Secret Service Investigating Twitter Accounts Calling for Assassination

Originally posted by mothershipzeta
Sweet. So now, according to WhatTheory conspiracy is no longer a crime (it's just speech, after all). And threatening someone's life is not actionable. No, you can't do anything about a threat until something actually happens.

That is not what I said. You are twisting my words in order to make your own lame point.

I guess you missed the point where I said the guy should be dealt with. It funny how you skip over items which make your point moot. Sad, just sad.

Oh, and, according to WhatTheory wearing a suicide vest on a plane, on a mall or wherever is perfectly legitimate. You can't do anything about it until he detonates it...[pending his answer on political expression - that may be protected as well].

See above comment. Stop embarrassing yourself by making false claims because you have reading comprehension problems or perhaps you are intentionally being disengenuous.

Thank you for your erudite Constitutional knowledge. You are truly a gentleman and a scholar.

It's crystal clear that I have a better understanding of the Constitution than yourself. You want to bend and interpret it to meet your expectations instead of abiding by what it actually states.

Originally posted by Aggie Man
What else are we to do?

Umm.....read it. No interpretation needed.

Originally posted by mothershipzeta
The First Amendment says your right to speech cannot be infringed. Period.

If yelling "fire" is protected speech (as you claim), then it cannot be infringed. So the yeller can't be punished for his speech, even if it causes a disturbance of the peace.

No, you're not following. The first amendment simply guarantees that the government cannot exercise prior restraint on your right to speech. For instance, if the government knows that you are planning a political rally, they can't waylay you and toss you in a van prior to that rally to prevent you from speaking (At least, they can't do so on the specific basis of preventing you from speaking). However, it is perfectly legal under the constitution to put you in cuffs after your speech, if what you said was deemed seditious, inciteful, libelous, or any other number of speech-based crime terms.

You can't be prevented from speaking. but you CAN be punished for doing so. This does have the chilling effect on free speech.. .but so long as there are no laws saying "you can't speak" then legally it's in the clear.

The Us constitution is a lot less ironclad and perfect than a lot of "patriots" want to think.

reply to post by WhatTheory


U.S. CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 3:

Section 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

A wise man, Alexander Hamilton, once said:

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

The constitution was never meant to be ironclad free of interpretation.

reply to post by Aggie Man


That is why the constitution was written the way it was. We don't need "scholars" and "lawyers" to interpret it for the citizens. It was written FOR the citizens, BY the citizens specifically for this reason. If people want the constitution amended then there is a process for that. Otherwise what our government is doing it trampling all over what the constitution CLEARLY dictates in no funny words.

You cannot argue with what is written in ink in the constitution and see the government do something else and disregard our basis of society.

I enjoy this debate on legal theory and freedom, but the real question is whether this urge to assassinate the President is found in many other people? People here on ATS pick up small-fry cases as well as THE most significant political or spiritual happenings on Earth sometimes.
I mean I am asking people to look at it from a point of view of collective consciousness.

A scary story that could be relevant here:

Let me refer here to Kyle Griffith's book War in Heaven (1988, downloadable if you google him). He has been a lifelong medium and an occult researcher. Prior to the Kennedy assassination, in trance he kept on hearing strong orders and exhortations from some otherworldly sources that Kennedy should be killed.
Although Griffith was not a fan of JFK, no one among his friends or acquaintances would have supported murdering the President, and they were all shocked when the JFK assassination took place not much later.
The voices persisted for months and he thought for a while there could be an occult conspiracy with far right lodges doing some bad magic to influence people. The odd thing was that he found himself in NYC at the time - where the overwhelming majority supported the President.
His solution to the riddle is an interesting story in the book, and it ties to its main theme, but the question remaining here - are these Twitter guys lone nuts or are they a symptom in America now?

reply to post by Kokatsi


wow that is very interesting idea. It ties directly into destiny, we have a destiny to follow and there is no breaking the path. Them being a symptom would be like seeing the fabric of time as it unraveled. Sort of like nature showing us a glimpse in the future.