Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
quote:
ORIGINAL: Arpig
Not meaning to sound to much like Hannah here, but if that's the case Firm, then why not scrap the whole thing, why even bother with the pretense of Constitutionality?
That seems to be the logical conclusion of that line of thinking to me.
Oh, it is the logical conclusion, Arpig, it certainly is.
But ... I guess ... how would all the libs and lefties on the forums see me, if I started calling for a revolution? 
Would I then become "a radical"? 
I have some pretty definite ideas about some of the pieces to replace it with, although not a complete "replacement document".
But I do believe that we have a much better understanding and foundation in individual and group behavior now, than we did at the time of the founding, although they had some damn fine insights.
Firm
The constitution was stolen from you. Like everything else its all based in fraud somewhere in the mix. I would go through the whole ordeal but these people on here cant even balance their checkbooks much less understand this.
Feast your eyes on this:
(123 u. s. 131) THE ANARCHISTS' CASE.1 Ex parte SPIES and others. (October 2 J, 1887.) ERROR, WRIT OF—FROM UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT—MOTION IN OPEN COURT.
YOU ARE NOT A PARTY TO THE CONSTITUTION AND IT DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU
That the first 10 articles of amendment were not intended to limit the powers of the state governments in respect to their own people, but to operate on the national government alone, was decided more than a half century ago, and that decision has been steadily adhered to since. Barron v. Baltimore., 7 Pet. 243, 247;
Livingston v. Moore, Id. 469, 552;
Fox v. Ohio, 5 How 410, 434;
Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 71, 76;
Withers v. Buckley, 20 How. 84, 91;
Percear v. Com., 5 Wall. 475, 479;
Twitchell v. Com., 7 Wall. 321. 325;
Justices v. Murray, 9 Wall. 274, 278;
Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532, 557;
Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90;
U. 8. v. Cruiksiiank, Id. 542, 552;
Pearson v. Tewdall, 95 U. S. 294, 296;
Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, 101;
Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 104 U. S. 79;
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580.
It was contended, however, in argument, that, "though originally the first ten amendments were adopted as limitations on federal power, yet, in so far as they secure and recognize fundamental rights—common-law rights—of the man, they make them privileges and immunities of the man as a citizen of the United States, and cannot now be abridged by a state under the fourteenth amendment. In other words, while the ten amendments as limitations on power only apply to the federal government, and not to the states, yet in so far as they declare or recognize rights of persons, these rights are theirs, as citizens of the United States, and the fourteenth amendment as to such 'rights limits state power, as the ten amendments had limited federal power." It is also contended that the provision of the fourteenth amendment, which declares that no state shall deprive "any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," implies that every person charged with crime in a state shall be entitled to a trial by an impartial jury, and shall not be compelled to testify against himself.
What gave the fuckers the authority to reduce us to second class "cit" zens?
It was adopted to create the basis for "fundamental" uniform laws between the states so people could travel from one state to another and have a clue what to expect as far as the law was concerned.
The constitution was MALused to create the "federal" which means contract, and the US has honored which contract that they ever made?
Where does it say in the constitution that a "state" can be sovereign and reign over the people with their mob legislature by statutory fiat?
If you are a constitutionalist this is good stuff for thought since the damn thing is after all a sleight of hand.
Do you know what I am talking about?
oh and how about the abrahamson case where the "sovereign" state can claim you as "their" citizen? Coincidentally like everything else that sux in america just like the king could do with serfs, peasants, well subjects et al..... Its a very small world.
Oh and double BTW: privileges and immunities of the man as a citizen
The king granted privileges and immunities of the man as a "subject"
If someone "really" needs it I can dredge up a citation on that!
subject and citizen are synonymous!
I can go on and fucking on for hours
< Message edited by Real0ne -- 8/22/2011 8:11:34 PM >
_____________________________
"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile
Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?
Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
|
RE: The word "Tenthers" forget is missing fro... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread