Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

How Many More of Our Rights and Liberty will be taken on another Tyrant Ram through

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by DMax, Jan 2, 2013.

  1. DMax

    DMax Yamhill Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,665
    Likes Received:
    2,307
  2. Blitzkrieg

    Blitzkrieg WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,674
    Likes Received:
    4,849
    The plan is the genocide of the Posterity of the Founders
     
    mouse and (deleted member) like this.
  3. Stomper

    Stomper Oceania Rising White Is The New Brown Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    12,912
    Likes Received:
    19,570
    Which leads to genocide of their legacy, and subsequent compatriots in the here and now. ;)
     
  4. jake2far

    jake2far Portland Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    112
    Rights are not given or taken, they are surrendered.

    Surrendered past participle, past tense of sur·ren·der (Verb)
    Verb
    1.Cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority.
    2.Give up or hand over (a person, right, or possession), typically on compulsion or demand.

    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.

    By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect. People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123).

    The Government doesn't take away your rights, you fail to exercise them. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure". You surrender your rights. Stop with the Government is doing away with your rights, start standing up and saying no, even if it means you lose everything. Someone once said "give me liberty or give me death"


    Jim
     
    Bacchus, rocky3, gehrheart and 13 others like this.
  5. Stomper

    Stomper Oceania Rising White Is The New Brown Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    12,912
    Likes Received:
    19,570
    Well said, Jim.
     
  6. Suge206

    Suge206 Seattle Active Member

    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    163
    which rights and liberties are being taken specifically? which of those were taken by Reagan when he addressed immigration, specifically?
     
    rkoreis and (deleted member) like this.
  7. Blitzkrieg

    Blitzkrieg WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,674
    Likes Received:
    4,849
    USA was intended by the Founders to be a European refugee homeland, not a melting pot (which never happens, anyway, it's a false premise)

    Africa for the blacks

    Asia for the Asians

    India for the Indians

    North America for everyone?

    The entire concept of a Republic and a bill of enumerated rights comes out of white DNA. If that offends some, so be it, it is demonstrably true
     
  8. coyote223

    coyote223 NW Oregon Stamp Collector,,,

    Messages:
    717
    Likes Received:
    512
    He will probably just make everyone citizens. He has never lifted a finger to stop illegal immigration. He's done his best to stop the states from enforcing illegal immigration. :rolleyes:
     
    novamind and (deleted member) like this.
  9. Suge206

    Suge206 Seattle Active Member

    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    163
    of course blitzkrieg is a white supremicist...

    whats eye role worthy is the fact that obama admin has set deportation records year over year, has sent the damn national guard to border. immigration is at a net negative currently.

    you guys know so little about anything. its absoloutley ridiculous.
     
  10. Blitzkrieg

    Blitzkrieg WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,674
    Likes Received:
    4,849
    More ad hominem attack, because you have no facts to offer. Illegals and "legals" from all over the world are invading us every day by the thousands
     
    joken and (deleted member) like this.
  11. novamind

    novamind Hillsboro Active Member

    Messages:
    631
    Likes Received:
    183
    Are you a shill or a mole?
     
    joken and (deleted member) like this.
  12. novamind

    novamind Hillsboro Active Member

    Messages:
    631
    Likes Received:
    183
    Are you a shill or a mole?
     
  13. novamind

    novamind Hillsboro Active Member

    Messages:
    631
    Likes Received:
    183
    Suge 206? Your attempt to lead this thread off topic Says it all. Now Run away and go play, The adults are talking.
     
    joken and (deleted member) like this.
  14. Redcap

    Redcap Lewis County, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,990
    Likes Received:
    2,731
    Kettle, you is black.
     
  15. Trlsmn

    Trlsmn In Utero (Portland) Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,838
    Likes Received:
    1,186

    You're only interested in excusing Obama, nothing matters but today and tomorrow, Reagan is dead he ceases to have any impact on the erosion of our rights. Obama is taking away your 2nd amendment rights, where is your concern for the here and now?

    Every post you make is obviously propaganda. Show me a link to anything in support of firearms previous to the last election. If you're concerned about privacy PM it to me as I already know exactly who you are, glad you found your dog ;-)
     
    gearhead, Redcap, DMax and 3 others like this.
  16. Suge206

    Suge206 Seattle Active Member

    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    163
    I gave you 3 easily varifiable facts that prove your assertions wholly incorrect. I dont think you know what an ad hominem ttack is.

    lol at adults. more like racists and ingorant blowhards

    im a gun owner bringing reason and balance to you extremist weirdos so that the watching eyes on these forums dont think we all freaks
     
  17. Suge206

    Suge206 Seattle Active Member

    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    163
    I gave you 3 easily varifiable facts that prove your assertions wholly incorrect. I dont think you know what an ad hominem ttack is.

    lol at adults. more like racists and ingorant blowhards

    im a gun owner bringing reason and balance to you extremist weirdos so that the watching eyes on these forums dont think we all freaks
     
  18. gehrheart

    gehrheart fidalgo island Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,261
    Likes Received:
    418
    Here is a big part of what I see is wrong.
    This kind of though and that so many people agree and follow along with it. It is also this kind of thought that will end the 2nd... Well, destry all of the bill of rights. I mean really, whay do we need them it just prevents obama gumbit from fully taking care of us right?

    :(

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

    Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

    By LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN


    Washington

    AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.

    Consider, for example, the assertion by the Senate minority leader last week that the House could not take up a plan by Senate Democrats to extend tax cuts on households making $250,000 or less because the Constitution requires that revenue measures originate in the lower chamber. Why should anyone care? Why should a lame-duck House, 27 members of which were defeated for re-election, have a stranglehold on our economy? Why does a grotesquely malapportioned Senate get to decide the nation’s fate?

    Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.

    As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is. Imagine that after careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?

    Constitutional disobedience may seem radical, but it is as old as the Republic. In fact, the Constitution itself was born of constitutional disobedience. When George Washington and the other framers went to Philadelphia in 1787, they were instructed to suggest amendments to the Articles of Confederation, which would have had to be ratified by the legislatures of all 13 states. Instead, in violation of their mandate, they abandoned the Articles, wrote a new Constitution and provided that it would take effect after ratification by only nine states, and by conventions in those states rather than the state legislatures.

    No sooner was the Constitution in place than our leaders began ignoring it. John Adams supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, which violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. Thomas Jefferson thought every constitution should expire after a single generation. He believed the most consequential act of his presidency — the purchase of the Louisiana Territory — exceeded his constitutional powers.

    Before the Civil War, abolitionists like Wendell Phillips and William Lloyd Garrison conceded that the Constitution protected slavery, but denounced it as a pact with the devil that should be ignored. When Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation — 150 years ago tomorrow — he justified it as a military necessity under his power as commander in chief. Eventually, though, he embraced the freeing of slaves as a central war aim, though nearly everyone conceded that the federal government lacked the constitutional power to disrupt slavery where it already existed. Moreover, when the law finally caught up with the facts on the ground through passage of the 13th Amendment, ratification was achieved in a manner at odds with constitutional requirements. (The Southern states were denied representation in Congress on the theory that they had left the Union, yet their reconstructed legislatures later provided the crucial votes to ratify the amendment.)

    In his Constitution Day speech in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt professed devotion to the document, but as a statement of aspirations rather than obligations. This reading no doubt contributed to his willingness to extend federal power beyond anything the framers imagined, and to threaten the Supreme Court when it stood in the way of his New Deal legislation. In 1954, when the court decided Brown v. Board of Education, Justice Robert H. Jackson said he was voting for it as a moral and political necessity although he thought it had no basis in the Constitution. The list goes on and on.

    The fact that dissenting justices regularly, publicly and vociferously assert that their colleagues have ignored the Constitution — in landmark cases from Miranda v. Arizona to Roe v. Wade to Romer v. Evans to Bush v. Gore — should give us pause. The two main rival interpretive methods, “originalism” (divining the framers’ intent) and “living constitutionalism” (reinterpreting the text in light of modern demands), cannot be reconciled. Some decisions have been grounded in one school of thought, and some in the other. Whichever your philosophy, many of the results — by definition — must be wrong.

    IN the face of this long history of disobedience, it is hard to take seriously the claim by the Constitution’s defenders that we would be reduced to a Hobbesian state of nature if we asserted our freedom from this ancient text. Our sometimes flagrant disregard of the Constitution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism; on the contrary, it has helped us to grow and prosper.

    This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation.

    Nor should we have a debate about, for instance, how long the president’s term should last or whether Congress should consist of two houses. Some matters are better left settled, even if not in exactly the way we favor. Nor, finally, should we have an all-powerful president free to do whatever he wants. Even without constitutional fealty, the president would still be checked by Congress and by the states. There is even something to be said for an elite body like the Supreme Court with the power to impose its views of political morality on the country.

    What would change is not the existence of these institutions, but the basis on which they claim legitimacy. The president would have to justify military action against Iran solely on the merits, without shutting down the debate with a claim of unchallengeable constitutional power as commander in chief. Congress might well retain the power of the purse, but this power would have to be defended on contemporary policy grounds, not abstruse constitutional doctrine. The Supreme Court could stop pretending that its decisions protecting same-sex intimacy or limiting affirmative action were rooted in constitutional text.

    The deep-seated fear that such disobedience would unravel our social fabric is mere superstition. As we have seen, the country has successfully survived numerous examples of constitutional infidelity. And as we see now, the failure of the Congress and the White House to agree has already destabilized the country. Countries like Britain and New Zealand have systems of parliamentary supremacy and no written constitution, but are held together by longstanding traditions, accepted modes of procedure and engaged citizens. We, too, could draw on these resources.

    What has preserved our political stability is not a poetic piece of parchment, but entrenched institutions and habits of thought and, most important, the sense that we are one nation and must work out our differences. No one can predict in detail what our system of government would look like if we freed ourselves from the shackles of constitutional obligation, and I harbor no illusions that any of this will happen soon. But even if we can’t kick our constitutional-law addiction, we can soften the habit.

    If we acknowledged what should be obvious — that much constitutional language is broad enough to encompass an almost infinitely wide range of positions — we might have a very different attitude about the obligation to obey. It would become apparent that people who disagree with us about the Constitution are not violating a sacred text or our core commitments. Instead, we are all invoking a common vocabulary to express aspirations that, at the broadest level, everyone can embrace. Of course, that does not mean that people agree at the ground level. If we are not to abandon constitutionalism entirely, then we might at least understand it as a place for discussion, a demand that we make a good-faith effort to understand the views of others, rather than as a tool to force others to give up their moral and political judgments.

    If even this change is impossible, perhaps the dream of a country ruled by “We the people” is impossibly utopian. If so, we have to give up on the claim that we are a self-governing people who can settle our disagreements through mature and tolerant debate. But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.


    Louis Michael Seidman, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, is the author of the forthcoming book “On Constitutional Disobedience.”
     
    rocky3 and (deleted member) like this.
  19. gehrheart

    gehrheart fidalgo island Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,261
    Likes Received:
    418
    Remember.. Obama is constitutional lawyer or some dribble like that as well......
     
  20. Blitzkrieg

    Blitzkrieg WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,674
    Likes Received:
    4,849

    More bloviating and zero facts
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.