General

Re: Obama wants military leaders who will fire on U.S. citizens

Anenome — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 02:00:14 GMT

"so therefore parts of the constitution are unconstitutional."

Rather, parts of the constitution are innately unethical, and innately aggressive.

Re: Obama wants military leaders who will fire on U.S. citizens

idol — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 04:44:39 GMT

Has Jim Garrow proven his statements yet?

Re: Obama wants military leaders who will fire on U.S. citizens

cab21 — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 23:11:53 GMT

from the government magic video, people can delegate self defence, but they cant delegate taxation, so therefore parts of the constitution are unconstitutional. as congress can't have powers the citizens never had to delegate, a person can fund a army, but a person can't tax. funding a nontaxed army for self defence seems perfectly in someones right to do or delegate.

Re: Obama wants military leaders who will fire on U.S. citizens

shackleford — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 21:03:39 GMT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABB-lScOoSk

Re: Obama wants military leaders who will fire on U.S. citizens

cab21 — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:25:23 GMT

if the people call for it, that is consent of the people. a sheriff can call higher and higher if needed. local can give permission to state, state can give permission to federal, federal can give permission to army.

so someone who is born in the usa, therefore being a usa citizen, then goes to a country, joins that countries army, and that army attacked the usa, you would say that person is untouchable and the military must let that usa citizen kill people in the military and citizens without resistance?

the usa should not attack , but they should defend if needed, against anyone no matter what citizenship.

Re: Obama wants military leaders who will fire on U.S. citizens

Bill — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 17:20:32 GMT

Our Government exists by the consent of the people. Any situation beyond the cotrol of local police,the Sherrif's Dept. ,State Police, FBI, Homeland Security, ATF,DEA, TSA and a host of other domestic policing agencies that requires Military intervention would imply forced compliance of the people. Forced compliance is not consent.

The Armed Forces sole purpose is to defend the country. Anyone who would endorse the use of the Military to attack it's own citizens is either a tyrant, a statist groupie, or an idiot.

Lincoln was a tyrant

Re: Obama wants military leaders who will fire on U.S. citizens

cab21 — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 07:40:11 GMT

so a video on constitutional interpretation is to show me how constitutional interpretation is not relevant?

Re: Obama wants military leaders who will fire on U.S. citizens

shackleford — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 05:04:51 GMT

Watch these. Then, you might understand something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfTSYe72KsI

Re: Obama wants military leaders who will fire on U.S. citizens

cab21 — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 04:34:06 GMT

because government does not involve law.

Re: Obama wants military leaders who will fire on U.S. citizens

shackleford — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 04:22:06 GMT

cab21:

i know what the words mean, but do you think everyone sees the same thing as cruel and unusual?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Cruel+and+Unusual+Punishment

it says there were court decisions that the death penalty ok, but denationalization not ok.

i'd call incarceration cruel punishment, but that is not how the courts have played out.

Stop citing case law. Who cares.

Re: Obama wants military leaders who will fire on U.S. citizens

cab21 — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 04:19:14 GMT

i know what the words mean, but do you think everyone sees the same thing as cruel and unusual?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Cruel+and+Unusual+Punishment

it says there were court decisions that the death penalty ok, but denationalization not ok.

i'd call incarceration cruel punishment, but that is not how the courts have played out.

Re: Obama wants military leaders who will fire on U.S. citizens

shackleford — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 03:46:10 GMT

cab21:

life or death or incarceration can depend on the judgement of judges and jury, moreso than the peice of paper.

the 3rd amendment seems more black and white than the 8th amendment.

words have meaning, but words like "excessive" are still subject to a judgement call. it seems more easy to tell that a soldier is quartered in a house without the consent of the owner in a time of peace, then to determine what is excessive. some of these words are qualitative and not quantatative.

Do you not know what the words cruel and unusual mean?

Re: Obama wants military leaders who will fire on U.S. citizens

cab21 — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 03:29:16 GMT

life or death or incarceration can depend on the judgement of judges and jury, moreso than the peice of paper.

the 3rd amendment seems more black and white than the 8th amendment.

words have meaning, but words like "excessive" are still subject to a judgement call. it seems more easy to tell that a soldier is quartered in a house without the consent of the owner in a time of peace, then to determine what is excessive. some of these words are qualitative and not quantatative.

Re: Obama wants military leaders who will fire on U.S. citizens

shackleford — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 02:37:45 GMT

cab21:

Congratulations. That's easily one of the stupidest things I have ever read. I have absolute assurance to summarily reject anything and everything you say.

how is that stupid?

there are different interpretations of the constition are there not?

because all supreme court decisions are 9/0 or 0/9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation

artical on judicial interpretation

thomas and scalia are both originalist's , yet they don't vote the same way each time.

http://www.frumforum.com/why-scalia-and-thomas-wont-always-agree/

Who cares about "judicial review." It's not even constitutional anyway. Who cares what a few jackasses on the Supreme Court say that the law means this or that. It doesn't make it so. Words have meaning.

Re: Obama wants military leaders who will fire on U.S. citizens

cab21 — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 02:26:28 GMT

Congratulations. That's easily one of the stupidest things I have ever read. I have absolute assurance to summarily reject anything and everything you say.

how is that stupid?

there are different interpretations of the constition are there not?

because all supreme court decisions are 9/0 or 0/9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation

artical on judicial interpretation

thomas and scalia are both originalist's , yet they don't vote the same way each time.

http://www.frumforum.com/why-scalia-and-thomas-wont-always-agree/