Really really really damn good.
Don’t ask dumb questions if you don’t want called out.
That is the garden variety of questions like when did you stop beating your wife
How many times has it been pointed out to you that the government, according to the federal courts (including the United States Supreme Court) do NOT grant unalienable Rights?
caselaw.findlaw.com
There is nothing unconstitutional about changing amendments or eliminating rights.Unless I missed something, weaponoffreedom was aiding Jake by demanding a simple yes or no to a complex question. Here is the bottom line that, obviously, nobody wants to hear:
This country was founded on the premise that we have Rights that were bestowed upon us by a Creator. End of story there.
The Declaration of Independence (from which that premise is derived) has been used hundreds of times as persuasive authority in deciding cases. What, exactly, does that mean? Let's ask the United States Supreme Court:
- '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.' While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government" Cotting v. Godard, 183 US 79 (1901)
COTTING v. GODARD, 183 U.S. 79 (1901) | FindLaw
Case opinion for US Supreme Court COTTING v. GODARD. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw.
The politicians can pass any law they want to pass; amend any law they please; rescind or revoke anything on the books. HOWEVER, once they break the terms of the contract (the Constitution), the people are no longer legally or morally bound to give any credence to the act. Again, the United States Supreme Court has opined:
"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is supers
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
I really have to thank you for your incessant dumbassery. I think you are allowing me to help people understand this stuff by objecting with the easiest dodges that the left has ever attempted.
www.abbevilleinstitute.org
Your troll attempts have gotten WAY too obvious.I really have to thank you for your incessant dumbassery. I think you are allowing me to help people understand this stuff by objecting with the easiest dodges that the left has ever attempted.
Amending the Constitution is wholly legal, PROVIDED that is done in accordance with the rules. If it is not done in accordance with said rules, then the legitimacy of the amendment is in question.
The Fourteenth Amendment did not meet that legal standard:
Was the Fourteenth Amendment Constitutionally Adopted? – Abbeville Institute
Note that the above is not theory, but a careful analysis of the facts regarding that amendment. If the people today understood that our unalienable Rights were nullified by the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment, they might very well rebel against the tyrannical actions going on today. We were lied to about what that amendment actually accomplished AND the framers of the Constitution said that instrument could never be used to take our personal arms.
In any event, once a contract is broken and no longer serves to protect our unalienable Rights (whether you believe they exist or not), sufficient cause exists to throw off such government. That process means that you exhaust all of your nonviolent political and legal avenues of redress. Once that is done, you separate yourself from the governing authorities. It's basically a 12 step process from ballot box to bullet box, but just as the Constitution can be amended, we, the people, can reject a government that takes us away from the principles of Liberty and Freedom.
I’m not trolling at all. You on the other hand…
To disbelieve is not to disprove. You've not offered any facts that contradict the submitted link.I’m not trolling at all. You on the other hand…
“The 14th amendment was illegally ratified”
Reality contradicts the claim. Why would I waste my time when the claim is akin to saying the moon is made of cheese?
Jake, You're here all day, every day as if what goes on here is the single most important thing in your life. If fathers protected their daughter's cherry the way you lord over this board, there would never be a baby born out of wedlock and white chicks wouldn't be giving it up to black dudes just to have trophy babies. To try and convince people you aren't invested in this discussion is a snow job you couldn't fool a retarded sloth with.
Of course I care about making sure people aren’t spreading misinformation or communist propaganda! It my patriotic duty to fight the good fight on here!
I said communist propaganda but if the shoe fits
I'm not wearing your stinking shoes. You want to try and call me names, but lack the balls to do it face to face. So play your little game while my PM box is empty. Your mother should have trained you better.I said communist propaganda but if the shoe fits
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States
I’d love to tell you to your face but I’m not flying to Moscow just for pleasure like that.
Your argument the last thread we were on claimed that the people referred to the government. Back pedaling now? Your post doesn't change a damn thing I've posted.
Cocksucker you ain't got to come no further than metro Atlanta.
Post in thread 'The end of the First Amendment'
It’s a whole post I already made on the topic before you made an ass out of yourself by not reading.
You are wrong. The Constitution NEVER says it grants Rights. You are WRONG. The UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ruled on this:
That I think is the argument. You can or you cannot. Our government could repeal the 2nd Amendment and by our own laws, it would be gone. @Jake Broe Stan is correct in that portion, and you are correct in yours. Context means everything, the DofA is the context for the constitution:
The Bill of Rights, in plain text, grants the rights to Americans. It is an objective fact. This is basic civics and something that is taught in any reputable law school in the country.
Another of your gross misrepresentations of the facts. You gaslight me, then try to impute that onto me. It's called projecting. You're an amoral coward. What you cannot do is justify changing the law so you stoop to name calling. I'm calling you out on it. If there are posters here that want to figure out who is right, they will check the links and avail themselves of all the facts. You sure as HELL aren't apprising yourself of the information because all of it proves you are a dumb ass and a LIAR.The Bill of Rights, in plain text, grants the rights to Americans. It is an objective fact. This is basic civics and something that is taught in any reputable law school in the country.
You’re correct that Marbury makes clear that The SCOTUS interprets the law but those interpretations change over time in the same way that the justices change over time.
The fact that you reference the dissent in Budd instead of the court’s opinion really shows that you have no idea what you’re talking about in any of this.
However, I appreciate you owning yourself thoroughly since Budd’s final opinion relies on section 1 of the 14th amendment, something that you claim isn’t even legal.
If you’re going to continue to gaslight people so as to try to create a moral justification for insurrection and rebellion then you’re going to need to do a better job because the low cash bullshit you’re used to spreading won’t fly around here.
No The Supreme Court didn’t. You can lie about that all you want but a dissent is just that: a dissenting opinion by a justice to an official court position. It means nothing just like that quote by Madison means nothing because it is just one man’s opinion.We, the people do not grant Rights. The United States Supreme Court said so. WTF? Are you totally stupid?
The foundation of our constitutional Republic was summed up best by the second President of the United States:
"I say RIGHTS, for such they have, undoubtedly, antecedent to all earthly government—Rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws—Rights derived from the great legislator of the universe." John Adams, second President of the United States A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law # 1 12 August 1765
Founders Online: III. “A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law,” No. 1 …
III. “A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law,” No. 1, 12 August 1765founders.archives.gov
The principle has been upheld umpteen times and cited for your dumb ass on more than one occasion. You're wrong and you know it. No amount of phony denials will change that.
While people can misuse power, that does not make it sustainable. And, if resistance is communist propaganda, then you would still live under the rule of King George because there never would have been a United States.
Another worthless opinion by one man.
If the posters note, no matter what time of day or night I post (and I have a really odd schedule) you can expect that dumb ass to post.
