- Messages
- 1,100
- Reactions
- 609
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He should be arrested---the same as you or I would be. Prosecuted----same as you or I would be.
Convicted if guilty--same as you or I would be. Then Sentenced---same as you or I would be.
Is the law just? Nope. But giving some talking head special treatment is not just either. The
lamestream media elite will pull their collective heads out and take notice when it's one of their
own run afoul of one of our screwed up gun laws.
<broken link removed>
People claiming he should be prosecuted are a part of the problem. There is no justice in an unjust law, such as this one. Don't side with those willing to take away your's or his liberty (such as the Government is suggesting) even if they are willing to harm your secondary enemy ( a fellow American breaking an unjust law even when he is a complete dewsh bag).
No, i cant stand this news guy but i still side with Freedom & the 2nd.
This story is about Washington DC and DC laws. Like or not, because of this one fact, this law is not unjust. It's very constitutional as a matter of fact and here's why (with case law). Most people have never been exposed to the legal reality that there are literally three forms of citizenship under the Constitution. There are State Citizens and there are two types of federal citizens (Washington DC citizens and territorial citizens). Legally speaking, each of these forms of citizenship are distinct creatures in the law and their relationship to the Constitution comes from different parts of the Constitution.
The Constitution is a contract and the parties who signed that contract were State Citizens, via their agents...the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. The Constitution contract was created by and for the benefit of those who were parties to it. Washington DC is a patch of land that was eternally surrendered over to the federal government by Maryland and Virginia, for the purpose of giving the new (at that time) federal government property that it could exist on autonomously and provide for its own needs. This was authorized by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, which says:
"The Congress shall have Power... to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"
See Adams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35; 2000:
"The Maryland citizenship of the District of Columbia's inhabitants was extinguished upon the completion of the transfer of the seat of the national government to the territory of the District of Columbia."
See also Banner v. United States of America, 303 F. Supp. 2d 1; 2004
"The residents of the District of Columbia (District) are treated under the Constitution as a distinct class that is not comparable to any other group of citizens. As consistently held by the United States Supreme Court, the District is constitutionally distinct from the states, and, unlike either the States or Territories, the District is truly sui generis in our governmental structure. When Congress legislates for the District, therefore, the differing treatment is the consequence not of legislative determinations but of constitutional distinctions and a court is without authority to scrutinize those distinctions to determine whether they are irrational, compelling, or anything in between."
Washington DC "citizens" do not have legal standing to vote for representatives, but they still get taxed, because of the federal nature of their legal identity as "citizens". It might not sound fair, but as seen above, it's a result of the Constitution at work and all they have to do is.....MOVE..... 5 miles in one direction or another to again become a State Citizen with full bloom eligibility for Constitutional protections and rights. Until they do, the ONLY rights they have are those that Congress legislatively provides for them and only so much as Congress decides in the exercise of its discretion. See the final words in the opinion of Adams v. Clinton where the court sympathizes with DC citizens' complaints over not getting to vote, but still maintain their ruling against the DC citizens:
"Like our predecessors, we are not blind to the inequity of the situation plaintiffs seek to change. But longstanding judicial precedent, as well as the Constitution's text and history, persuade us that this court lacks authority to grant plaintiffs the relief they seek. If they are to obtain it, they must plead their cause in other venues."
This same "problem" exists for territorial citizens too. But territorial citizens at least have the hope of becoming State Citizens one day when their territory gets admitted into the Union. DC citizens are eternally shackled with this problem though so long as they call DC home. Read the following Supreme Court cites from a string of cases called the "Insular Cases":
See De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1; 21 S. Ct. 743; 45 L. Ed. 1041; 1901
"But whatever be the source of this power, its uninterrupted exercise by Congress for a century, and the repeated declarations of the court, have settled the law that the right to acquire territory involves the right to govern and dispose of it. Congress has full and complete legislative authority over the people of the territories and all the departments of the territorial governments. It may do for the territories what the people, under the Constitution of the United States, may do for the states. It is an authority which arises, not necessarily from the territorial clause of the Constitution, but from the necessities of the case, and from the inability of the states to act upon the subject. Under this power Congress may deal with territory acquired by treaty; may administer its government as it does that of the District of Columbia; it may organize a local territorial government; it may admit it as a state upon an equality with other States; it may sell its public lands to individual citizens or may donate them as homesteads to actual settlers. In short, when once acquired by treaty, it belongs to the United States, and is subject to the disposition of Congress."
Also, see Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244; 21 S. Ct. 770; 45 L. Ed. 1088; 1901
"There is a provision that ‘new States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union.' These words, of course, carry the Constitution with them, but nothing is said regarding the acquisition of new territories or the extension of the Constitution over them. The liberality of Congress in legislating the Constitution into all our contiguous territories has undoubtedly fostered the impression that it went there by its own force, but there is nothing in the Constitution itself, and little in the interpretation put upon it, to confirm that impression"
In summary, as a State Citizens, don't let yourself be sucked in emotionally to coming to the defense of rights for people who are not intended to be the beneficiaries of automatic constitutional protections and privileges. The lesson from these cases is that you can be a "citizen of the United States" and still be ineligible for full constitutional benefits.
Fascinating read. Thanks for posting.
My public school education didn't get this indepth.