Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004 Status: offline
|
when its all said and done the constitution is NOT a grant of rights, it is acknowledgement and agreement by those whom we elect to govern to PROTECT our declared rights whatever they may be. That has been stolen and rewritten by them to protect themselves and FUCK US! If it is not lawfully prohibited in the constitution then it is our right to claim. However the "people" of the states had not voted on any of that shit so where the lawfully part? It aint. With the retards in this country today can you imagine a constitutional convention? Duh I got the right to fart 3 times a day! We are way more fucked if we create new than if we fix the old. They stole the fucking rights from everyone and made everyone second class cityfuckingzens against our will by the glofied fucking STATE courts then the supreme fuckwads. (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. 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. The objections are, in brief, .you rights hence YOU have been reduced to subjects and second class citizens by the gubafia. they fucked you all and most people cannot tell me the damn difference, they think its all the same! mark my words if anyone has the guts to run this course. LOL
< Message edited by Real0ne -- 11/25/2011 3:08:16 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
|