quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

Lights are on but the lot is vacant!

anything in particular you were referring to?

Not really... I was mainly wondering if you'd seen some of the crap on that guy... He's fuckin' creepy and I have a feeling his main job is to bring down the movement through some "act".
He recently showed up at the Occupy College Hill over at Brown Univ. And he was escorted out of town by the cops with a special message not to return. What I heard is that one of the watch commanders daughters is very politically active and camping on her campus. She apparently fingered him to the cops and her dad took an interest. He has not been seen in Boston or NYC yet, but I think that is because they are watching for him.

  

quote:

Attorney: Militia leader Schaeffer Cox was not trying to bring down the government Cox defense files request to dismiss charges against alleged conspirator By Sam Friedman / Fairbanks Daily News Minerhttp://www.ktva.com/home/top-stories/Attorney-Militia-leader-Schaeffer-Cox-was-not-trying-to-bring-down-the-government-133972098.html
Story Created: Nov 16, 2011 at 9:00 AM AKST Story Updated: Nov 16, 2011 at 9:00 AM AKST Not only was militia leader Schaeffer Cox not plotting to overthrow the federal government, he reported on others who tried to instigate a conflict, according to a document filed Monday by Cox’s attorney. Cox’s attorney, Nelson Traverso, is asking the U.S. District Court in Anchorage to dismiss charges against Cox for allegedly having illegal weapons. 
Monday’s filing is the most detailed account from the defense’s perspective of the events leading up to the arrest of Cox and four others on March 10. The group was previously accused in state court of making a plan to kill Alaska State Troopers and court officials. But these charges were dropped by the Alaska attorney general’s office last month because of illegally obtained evidence.

quote:

I'm curious Termy what in your opinion will be the defining moment when we know that there has in fact been a beginning to the class war? I hear people all the time saying it's begun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

In a post a bit earlier I mentioned th at I had been bumbling around. This was to find a couple of references for a thread that headed into a legal decision.

Now many years ago I did actually read the Constitution and not everyone can say that, however I don't actually remember enough of that to make me special or anything. But like others who have read it, familiarity with the other documents can confuse.

For one example off the top of my head, many people here know - persuit of happiness is not in the Constitution. However I am thinking about people in general and I found this site that enumerates some common misconceptions about what is [not] in the Constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#life

"The Constitution was ratified in 1787, long, long before the advent of the airplane."

That means no Air Force ? Well while you're interpreting the second amendment to not include suitcase nukes under the bed in highrise apartments, I guess this must follow. Besides it started as the Army Air Corps anyway. But some people apparently have to argue it.

"It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments."

But it appears in every state constitution

The only place it appears is as the date. It is not part of the body of the document. They didn't have CE then so it was either The Year Of Our Lord or Anno Domini.

"The word "impeachment" and the phrase "removal from office" are not synonymous."

Quick enough to see why Nixon resigned, he figured he would get convicted.

"The concept of the presumption of innocence is one of the most basic in our system of justice."

That has been changed to presumption of state.

If it's law it's certainly unwritten.

"We often hear about the Supreme Court striking down a law or a provision in a law, or, more often, reaffirming some law or provision. Take a look in the Constitution — judicial review, as this is known, is nowhere to be found."

Fancy that.

Yeh well there are like 13 of them, but they only parade one that we see today have today.

"People often say "I have a right to have my case heard by a jury of my peers!" when there is no such right in the Constitution. "

That is cough, more like WAS presumed under the common law which has been abolished by one shoe fits all statutes.  The death of culture. look around you

What idiot would actually write that into law ? It doesn't work that way, if it did couldn't rapists demand to be tried by rapists and theives be tried by theives ? That only works in congress.

Nuff said on that one.

"marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point."

OK now tis might be the hot one of the topic here. I thought that you could not be compelled to testify against your spouse. It may not be true now, but it certainly was. But that doesn't change the fact that some people thought that it meant that one cannot testify against their spouse. That was never true unless some state or local laws did that. Can you say that a local or regional prohibition would be in-Constitutional ?

Huh?

"The Constitution does not directly mention paper money, a staple of today's economy. It does give the Congress the power to "coin money," however. The Constitution does prohibit states from issuing "bills of credit," but no such prohibition is in place for the federal government."

Thats why we have a private puerto rican company by the name of the federal reserve do it.  dont need no fucking constitution in their way.

Should have been.

"But no where does the Constitution specify how federal judges are to be qualified."

they had no authority to create themselves outside direct supervision of the people in the first place.

We were starting to figure that out.

"It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to."

Interesting, and one of the things I didn't know and/or it never dawned on me because who thinks about that shit ?

Anyway, there are probably a few other things that website doesn't cover of course, but how many knew of all of the ones they did ? I didn't know a couple.

The site has a part on executive priveledge, and a summary of a couple executive orders. It used to be a proclamation but they changed the name. It states that they are subject to judicial review, but very very few have ever been challenged. Also that there were over 7,000 of them by the time of FDR.

???

T^T

quote:

Not really... I was mainly wondering if you'd seen some of the crap on that guy... He's fuckin' creepy and I have a feeling his main job is to bring down the movement through some "act".

quote:

executive privilege is a grant by some sovereign that is a grant of immunity to circumvent the law of the people, the common law.

In other words, a "license" to violate the common law.

That is what privileges and immunities are LOL

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

quote:

executive privilege is a grant by some sovereign that is a grant of immunity to circumvent the law of the people, the common law.

In other words, a "license" to violate the common law.

That is what privileges and immunities are LOL

Licenses, priviledges and immunities are essentially the same thing.

Like engine and motor, know what I mean ?

T^T