John Kerry Says First Amendment is a Major Roadblock for Government

John Kerry is a dufus blowhard. A fake war hero, just like Johnny McLame. We have to consider that we are no longer being governed and that these words are basically the babbling ideas of a doddering fool who sees their liberal economic order paradise disintegrating.

Nothing is going according to plan. Not ours or theirs. Things are spiraling faster than we can keep up. Their grandiosity has been met with more resistance than they believed possible and each step they take is a little more desperate and detached from reality.

The end isn't nigh, but civilization is faltering into some sort of neo-dark age.

a reply to: Annee

You already bit.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: coldisbest118
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.[1] It provides that state courts are bound by, and state constitutions subordinate to, the supreme law.[2] However, federal statutes and treaties must be within the parameters of the Constitution;[3] that is, they must be pursuant to the federal government's enumerated powers, and not violate other constitutional limits on federal power, such as the Bill of Rights—of particular interest is the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that the federal government has only those powers that are delegated to it by the Constitution.[4] It is the responsibility of the United States Supreme Court in that case to exercise the power of judicial review: the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution.

the law of the land.

you are right that it doesn't grant rights it upholds them and prevents the government from trampling them.

wow so you have no clue what you are talking about as you have never studied or even been to the USA and yet claim to know more about its laws then a USA citizen that has.

the government violating the constitution does not make it invalid. it just means that the American people are allowing the government to violate their rights as citizens.
the supreme court should have done their job by now and stopped the violations

you are also right that many Americans are indoctrinated, they have been lead to believe that the constitution is wrong and that the government knows whats right and wrong.

a reply to: chr0naut

There is one of the Goon Shows, a BBC Radio comedy show, where someone asks Eccles for the time. Eccles replies that he has it written down on a piece of paper in his pocket. The person questioning him asks how could he know if it is the right time written on the paper? To which Eccles replies that he knows it is the right time because he can check it by looking at the piece of paper where it is written down.

The supremacy clause in the US Constitution is a similar circular reasoning, in that, if someone doesn't already grant the Constitution supremacy, then why grant the Supremacy clause anything differently?

But clearly there are many acts of Congress and state laws that are contrary to Constitutional principles as interpreted by some. As I have mentioned before, the FISA Courts, surveillance of non-felon citizens, the Espionage Act, and laws governing censorship, fraud, and perjury (which some would try and redefine as free speech issues).

And again, the issue is that you suggest rights are upheld but never granted. But are they actually rights if they are never granted? Surely you don't believe that people can be prosecuted for contravening unwritten laws? And how can un-granted rights be upheld legally? The only rational solution is to both grant and uphold rights, not leave them vaporous and ill-defined enough to be interpreted entirely differently by different people. Law must necessarily be specific, to protect society from those who would misinterpret law maliciously.

And while the Constitution covers particular parts of government and its limitations, it does not address how people outside of those parts of government are to act to each other. Human rights come out of how people are to act in regard to each other. and are not limited in effect of happening 'on a Wednesday evening in Hoboken if in the presence of someone dressed as a clown'. Where a time, or place, or other situational limitation upon a law is specified, it cannot be assumed to be applicable outside of its situational limits.

Perjury isn't a free speech issue, it is a style of fraud. Fraud is illegal. There are many kinds of fraud, some that use speech (perjury) and some that don't (wire fraud), but they are all in the fraud family. The problem with Times V Sullivan is that it caused an avalanche of freedom of press superseding libel law. Let's say I was a writer at orange tree times. I call my friends over at apple seed daily and the lemon lime post. I tell them to write a story about chronaut kicking a puppy. I'll source apple seed, apple seed sources lemon lime, and lemon lime sources orange tree. Now all of those papers have libel protection because they were sourcing someone else. And this happens frequently in the press for them to skirt lawsuits. In theory, the ruling was correct that people should have protection for being incorrect, because being wrong isn't a crime, but it allowed for legal fraud by allowing the press loopholes in which to be maliciously incorrect.

Now I am really confused by your comments though, are you saying that speech should be protected even when committing a different crime?

As far as all the other stuff, rights and how they are granted, social contracts and constructs, etc etc are not my wheelhouse, but I can ask my friend who is a philosophy professor to give me some tips and get back to you.

so a guy on a bbc radio show doesn't understand object permanence and that's your reasoning as to how the constitution is based on circular reasoning?
whats odd is that, you also have the same misunderstanding, "someone" doesn't need to grant the constitution supremacy. that supremacy is inherent to the constitution and has been confirmed as being a thing by the supreme court. as shown in my earlier post.
the constitution is backed by the people of the USA.
the first and second amendment ensure that the government stays inline so long as the people are willing to enforce it.

yes there are many laws and rules that are in violation of the constitution and they are being challenged in court like they should be.
that's why the supreme court exists.

yes rights are upheld because they are seen as something that is inherent to being human not something granted by anyone.
yes that is also built into the constipation as the writers understood that they were not perfect and made it so that it could be changed depending on the will of the people.
you are misunderstanding the point that the constitution is laws for the people it isn't, it is laws for the government

to grant something means you can then take away what has been granted as such rights that are granted to you are not real and can be revoked at any time.

what unwritten laws?

no again you do not understand the constitution it covers the government in its entirety and not the people.

if a law cannot be made to prohibit free speech then the government doesn't have the authority to arrest you based on speech

human rights do not come out of how people are supposed to act with one another they are again inherent to being human.

you are at this point either being malicious in your interpretations on things or are severely misinformed on how the USA works and i lean to the later
you have likely been sold lies by someone

the constitution is quite clear in that it is a limit on the government

no human may grant me my rights they are inherent to me being a human

ill say it again so you can clearly understand

the constitution is a limit on government power

no human right is granted they are inherent to being human





a reply to: chr0naut

originally posted by: coldisbest118
so a guy on a bbc radio show doesn't understand object permanence and that's your reasoning as to how the constitution is based on circular reasoning?
whats odd is that, you also have the same misunderstanding, "someone" doesn't need to grant the constitution supremacy. that supremacy is inherent to the constitution and has been confirmed as being a thing by the supreme court. as shown in my earlier post.
the constitution is backed by the people of the USA.
the first and second amendment ensure that the government stays inline so long as the people are willing to enforce it.

yes there are many laws and rules that are in violation of the constitution and they are being challenged in court like they should be.
that's why the supreme court exists.

yes rights are upheld because they are seen as something that is inherent to being human not something granted by anyone.
yes that is also built into the constipation as the writers understood that they were not perfect and made it so that it could be changed depending on the will of the people.
you are misunderstanding the point that the constitution is laws for the people it isn't, it is laws for the government

to grant something means you can then take away what has been granted as such rights that are granted to you are not real and can be revoked at any time.

what unwritten laws?

no again you do not understand the constitution it covers the government in its entirety and not the people.

if a law cannot be made to prohibit free speech then the government doesn't have the authority to arrest you based on speech

human rights do not come out of how people are supposed to act with one another they are again inherent to being human.

you are at this point either being malicious in your interpretations on things or are severely misinformed on how the USA works and i lean to the later
you have likely been sold lies by someone

the constitution is quite clear in that it is a limit on the government

no human may grant me my rights they are inherent to me being a human

ill say it again so you can clearly understand

the constitution is a limit on government power

no human right is granted they are inherent to being human

a reply to: chr0naut

You cannot prosecute something in law, that does not exist in law.

If human rights are not explicitly stated in law, we might all agree that they are a good thing, but when it comes down to dealing with people or corporations that abuse against human rights, if there is no law against it, you can't prosecute it.

OK so you are clearly still not understanding me.

yes congress makes laws against the violation of human rights they have the power given to them by the constitution.

you are obfuscating and deflecting.

the constitution is for the government and laws made by congress are for the people.

you have agreed on my statement that since congress cannot make laws that violate the constitution they cannot arrest people for speech.

laws against abuse of humans exist and have existed for many years, they where signed into law by the president after being written by congress and verified by the supreme court to be within the bounds of the constitution

again the constitution lays out what the government can and cant do.


THE CONSTITUTION IS LAWS FOR THE GOVERNMENT NOT THE PEOPLE

you have zero understanding of how the USA works.

i am still inclined to believe you are just ignorant and were taught falsehoods by a teacher so i am not going to assign malice just yet.

i do hope that you can learn more and forget the awful teachings of whoever taught you.



a reply to: chr0naut

unless you mean who enforces the constitution, which i have already answered that is the supreme court is supposed to make sure laws are within the bounds of the constitution and should they fail to do that the it is up to the people to vote for representatives and bring lawsuits to challenge said laws.
should all that fail to stop the government from their unlawful acts then it is up to the people to defend themselves against tyranny.

a reply to: chr0naut

a reply to: xuenchen

The second amendment is there to protect the first amendment from people like
Kerry.

originally posted by: coldisbest118
unless you mean who enforces the constitution, which i have already answered that is the supreme court is supposed to make sure laws are within the bounds of the constitution and should they fail to do that the it is up to the people to vote for representatives and bring lawsuits to challenge said laws.
should all that fail to stop the government from their unlawful acts then it is up to the people to defend themselves against tyranny.

a reply to: chr0naut

Would defending against tyranny include those who take up arms (according to the 2nd Amendment) against someone they are sure represents just such a tyranny?

I ask this because two people have attempted to do so against Trump. Are they protected as compliant under the 2nd?

If they aren't, then what does the 2nd actually mean? What would someone taking up arms against tyranny actually look like, in the real world (not in some vaguely defined revolutionary war picture of flags and square jawed people standing their ground resolutely against unseen foes)?

a reply to: chr0naut

Would defending against tyranny include those who take up arms (according to the 2nd Amendment) against someone they are sure represents just such a tyranny?

Well it would never look like some cowardly lone assassin taking shots
at a presidential candidate like a brain washed asshole. And that's not
according to the Second Amendment at all. It means an armed people
can't be brought to tyranny as easily as those who have allowed them
selves to be unarmed.

originally posted by: coldisbest118
OK so you are clearly still not understanding me.

yes congress makes laws against the violation of human rights they have the power given to them by the constitution.

The 1st defines a couple of instances that Congress must not do. It does not explicitly define what they must do.

you are obfuscating and deflecting.

the constitution is for the government and laws made by congress are for the people.

So, if the Constitution only exists as rules for governance, is the government the only way new law, or modification/new interpretation of existing law, can come into effect? What about caselaw? What about state law, or even local body regulations?

you have agreed on my statement that since congress cannot make laws that violate the constitution they cannot arrest people for speech.

It is not the role of Congress to arrest people, The US government is also far too fractured into often conflicting departments and spheres of responsibility.

But everyone else except Congress (like for instance, state and federal judiciaries, local governing bodies, and corporations and various enforcement officers, and even individuals), can arrest people for speech related issues. For fraud, and for libel, and for indecency, and for revealing trade secrets, or revealing state/national secrets, even for breach of contract, etc.

laws against abuse of humans exist and have existed for many years, they where signed into law by the president after being written by congress and verified by the supreme court to be within the bounds of the constitution.

again the constitution lays out what the government can and cant do.

But the 1st Amendment specifically only places limitations upon Congress, not even all of government, nor other regulatory groups.

THE CONSTITUTION IS LAWS FOR THE GOVERNMENT NOT THE PEOPLE

you have zero understanding of how the USA works.

i am still inclined to believe you are just ignorant and were taught falsehoods by a teacher so i am not going to assign malice just yet.

Is it malicious to question the applicability of legal writ?

i do hope that you can learn more and forget the awful teachings of whoever taught you.

a reply to: chr0naut

Too many things are assumed and not explicitly stated in your interpretation of the purpose and effect of the US Constitution.

Law must be explicit, or otherwise it is open to misinterpretation and misuse.

It is also dynamic and allowances made for new and unique or rare unanticipated situations. Those new situations must be entered into law to serve as guidance over future application.

If law must remain static and cannot be extended and additionally specified, then evolving technologies and societal changes will increasing make the old laws deviate from the original intentions behind the law and will cripple it behind contradiction and a profusion of slightly different circumstances and mitigating conditions.

it would be akin to a civil war and would be the people against the government not a random dude that decided to try and kill a guy that has zero authority and is not even in government.

think of the revolutionary war and how that played out

first is protest and a official declaration of grievances and should that fail removal of officials and then the replacement of them.
depending on how much support the group gets and how bad the governmental authoritarians overreach is things could get very deadly if the military gets involved, although with how our system is setup usually the overreach is stopped before it escalates to violence.



a reply to: chr0naut

you clearly haven't read the constitution

i never said that the first was for just congress or that it said what they must do, in fact i proved that the constitution is for all forms of government including state and local you have clearly ignored that part of my reply.

case law is based on previous decisions of a judge that ruled based on a existing law therefore should still be within the confines of the constitution via the supremacy clause. regardless it is not seen as a be all end all for law it can be reverted very easily by another judge.

law.justia.com...
top of the website hit read more


yes the government is the only way in which new laws can be made i think that is very clearly a thing that is well known around the world

you have clearly shown that you have zero knowledge of how the USA government works and have refused to read what i have said, for reference here is some basic facts on how it works.
www.usa.gov...
en.wikipedia.org...

that is the idea you dolt its called separation of powers and checks and balances its a measure against giving to much power to any one governing body

no i am saying that you are clearly ignoring parts of my replies, while also obfuscating and not understanding other parts i said i am NOT going to assign malice in that you are doing that on purpose and are doing so out of ignorance

my interpretation of the constitution is not my own but that of likely hundreds of well educated scholars and judges that have said the same things i have stated their opinions and statements of fact have not changed.

the constitution is very clear as i have shown and told you many judges that know more then both me and you have said so many times

yes many laws have to evolve with the times as new tech comes out however some laws don't need to
laws don't change in meaning and intentions rather the people who read the laws and enforce them change their interpretations of them.


you have shown yourself to argue in bad faith and to be a person with no knowledge of the subject at hand

i am now taking you as a ignorant person to be ignored as you clearly only wish to argue without resolve and to obfuscate and deny without facts, knowledge based opinion or even logic based opinion.

please do take this to heart going forward to educate yourself on a topic before you decide to comment on it




a reply to: chr0naut

a reply to: chr0naut

Reeeeeeeeeddddddd:

Lots of "extensions" ...🤩

Freedom of the press in the United States

originally posted by: Astrocometus
a reply to: chr0naut

Would defending against tyranny include those who take up arms (according to the 2nd Amendment) against someone they are sure represents just such a tyranny?

Well it would never look like some cowardly lone assassin taking shots
at a presidential candidate like a brain washed asshole. And that's not
according to the Second Amendment at all. It means an armed people
can't be brought to tyranny as easily as those who have allowed them
selves to be unarmed.

Most tyrannical governments in history have been implemented through popular coups of armed citizens.

The Russian revolution, the Chinese Revolution, the American revolution are all examples of armed uprising of citizenry.

The militias were mostly ineffective in the American Revolutionary war.

Modern militias overwhelmingly seek to implement policies of the most tyrannical ideologies in history (Fascism/Nazism).

America does not, and has not ever, come into the top 10 of countries with the most liberty, despite the existence of the 2nd.

Americas own history, of criminality, sedition, revolt and incarceration rate, shows that proliferation of firearms does not lead to greater liberty.

a reply to: chr0naut

America does not, and has not ever, come into the top 10 of countries with the most liberty, despite the existence of the 2nd.

And yet I stand by what I said.

It means an armed people
can't be brought to tyranny as easily as those who have allowed them
selves to be unarmed.

Especially under this current threat of an administration.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

Reeeeeeeeeddddddd:

Lots of "extensions" ...🤩

Freedom of the press in the United States

Did you not notice in that article that the world ranking of freedom of the press in the USA is not "Good", nor even "Satisfactory", but is "Problematic". Or that there is a press freedom tracker in the US that documents hundreds of violations.

This means that, despite the the 1st Amendment (which only places limitation upon Congress) the US does not have good freedom of the press.

Here's what the 1st says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

(emphasis mine)

originally posted by: Astrocometus
a reply to: chr0naut

America does not, and has not ever, come into the top 10 of countries with the most liberty, despite the existence of the 2nd.

And yet I stand by what I said.

Sure, but that just means that you are ignoring what has happened in history, and even in that of your own country, that shows that the 2nd does not protect America, but actually destabilizes freedom, liberty and peace.

It means an armed people
can't be brought to tyranny as easily as those who have allowed them
selves to be unarmed.

Especially under this current threat of an administration.

IF people start shooting at political figures that they believe will bring tyrannical government. The press will always paint them as being loners and nut-jobs.

Just look at the enormous numbers of anti-government sentiment represented here on ATS.

Those "lone fruitcakes" shooters just represent the extremist fringes of popular movements.

Several politicians have tried to use anti-government sentiment in their self promotion, and have actually increased the numbers of people, both for and against, who are likely to take up arms against whomever they deem to be tyrannical.

That is what the 2nd enables - Proliferation of arms (not just firearms) to be used against tyranny (how ever it is perceived).

a reply to: chr0naut

If I did or did not "notice" something in the story, what bearing does that have on the points?

What's your favorite Red Herring? 😀

And what's Kerry's points of authorities?