you feel The Constitution should say and protect.

It’s the same point I was making with @Joe King

You can feel however you want but you shouldn’t misconstrue reality with what you want to be. The Constitution & this republic is far too important for that.

YOU shouldn't misconstrue reality with what YOU want it to be. Today's laws are what they are, but you and I can see with our own eyes what the intent was. The Bill of Rights was to protect the Rights of individuals. That was made clear by the holdings I cited. You denied that. For whatever reason, that is on you.

In America there is the legality of a situation; there is the morality of it; there is the reality. The legality is that the Constitution is NOT being upheld. The morality is, we have a Right, a Duty and an Obligation to resist evil; the reality is that those in charge and those making the decisions are deaf, dumb, blind and oblivious as to the real First Principles they ignorantly claim to believe in.

If we are not properly educated, we will continue to get the same kind of nincompoops that you defend. I'm sorry you don't get it.

 

[TheResister]

You’re the one who is lying and trying to change plain English. All militias are organized and under the sovereignty of the state or federal government. Simply being a citizen doesn’t make one a part of the militia. Being a citizen only makes one eligible to be conscripted into the militia. Articles 1 & 2 of the Constitution plainly spell this out as well.

You’re proving my point for me again. Saying the 14th amendment is illegally ratified would be accurately described as a “theory” and most accurately described as a “conspiracy theory”. There is no basis for it in law. The Supreme Court has upheld the 14th amendment at every juncture and it was ratified according to the constitutionally prescribed process.

You need to start living in reality and stop attack the republic our Founding Fathers created.

Contrary to what you continue to lie about, the earliest courts did not limit the Right to keep and bear Arms to a militia. You didn't even bother to read the cites.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

YOU shouldn't misconstrue reality with what YOU want it to be. Today's laws are what they are, but you and I can see with our own eyes what the intent was. The Bill of Rights was to protect the Rights of individuals. That was made clear by the holdings I cited. You denied that. For whatever reason, that is on you.

In America there is the legality of a situation; there is the morality of it; there is the reality. The legality is that the Constitution is NOT being upheld. The morality is, we have a Right, a Duty and an Obligation to resist evil; the reality is that those in charge and those making the decisions are deaf, dumb, blind and oblivious as to the real First Principles they ignorantly claim to believe in.

If we are not properly educated, we will continue to get the same kind of nincompoops that you defend. I'm sorry you don't get it.

No. We have many more rights now than than Founding Fathers ever envisioned. The morality and intent of The Bill of Rights and The Declaration of Independence are completely intact.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Contrary to what you continue to lie about, the earliest courts did not limit the Right to keep and bear Arms to a militia. You didn't even bother to read the cites.

No court has ever limited the right to keep and bear arms. That right is far expanded from anything The Founding Fathers ever intended.

Acknowledging that a right isn’t absolute & unlimted, as The Founding Fathers intended and acknowledged, isn’t a limitation. It’s just a statement of fact akin to saying water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius.

I read all your citations. They prove my point and not yours. The fact that you’re trying to spin it as otherwise really shows how in over your head you are.

 

[TheResister]

No court has ever limited the right to keep and bear arms. That right is far expanded from anything The Founding Fathers ever intended.

Acknowledging that a right isn’t absolute & unlimted, as The Founding Fathers intended and acknowledged, isn’t a limitation. It’s just a statement of fact akin to saying water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius.

I read all your citations. They prove my point and not yours. The fact that you’re trying to spin it as otherwise really shows how in over your head you are.

You obviously cannot read. The right to keep and bear Arms was found to be absolute and applicable to the individual citizen - a reality you deny because you obviously cannot read.

A couple of big changes came after the courts applied the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment to the equation. But, the bigger picture that you don't understand is that the Bill of Rights is a limitation on government. Even in the Heller decision, the high Court ruled "like most rights." They didn't say all rights are limited. They said "like MOST rights." Even they couldn't help but indirectly admit that unalienable Rights do exist. You're wrong and I think you know you're wrong. You apparently like to play the Devil's advocate just to see if you can piss people off you have no respect for.

I'd feel differently had you not claimed to be a practicing attorney. What kind of "practicing attorney" argues with people he thinks are idiots before a crowd of posters he thinks can't read above a fifth grade level? You aren't changing any minds and I'm only providing ammo (pun definitely intended) to those who instinctively know this stuff, but don't have the research yet.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

You obviously cannot read. The right to keep and bear Arms was found to be absolute and applicable to the individual citizen - a reality you deny because you obviously cannot read.

A couple of big changes came after the courts applied the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment to the equation. But, the bigger picture that you don't understand is that the Bill of Rights is a limitation on government. Even in the Heller decision, the high Court ruled "like most rights." They didn't say all rights are limited. They said "like MOST rights." Even they couldn't help but indirectly admit that unalienable Rights do exist. You're wrong and I think you know you're wrong. You apparently like to play the Devil's advocate just to see if you can piss people off you have no respect for.

I'd feel differently had you not claimed to be a practicing attorney. What kind of "practicing attorney" argues with people he thinks are idiots before a crowd of posters he thinks can't read above a fifth grade level? You aren't changing any minds and I'm only providing ammo (pun definitely intended) to those who instinctively know this stuff, but don't have the research yet.

Just repeating lies over and over again isn’t going to make them true. Inalienable rights aren’t absolute and never have been. What rights, if any, are inalienable, is up for debate as well. That’s why The Founding Fathers made The Constitution and Bill of Rights amendmendable.

If you’re upset because black people have equal rights then just say that. No need make up a fantasy world as a result.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

@TheResister If an amendment were ratified to abolish the 2nd amendment then you, as well as the state’s militias, would no longer have a right to keep and bear arms. The Founding Fathers made it clear that nothing in that amendment is “unalienable” or absolute or it wouldnt be able to be amended. The same goes for everything else listed in The Constitution.

The law is the law and no amount of conspiracy theory will change that.

 

[TheResister]

Just repeating lies over and over again isn’t going to make them true. Inalienable rights aren’t absolute and never have been. What rights, if any, are inalienable, is up for debate as well. That’s why The Founding Fathers made The Constitution and Bill of Rights amendmendable.

If you’re upset because black people have equal rights then just say that. No need make up a fantasy world as a result.

Wow! You just exposed yourself. Thank you for the opportunity to tell the people what Rights consist of.

As Jake knows, IF he is what he claims, there is a wide berth of difference between an inalienable right and an unalienable Right. Normally, we would consult a layman's dictionary to find the meaning of a word. But, among the things the United States Supreme Court does (that is not listed in the Constitution) is to define the meaning of words. If they change the meaning of a word, they change the law. Don't believe me? Google shall means may, United States Supreme Court. Just do it if you don't accept the premise.

Unalienable Rights were defined in courts as follows:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Now, Jake switches the discussion to inalienable rights. The courts determined that there IS a difference:

“Inalienable rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights” Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101 (1952)

You cannot consent to giving up an unalienable Right. You have a Right to Life, but tell someone it's okay to kill you. Suddenly you find out you cannot forfeit that Right.

Insofar as black people having rights, the Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—"

That was written before you had citizens of the United States. There is no such thing as an unalienable Right to vote; no such Right to become a citizen; no such Right to become a part of the body politic. I personally believe that all people have unalienable Rights, but such Rights are not the man made rights (aka privileges and immunities) that artificially make people "equals," but where such needs to be enforced at the barrel of a gun.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

@Jake Broe Stan

So, I think I understand your thinking to the "unalienable" limitation thing, and I agree...............So what right is not Inalienable? In truth, all rights can be voted away 100% absolutely. With enough backing, (in the extreme) we could make a law that imposed the death sentence should you eat mustard on french fries. With enough backing, we could make this an amendment to the US Constitution, 100%.

If that is your point, I agree, however.....

the constitution was more document that LIMITS the power of a government, which was installed by the consent of the governed, it grants us nothing.

I go back to the Declaration quite a bit, but this is one reason why the document addresses "a candid world" to opine that certain "unalienable rights" are inherent to the individual, for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Notice......that is one of the portions of the bill of rights was missing, you would likely not be very "happy".

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Wow! You just exposed yourself. Thank you for the opportunity to tell the people what Rights consist of.

As Jake knows, IF he is what he claims, there is a wide berth of difference between an inalienable right and an unalienable Right. Normally, we would consult a layman's dictionary to find the meaning of a word. But, among the things the United States Supreme Court does (that is not listed in the Constitution) is to define the meaning of words. If they change the meaning of a word, they change the law. Don't believe me? Google shall means may, United States Supreme Court. Just do it if you don't accept the premise.

Unalienable Rights were defined in courts as follows:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Now, Jake switches the discussion to inalienable rights. The courts determined that there IS a difference:

“Inalienable rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights” Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101 (1952)

You cannot consent to giving up an unalienable Right. You have a Right to Life, but tell someone it's okay to kill you. Suddenly you find out you cannot forfeit that Right.

Insofar as black people having rights, the Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—"

That was written before you had citizens of the United States. There is no such thing as an unalienable Right to vote; no such Right to become a citizen; no such Right to become a part of the body politic. I personally believe that all people have unalienable Rights, but such Rights are not the man made rights (aka privileges and immunities) that artificially make people "equals," but where such needs to be enforced at the barrel of a gun.

Inalienable and unalienable rights are the same thing. There is no difference. The way you keep exposing yourself as having no legal knowledge is breathtaking.

I appreciate you pointing out that The Founding Fathers didn’t consider any of the rights listed in The Bill of Rights to be inalienable / unalienable.

However, it does seem like you confuse The Declaration of Independence for being a legal document. Nothing written into The Declaration has any effect on how the law functions and what rights people have. It is merely a propaganda tool used to justify revolution against the king.

The Founding Fathers realized quite quickly that they wanted and needed a strong central government to be able to govern effectively. That is why none of the rights in The Bill of Rights are describe as “unalienable” by them when they ratified it.

The notion of “life, liberty, and property” being “unalienable” gained consensus as the rallying cry for war but putting that consensus into law or even agreeing to what it meant after the revolution couldn’t be achieved. That is why The FF agreed on and ratified The Constitution with The Bill of Rights afterwards to put into law what could be agreed to.

The Declaration of Independence: Unalienable / Inalinable

www.ushistory.org

The final version of the Declaration uses the word "unalienable." Some earlier drafts used the word "inalienable," which is the term our modern dictionaries prefer. The two words mean precisely the same thing.

According to The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style from Houghton Mifflin Company:

The unalienable rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence could just as well have been inalienable, which means the same thing.

 

[laterallyshaking]

Why? Present Society isn't sustainable IMHO.

What about todays society do you like/feel we would want/need?

Current society is missing a lot of good that it could have, but it also has a lot of good. Modern healthcare has done wonders for extending the average lifespan of humanity. I can't tell you the last time I was truly hungry without choosing to be so. We have so much food in this country that it takes willpower/effort to refrain from eating it until it kills us. Clean water is abundant. Life is an absolute breeze for a large percentage of people.

Now, does life being a breeze make for a better quality of life from a mental/spiritual perspective? A strong argument could be made for no, but in first world countries, things are safer now than they ever have been. We have it so easy it's not funny.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

@Jake Broe Stan

So, I think I understand your thinking to the "unalienable" limitation thing, and I agree...............So what right is not Inalienable? In truth, all rights can be voted away 100% absolutely. With enough backing, (in the extreme) we could make a law that imposed the death sentence should you eat mustard on french fries. With enough backing, we could make this an amendment to the US Constitution, 100%.

If that is your point, I agree, however.....

the constitution was more document that LIMITS the power of a government, which was installed by the consent of the governed, it grants us nothing.

I go back to the Declaration quite a bit, but this is one reason why the document addresses "a candid world" to opine that certain "unalienable rights" are inherent to the individual, for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Notice......that is one of the portions of the bill of rights was missing, you would likely not be very "happy".

The first part I agree with and was much my point but The Constitution is a document that lays out the rights of the federal government, state governments, and individuals. To describe it as a document that limits government is inaccurate. It is a document that empowers government based on the consent of the People.

 

[TheResister]

Inalienable and unalienable rights are the same thing. There is no difference. The way you keep exposing yourself as having no legal knowledge is breathtaking.

I appreciate you pointing out that The Founding Fathers didn’t consider any of the rights listed in The Bill of Rights to be inalienable / unalienable.

However, it does seem like you confuse The Declaration of Independence for being a legal document. Nothing written into The Declaration has any effect on how the law functions and what rights people have. It is merely a propaganda tool used to justify revolution against the king.

The Founding Fathers realized quite quickly that they wanted and needed a strong central government to be able to govern effectively. That is why none of the rights in The Bill of Rights are describe as “unalienable” by them when they ratified it.

The notion of “life, liberty, and property” being “unalienable” gained consensus as the rallying cry for war but putting that consensus into law or even agreeing to what it meant after the revolution couldn’t be achieved. That is why The FF agreed on and ratified The Constitution with The Bill of Rights afterwards to put into law what could be agreed to.

The Declaration of Independence: Unalienable / Inalinable

www.ushistory.org

The final version of the Declaration uses the word "unalienable." Some earlier drafts used the word "inalienable," which is the term our modern dictionaries prefer. The two words mean precisely the same thing.

According to The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style from Houghton Mifflin Company:

You are certainly no lawyer. I've successfully shown the difference in law and cited the authorities to prove same. You just like denying the truth, but now those that want something of substance have it. Inalienable and unalienable mean the same thing, but only to a layman. That's all you are and that is all you've argued.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

You are certainly no lawyer. I've successfully shown the difference in law and cited the authorities to prove same. You just like denying the truth, but now those that want something of substance have it. Inalienable and unalienable mean the same thing, but only to a layman. That's all you are and that is all you've argued.

No you haven't. Posting random quotes and opinions is certainly not the law or how The Supreme Court interprets things but keep on living in that fantasy world.

The Founding Fathers agreed that the words were interchangeable as well because all the drafts include the word “inalienable” and Adams himself changed it to “unalienable” in the final printing only because it was what he personally believed to more proper to 18th century written English (Adams was on the committee for final printing).

The fact that you think those sources are the “authorities” on anything really shows how much improvement our education system needs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/07/04/are-our-rights-inalienable-or-unalienable/

 

[weaponoffreedom]

It is merely a propaganda tool used to justify revolution against the king.

This is in part true, but it is like calling a child molester....."minor attracted"

The Constitution is a document that lays out the rights of the federal government

There is nothing that can be shown that the bill of rights, is a document that GIVES any power to the government. All 10 of the Bill of Rights are limiting to the government, its original intention. To your point, since then it has been down hill, whereas they vote themselves stuff.

Please give me one power over the people in the Bill of Rights.

The Declaration of Independence is a preface or reason why the Constitution was written, why they separated from Britain, and what a government should be.

Again, if you dont understand the constitution, you cannot understand the Bill of Rights.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

This is in part true, but it is like calling a child molester....."minor attracted"

There is nothing that can be shown that the bill of rights, is a document that GIVES any power to the government. All 10 of the Bill of Rights are limiting to the government, its original intention. To your point, since then it has been down hill, whereas they vote themselves stuff.

Please give me one power over the people in the Bill of Rights.

The Declaration of Independence is a preface or reason why the Constitution was written, why they separated from Britain, and what a government should be.

Again, if you dont understand the constitution, you cannot understand the Bill of Rights.

That’s easy because The Bill of Rights gives state governments the right to arm their militias to put down insurrections by the People. That doesn’t mean that the federal government doesn’t also have rights as it relates to militias and insurrections but the 2nd amendment confers rights onto states for this purpose as well.

Furthermore, the 10th amendment confers rights to state governments which they can enforce while governing their citizens.

More to the point The Constitution was written because it was needed. The Declaration of Independence was not the reason for it. Had the Declaration never been written The Revolution and The Constitution would likely have formed exactly as they did anyways.

The Declaration is war propaganda. It is not a legal document and bears no authority over how The Constitution is interpreted. At the time of its printing it held not even the power of law. It would be most closely described as what we call a Congressional Resolution today.

Most importantly, articles 1-3 of The Constitution spell out in detail the rights conferred to the federal government by the People. Those Articles carry equal constitutional / legal weight as the later ratified and attached Bill of Rights.

 

[TheResister]

This is in part true, but it is like calling a child molester....."minor attracted"

There is nothing that can be shown that the bill of rights, is a document that GIVES any power to the government. All 10 of the Bill of Rights are limiting to the government, its original intention. To your point, since then it has been down hill, whereas they vote themselves stuff.

Please give me one power over the people in the Bill of Rights.

The Declaration of Independence is a preface or reason why the Constitution was written, why they separated from Britain, and what a government should be.

Again, if you dont understand the constitution, you cannot understand the Bill of Rights.

The man is a poseur and you're wasting your time arguing with idiots. If he were right (and you can bet he is not), we would not have any Rights. Even when faced with unequivocal language from state supreme courts he denies what they ruled. Yet, having written more briefs than this man can imagine, he hasn't the good common sense to understand they are not random cases, but cites that can be found in many briefs written by seasoned attorneys in high profile Supreme Court cases. I cited Justice Joseph Story and the Georgia case of Nunn v. Georgia. Those cases are not only mentioned in briefs submitted in most Second Amendment cases, but in Heller by the United States Supreme Court itself - and those are just two examples. He cannot understand that because he is not versed in constitutional law.

I have never contradicted what the current holdings are. I have pointed out when, exactly, the courts began negating our Rights.

The Declaration of Independence, while not technically legal authority per se, it has been cited in more than 100 published cases all the way up to the United States Supreme Court as persuasive authority. That is another aspect of knowing the law that the poseur ignored. The reality is that the unalienable Rights we went to war in order to establish were codified in the Bill of Rights. That is also casually mentioned in the Supreme Court's opinion in the Heller ruling.

The difference between the earliest court cases and Heller (along with a lot of Second Amendment rulings) is the inclusion of the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment and the fact that those "rights" are incorporated (i.e. bestowed upon you by a government god.)

Liberals will ultimately claim you have no Right to Life since someone - even government can ultimately take it from you. It is a bogus argument. Yes, governments can go through the motions of doing some legal mumbo jumbo and declare them dead; however, the founders and framers wanted us to know when legitimate authority was questioned.

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86- 87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))

When the government, under the pretext of being enforced per the U.S. Constitution denies you your unalienable Rights, you have retained the Right, the Duty and the Obligation to RESIST that government, abolish it, and seek another - and if you want to preserve your Rights, THAT is what is meant by insuring the security of a free State. The Constitution guarantees your unalienable Rights. That doesn't mean that someone - even government cannot try to take them. It means that if / when they do, the government has guaranteed to stop it and if they don't, the people act to insure the security of a free State.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

The man is a poseur and you're wasting your time arguing with idiots. If he were right (and you can bet he is not), we would not have any Rights. Even when faced with unequivocal language from state supreme courts he denies what they ruled. Yet, having written more briefs than this man can imagine, he hasn't the good common sense to understand they are not random cases, but cites that can be found in many briefs written by seasoned attorneys in high profile Supreme Court cases. I cited Justice Joseph Story and the Georgia case of Nunn v. Georgia. Those cases are not only mentioned in briefs submitted in most Second Amendment cases, but in Heller by the United States Supreme Court itself - and those are just two examples. He cannot understand that because he is not versed in constitutional law.

I have never contradicted what the current holdings are. I have pointed out when, exactly, the courts began negating our Rights.

The Declaration of Independence, while not technically legal authority per se, it has been cited in more than 100 published cases all the way up to the United States Supreme Court as persuasive authority. That is another aspect of knowing the law that the poseur ignored. The reality is that the unalienable Rights we went to war in order to establish were codified in the Bill of Rights. That is also casually mentioned in the Supreme Court's opinion in the Heller ruling.

The difference between the earliest court cases and Heller (along with a lot of Second Amendment rulings) is the inclusion of the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment and the fact that those "rights" are incorporated (i.e. bestowed upon you by a government god.)

Liberals will ultimately claim you have no Right to Life since someone - even government can ultimately take it from you. It is a bogus argument. Yes, governments can go through the motions of doing some legal mumbo jumbo and declare them dead; however, the founders and framers wanted us to know when legitimate authority was questioned.

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86- 87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))

When the government, under the pretext of being enforced per the U.S. Constitution denies you your unalienable Rights, you have retained the Right, the Duty and the Obligation to RESIST that government, abolish it, and seek another - and if you want to preserve your Rights, THAT is what is meant by insuring the security of a free State. The Constitution guarantees your unalienable Rights. That doesn't mean that someone - even government cannot try to take them. It means that if / when they do, the government has guaranteed to stop it and if they don't, the people act to insure the security of a free State.

Nothing says I don’t know dick about the law more than when someone advocates to overthrow government if they think their rights are being violated.

The fake ones like you just can’t help yourselves though.

 

[CuriousFiend]

Nothing says I don’t know dick about the law more than when someone advocates to overthrow government if they think their rights are being violated.

The fake ones like you just can’t help yourselves though.

 

[BurntJ]

Current society is missing a lot of good that it could have, but it also has a lot of good. 1) Modern healthcare has done wonders for extending the average lifespan of humanity. 2) I can't tell you the last time I was truly hungry without choosing to be so. We have so much food in this country that it takes willpower/effort to refrain from eating it until it kills us. 3) Clean water is abundant. 4) Life is an absolute breeze for a large percentage of people.

Now, does life being a breeze make for a better quality of life from a mental/spiritual perspective? A strong argument could be made for no, but in first world countries, things are safer now than they ever have been. We have it so easy it's not funny.

1) Tell that to all the 20-30 year olds dropping dead while in "Good Health" (see Damar Hamlin)
2) For now....but China and Gates are buying all our farmland....so the future may not be so bright here.
3) Unless you live in Flint Michigan.....
4) That's because they lack work ethic....


Maybe apply the above to yore thought process and see if you come to the same conclusions? See we have it great BUT have also seen thing that should NEVER happen here occurring and those same things will be worse and even more effective (detrimental to overall population) in 2nd,3rd,4th world countries.......

 

[TheResister]

Nothing says I don’t know dick about the law more than when someone advocates to overthrow government if they think their rights are being violated.

The fake ones like you just can’t help yourselves though.

You sir are a liar and a menace to society. I have never, not once in four decades of activism advocated nor condoned an overthrow of the government. That you cannot read any better than that proves to me that you are either a charlatan OR that you have minimal reading skills. I do not think that we would benefit from addressing each other from here on out.

Having kept my disagreements in the courts my entire life AND having been a part of successful court battles, I am not impressed by your keyboard commando skills that rely on dishonesty and misrepresentations coupled with your abject ignorance.

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” – James Madison, Federalist 47, 1788

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

You sir are a liar and a menace to society. I have never, not once in four decades of activism advocated nor condoned an overthrow of the government. That you cannot read any better than that proves to me that you are either a charlatan OR that you have minimal reading skills. I do not think that we would benefit from addressing each other from here on out.

Having kept my disagreements in the courts my entire life AND having been a part of successful court battles, I am not impressed by your keyboard commando skills that rely on dishonesty and misrepresentations coupled with your abject ignorance.

You literally just wrote it was people’s “duty” to overthrow government if they didn’t like its policies.

If you want to talk about menaces to society then you should take a look in the mirror.

If you keep spreading bullshit I’m going to keep calling you out just like I would any other poster on this forum.

 

[Nayat]

I was registered Republican out of HS, switched to registered independent during the Obama years. Got switched over to Libertarian when by buddy was running for office as one, but recently switched back to Republican since my daughter is loved by the State/National politicians including the Gov of the state, who would only ever appoint a Republican to a state position.

 

[BurntJ]

I was registered Republican out of HS, switched to registered independent during the Obama years. Got switched over to Libertarian when by buddy was running for office as one, but recently switched back to Republican since my daughter is loved by the State/National politicians including the Gov of the state, who would only ever appoint a Republican to a state position.

Huh.....say what?


DONT TRUST ANY OF THOSE PEDOS!!!

 

[Nayat]

Huh.....say what?


DONT TRUST ANY OF THOSE PEDOS!!!

I've told her to keep her head on a swivel and to fight back, cause they've already decided to kill her.

 

[TheResister]

You literally just wrote it was people’s “duty” to overthrow government if they didn’t like its policies.

If you want to talk about menaces to society then you should take a look in the mirror.

If you keep spreading bullshit I’m going to keep calling you out just like I would any other poster on this forum.

Your problem is you have to have the last word. The founders (especially Thomas Jefferson) stated that we had the Right and the Duty to throw off tyrannical governments.

You aren't calling me out on shit. You have made false claims and misrepresented what I've stated. You are full of shit. Got it? You want to take it to PM? I'm sure we can help you out.

You have no respect for those that disagree with you. I'm not your boy.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Your problem is you have to have the last word. The founders (especially Thomas Jefferson) stated that we had the Right and the Duty to throw off tyrannical governments.

You aren't calling me out on shit. You have made false claims and misrepresented what I've stated. You are full of shit. Got it? You want to take it to PM? I'm sure we can help you out.

You have no respect for those that disagree with you. I'm not your boy.

Not agreeing with government policy doesn’t make it tyrannical.

You will continue to be called out for making false representations about the law and The Founding Father’s intent.

Keep digging your hole. I don’t care

 

[TheResister]

Not agreeing with government policy doesn’t make it tyrannical.

You will continue to be called out for making false representations about the law and The Founding Father’s intent.

Keep digging your hole. I don’t care

The only one digging a hole is you. And being an asshole, you seem to flourish at it. You really need to take the personal shit to PM.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

The only one digging a hole is you. And being an asshole, you seem to flourish at it. You really need to take the personal shit to PM.

People are going to be able to look this stuff up and see you are full of shit & educate themselves which was the whole point.

It’s not personal at all. It a matter of civic duty and patriotism to make sure people understand this country and its laws.

 

[TheResister]

People are going to be able to look this stuff up and see you are full of shit & educate themselves which was the whole point.

It’s not personal at all. It a matter of civic duty and patriotism to make sure people understand this country and its laws.

People are going to be able to look this stuff up and see that courts stated the Right to keep and bear Arms is absolute (the exact words of the holding.) Then they will see you're so stupid that you wear a hat to the toilet in order to know which end to wipe.

People can look this stuff up and figure out that what changed - when we went from a government that guaranteed unalienable Rights to one insinuating that government grants rights (sic) is related to the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment. The truth is self evident.

You don't trust people to do that. THAT sir, is why you have to be here every day pretending to challenge me. You don't think the posters here are smart enough to look up the information and make up their own minds. THAT is why you think you were called by God to "call me out" as you characterized your trolling. And if you don't get the last word, you will feel like you lost.

The first lie you told was telling people on this board you're a practicing attorney. You're not. You're just an Internet Keyboard Commando that likes to believe he has a monopoly on human virtue. The difference between you and I is that I LIVE this stuff. I go into courts; I fight; sometimes I put my own ass on the line to protect Rights. I'm a signatory to the Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man:

Charter | US Resisters

www.usresisters.com

You cannot call me out as you're not qualified and my record over the last several decades is an accomplishment that you will NEVER match - even in your fantasies.

 

[BurntJ]

I've told her to keep her head on a swivel and to fight back, cause they've already decided to kill her.

Always knew you to be a GREAT DAD!! Keep up the good work!!

 

[laterallyshaking]

1) Tell that to all the 20-30 year olds dropping dead while in "Good Health" (see Damar Hamlin)
2) For now....but China and Gates are buying all our farmland....so the future may not be so bright here.
3) Unless you live in Flint Michigan.....
4) That's because they lack work ethic....


Maybe apply the above to yore thought process and see if you come to the same conclusions? See we have it great BUT have also seen thing that should NEVER happen here occurring and those same things will be worse and even more effective (detrimental to overall population) in 2nd,3rd,4th world countries.......

I agree, things could be better. I still hold firm that they are better now (in the last century or two, not specifically the last decade) than they were (on average) back in the dark ages.

My original comment had to do with hoping that we were not seeing a total societal collapse to include war on our soil, mass starvation, etc. within the next few generations. I agree that much could be improved, but as much as I fantasized about doomsday survival in my 20s, I don't want that for my kids if it is at all avoidable. But, if it isn't... Well... it isn't.

I also don't stand behind a mindset of complacency while we let those in power bring us closer and closer to an apocalypse. I just haven't seen a viable solution so far.

 

[BurntJ]

I agree, things could be better. I still hold firm that they are better now (in the last century or two, not specifically the last decade) than they were (on average) back in the dark ages.

My original comment had to do with hoping that we were not seeing a total societal collapse to include war on our soil, mass starvation, etc. within the next few generations. I agree that much could be improved, but as much as I fantasized about doomsday survival in my 20s, I don't want that for my kids if it is at all avoidable. But, if it isn't... Well... it isn't.

I also don't stand behind a mindset of complacency while we let those in power bring us closer and closer to an apocalypse. I just haven't seen a viable solution so far.

I agree BUT unfortunately feel its time for the Civil War 2.0.....I too have kids that I wish NOT to have them go through it BUT have come to realise there is more damage to be done by prolonging it.

 

[Elon Musk]

Libertarian mostly

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

I agree BUT unfortunately feel its time for the Civil War 2.0.....I too have kids that I wish NOT to have them go through it BUT have come to realise there is more damage to be done by prolonging it.

Well hurry up then! You getting suicided by a cop would be a huge win for everyone that his the displeasure of interacting with you or reading your stupid ass takes.