I did not see the Feral Judge's name in the article. Who is this "un-named idiot?" This "person's name" should be on the headline title of this article.
And what is the plan for if I-594 is declared constitutional and the appeals are exhausted? As you may recall, the federal courts are vested with the power in the constitution to be the ultimate arbiters of constitutionality. Will you all agree to adhere to those rulings or have you made yourselves the ultimate authority on what is and what is not constitutional? It's intellectually dishonest to cherry pick and only decide to adhere to those court rulings that you agree with. After all, it was the Supreme court that said the second amendment right is individual and not solely for the purposes of creating a militia to defend the state. It was the Supreme Court that ruled that the right to keep and bear arms extends outside the home. It was also that same Supreme Court that ruled that the right is not unlimited, not without reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. That same Court also ruled that it didn't mean any weapon, anywhere at any time.
You see this same strained logic with the bible. People quote one section in support of their belief that same sex marriage is a sin yet at the same time plant different crops side by side, wear garments of several different colors of thread and work on Sunday, the Sabbath. Those transgression are, in the bible, solely punishable by death. Yet I don't see people who want same sex marriage to be declared unconstitutional stoning their parents to death when they don a red, white and blue t-shirt.
The same logic extends here. Article III, section 2 divests to the supreme court of the united states the jurisdiction over all cases arising under the constitution. I don't think it's intellectually valid to say that the second amendment to the constitution gives you a right but that article III doesn't give the Supreme Court the power to rule over the meets and bounds of that right.
If you want to cite the constitution as the source of the right you want, that's fine. You should, however, respect all the constitution, not just the part you like.
Oh bullshit. The declaration of Independence makes it crystal clear that the PEOPLE decide what is constitutional - by what the Constitution actually SAYS!
The judiciary is NOT constitutionally empowered as the arbiter of what's constitutional and what's not ESPECIALLY via a DEMOCRATIC VOTE of 5-4! There is your intellectual dishonesty. All branches of government are to be bound BY the constitution. Arlen Spectre, is that you? You present the judiciary as sitting ATOP everything and that simply isn't the real truth. Proof? Yeah, cite the Constitition for your claim of authority - unmmmmm you can't. All you can cite is a usurpations "RULING" where the court claimed for itself power that we the people DID NOT GIVE IT!
Time place manner? Yeah that's another usurpation. Can you say congress SHALL make NO law? How about SHALL NOT BE infringed? Time place manner restrictions take LAWS! time place manner is infringement.
Why do those of us WANT the courts to "rule"? It's simple bro so listen. Proof is in the pudding! It's not about getting the robed Kings to agree with us. It's about EXPOSING the nine robed kings for ALL to see!
I bet you will "cite" that "interstate commerce" part of the constitution too eh?
Just because liberal left progressive controllers cherry pick trying to get judicial agreement doesn't mean we do. Project much?
So understand this - we are not you. Our goals are not your goals. We want you to be free, you want to control us. You bait. We state. You attempt to get others to bow, we council others to choose to stand. You present false premise, we expose both you and it.
We want the Constitution itself adhered to by moral choice. But you, you want what you wish it said imposed, by force. There is indeed two Americas this day, one made of people like you unable to tell the truth or accept it's consequence alongside people like us who not only speak the truth but also accept it dutifully. Want example? Ok? Here ya go-
Freedom of speech for ALL means gubmint doesn't decide time place manner, it means individuals do so themselves and are then accountable for it. You lie outright here either out of ignorance or malice and nobody seeks to usurp your right, instead, your speech is matched by mine. All rights respected. See how that works? Now, others can think for themselves and decide for themselves who they will side with....
But in your world, nine robed kings decide eh? 435 reps decide eh? 100 senators or a president decides eh?
Consider this - there's truly only a couple dozen things that fed gov is actually empowered to do - and fedgiv is pushing 20 TRILLION in debt. Yeah. 9 robed kings with time place manner and arbiter status works sooooo well huh? Wake up chief.
Article III, section 2 says "under the constitution" not over the constitution!
No where and I say no where does it say in our constitution that the Supreme court has the right to rule over what the constitutions says nor for that matter to change what the constitution says.
Our supreme court(s) has been rogue for quite a while now just like the executive & the legislative branches also, the supreme court is not supreme to the constitution!
Why may you ask has our government gone off the rails; mainly because we the people have not been (holding up our end) doing what Thomas Jefferson said we need to do every once in a while;
"the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure."
And because of that our tree of liberty is dying!
Methinks it's getting to be about time we fertilize again, before liberty in this country dies completely!
Despite your veritable vat of verbiage, you fail to recognize one salient fact:
NO PART OF FED.GOV can parse the contents of the Bill of Rights in any way, shape or form. These are rights exclusive to the people in general, and inherent by their very existence.
They are NOT a list of FED.GOV provided privileges. I doubt many here care what SCROTUM says about any part of the BOR, because in point of fact, the BOR is inviolate.
Here is some logic from the Vermont Constitution. Remember, we were an independent nation before becoming the 14th state.
Article 16th. Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."
Article 17th, regarding martial law, is a;so interesting, as is the article dealing with militia.
Don't know about WA's constitution. This is what I go by.
The Second Amendment is plainly written. "...shall not be infringed" is easily interpreted by anyone to mean just that...shall not be restricted. Period. Or put another way, no restrictions shall be placed on the constitutional right of the people to to keep and bear arms.
No one except Congress with ratification by the States, or by a Constitutional Convention, can amend the U.S. Constitution. Not even the Supreme Court.
Article 3 Section 2 simply gives the U.S. Supreme Court jurisdiction to settle questions of law that come before it. They cannot interpret the Constitution to mean something different than what it plainly states, as in the 2A.
Having said that, we know for a fact that the Supreme Court, and other courts have done just that, ie; made unconstitutional rulings. A couple of examples would be Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), or the internment of American citizens of Japanese heritage during WWII, or the NDAA & Patriot Act currently.
They've gottten away with it BECAUSE we've allowed them to. Why do you think there is so much effort on the part of each Presidential Administration & each political party in current power to 'pack' the Supreme Court with Judges who will rule according to the current 'party' thinking?
It makes not one whit of difference what any Court finds. If it restricts my Constitutional rights, it is not law and I will not comply.
Anonymous sure likes to blab on, but I find it hard to pay attention to anyone who doesn't know the Sabbath was, and still is, celebrated on Saturday. Crap, even Domino knows that...
13 comments:
I did not see the Feral Judge's name in the article. Who is this "un-named idiot?" This "person's name" should be on the headline title of this article.
Good, let them think we are just playing. Won't they all be so surprised when they get a dose of reality?
From a fellow non-compliant Patriot behind enemy lines in Kommiecticut.
Hips and heads!
And what is the plan for if I-594 is declared constitutional and the appeals are exhausted? As you may recall, the federal courts are vested with the power in the constitution to be the ultimate arbiters of constitutionality. Will you all agree to adhere to those rulings or have you made yourselves the ultimate authority on what is and what is not constitutional? It's intellectually dishonest to cherry pick and only decide to adhere to those court rulings that you agree with. After all, it was the Supreme court that said the second amendment right is individual and not solely for the purposes of creating a militia to defend the state. It was the Supreme Court that ruled that the right to keep and bear arms extends outside the home. It was also that same Supreme Court that ruled that the right is not unlimited, not without reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. That same Court also ruled that it didn't mean any weapon, anywhere at any time.
You see this same strained logic with the bible. People quote one section in support of their belief that same sex marriage is a sin yet at the same time plant different crops side by side, wear garments of several different colors of thread and work on Sunday, the Sabbath. Those transgression are, in the bible, solely punishable by death. Yet I don't see people who want same sex marriage to be declared unconstitutional stoning their parents to death when they don a red, white and blue t-shirt.
The same logic extends here. Article III, section 2 divests to the supreme court of the united states the jurisdiction over all cases arising under the constitution. I don't think it's intellectually valid to say that the second amendment to the constitution gives you a right but that article III doesn't give the Supreme Court the power to rule over the meets and bounds of that right.
If you want to cite the constitution as the source of the right you want, that's fine. You should, however, respect all the constitution, not just the part you like.
Or not. Really is up to you.
Lector the troll - what's the matter, lose your screen name?
Oh bullshit.
The declaration of Independence makes it crystal clear that the PEOPLE decide what is constitutional - by what the Constitution actually SAYS!
The judiciary is NOT constitutionally empowered as the arbiter of what's constitutional and what's not ESPECIALLY via a DEMOCRATIC VOTE of 5-4! There is your intellectual dishonesty. All branches of government are to be bound BY the constitution. Arlen Spectre, is that you? You present the judiciary as sitting ATOP everything and that simply isn't the real truth. Proof? Yeah, cite the Constitition for your claim of authority - unmmmmm you can't. All you can cite is a usurpations "RULING" where the court claimed for itself power that we the people DID NOT GIVE IT!
Time place manner? Yeah that's another usurpation. Can you say congress SHALL make NO law? How about SHALL NOT BE infringed? Time place manner restrictions take LAWS! time place manner is infringement.
Why do those of us WANT the courts to "rule"? It's simple bro so listen. Proof is in the pudding! It's not about getting the robed Kings to agree with us. It's about EXPOSING the nine robed kings for ALL to see!
I bet you will "cite" that "interstate commerce" part of the constitution too eh?
Just because liberal left progressive controllers cherry pick trying to get judicial agreement doesn't mean we do. Project much?
So understand this - we are not you. Our goals are not your goals. We want you to be free, you want to control us. You bait. We state. You attempt to get others to bow, we council others to choose to stand. You present false premise, we expose both you and it.
We want the Constitution itself adhered to by moral choice. But you, you want what you wish it said imposed, by force. There is indeed two Americas this day, one made of people like you unable to tell the truth or accept it's consequence alongside people like us who not only speak the truth but also accept it dutifully. Want example? Ok? Here ya go-
Freedom of speech for ALL means gubmint doesn't decide time place manner, it means individuals do so themselves and are then accountable for it. You lie outright here either out of ignorance or malice and nobody seeks to usurp your right, instead, your speech is matched by mine. All rights respected. See how that works? Now, others can think for themselves and decide for themselves who they will side with....
But in your world, nine robed kings decide eh? 435 reps decide eh? 100 senators or a president decides eh?
Consider this - there's truly only a couple dozen things that fed gov is actually empowered to do - and fedgiv is pushing 20 TRILLION in debt. Yeah. 9 robed kings with time place manner and arbiter status works sooooo well huh? Wake up chief.
Anon 10:52am;
Article III, section 2 says "under the constitution" not over the constitution!
No where and I say no where does it say in our constitution that the Supreme court has the right to rule over what the constitutions says nor for that matter to change what the constitution says.
Our supreme court(s) has been rogue for quite a while now just like the executive & the legislative branches also, the supreme court is not supreme to the constitution!
Why may you ask has our government gone off the rails; mainly because we the people have not been (holding up our end) doing what Thomas Jefferson said we need to do every once in a while;
"the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure."
And because of that our tree of liberty is dying!
Methinks it's getting to be about time we fertilize again, before liberty in this country dies completely!
Death before slavery!
Comrade X
To Anonymous @ 10:52 AM:
Despite your veritable vat of verbiage, you fail to recognize one salient fact:
NO PART OF FED.GOV can parse the contents of the Bill of Rights in any way, shape or form. These are rights exclusive to the people in general, and inherent by their very existence.
They are NOT a list of FED.GOV provided privileges. I doubt many here care what SCROTUM says about any part of the BOR, because in point of fact, the BOR is inviolate.
Here is some logic from the Vermont Constitution. Remember, we were an independent nation before becoming the 14th state.
Article 16th. Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."
Article 17th, regarding martial law, is a;so interesting, as is the article dealing with militia.
Don't know about WA's constitution. This is what I go by.
The Second Amendment is plainly written. "...shall not be infringed" is easily interpreted by anyone to mean just that...shall not be restricted. Period. Or put another way, no restrictions shall be placed on the constitutional right of the people to to keep and bear arms.
No one except Congress with ratification by the States, or by a Constitutional Convention, can amend the U.S. Constitution. Not even the Supreme Court.
Article 3 Section 2 simply gives the U.S. Supreme Court jurisdiction to settle questions of law that come before it. They cannot interpret the Constitution to mean something different than what it plainly states, as in the 2A.
Having said that, we know for a fact that the Supreme Court, and other courts have done just that, ie; made unconstitutional rulings. A couple of examples would be Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), or the internment of American citizens of Japanese heritage during WWII, or the NDAA & Patriot Act currently.
They've gottten away with it BECAUSE we've allowed them to. Why do you think there is so much effort on the part of each Presidential Administration & each political party in current power to 'pack' the Supreme Court with Judges who will rule according to the current 'party' thinking?
It makes not one whit of difference what any Court finds. If it restricts my Constitutional rights, it is not law and I will not comply.
To Anonymous @ 10:52 AM:
I almost feel sorry for you. You have sold your soul and choosen the wrongside.
Anonymous sure likes to blab on, but I find it hard to pay attention to anyone who doesn't know the Sabbath was, and still is, celebrated on Saturday. Crap, even Domino knows that...
Bill and Domino
III
@Galaxie_Man
I'm in Connectistan as well.
You can reach me at
tcumseh@hushmail.com if needed.
Post a Comment