Unamerican people need to leave America

reply to post by Light of Night


When it was pointed out that you were the one declaring that people had a hard time with comprehension, you make this statement:

It's the truth. The evidence is posted in this thread for all to see.

But remarkably, and amusingly so, when responding to my assertion that The Bill of Right offers no evidence to support your claim of rights being granted, you respond as such:

What??

Tragically, you fail to comprehend the clear contradiction. Your silly reliance on emoticons to somehow diminish your opponents arguments only reveals your own inability to make an argument. There is nothing more unappealing than bludgeoning an unarmed man, and clearly you have entered this thread intellectually unarmed, and I for one am going to stop bludgeoning you with truth, it is just unseemly. Unlike you, I am not making empty promises, and while I will continue posting in this thread, it is pointless to respond to your nonsense any longer, so have fun, and God Bless.

reply to post by SpectreDC


Actually, I think America was founded by drug dealers who wanted the "liberty" to do as they please without answering to a heirarchy. If everyone did as they pleased we'd have the world we live in today.

I believe you may not be happy, but it is not the Declaration of Independence that you should look to. The Declaration of Independence was a document to show that an illegale action was legal, proclaiming for all to read the grievences that the 13 colonies had against their mother country, and to act in accordence with the current laws of the day to gain support from the other countries of Europe. It was not used to define the laws of the federal government or the laws of the land, rather that was set later on by the Constitution of the United States of America. It was that document that set out the founding principles and responsiblities of what the Federal Government was, and what it may not touch by law, (The bill of Rights.)
It is the right of any individual to speak out against anything at any time, as long as it does not end up causing violence. People fail to also realize that as much as a person has the right to say stuff they do not want to hear, I also believe that we have forgotten the other right, the right to not listen or ignore them at the same time.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by stmichael

 

What does your jealously with people who are rich have to do with Natural Rights? Certainly you are free to envy the rich if you choose, but how does this apply to Natural Rights?

i,m not jealous, i,m not poor
maybe , when i was young and ignorant.you would have been correct.
we all have a right to life, from being born, its oppressors, the ones that remove our rights,
we have no choice of location in the world when we slide out of our mothers womb,we become a subject of that country(an apt word to be in subjectION)
the difference between the rich and poor IS money, only money, its also the difference between life and death




[edit on 4-5-2010 by stmichael]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Read the freaking Bill of Rights.

It clearly states in several amendments in plain clear as day English "The right of the people" followed by what that right is.

It's fact. No matter what you say, think, want it to be, doesn't make it any less of a fact. It is not my fault that some have the inability to wrap their brains around the fact that the US Constitution does in fact grant us rights.

Originally posted by Light of Night
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

You just crumbled your very argument. "The right of the people", meaning that the rights belong to the people, not the Government nor the Constitution.

No, I didn't. The Bill of Rights grants us those rights. As it has been mentioned earlier when the Bill of Rights did not exist the government started taking away these so called "rights". If the bill of rights did not exist we would not have these rights.

Therefore the constitution grants us these rights.

You're very bad when it comes to cause-effect and the succession of events.

This is the last time I'm replying to you, if you don't believe me ask a law professor, ask a lawyer, ask an attorney.

The Declaration of Independence spelled out our qualms with Britain, what our rights should be, and where are rights come from. They come from, in the belief of our founders, our maker.

They drafted the constitution, which is used to construct a government by the people, for the people. Anywhere you see "the people", it is referring to both the government and to the people because the people ARE the government. When refereeing specifically to an entity within the government, they refer to that entity specifically. Whether it be congress, the supreme court, or the president.

The bill of rights was all the constitution originally was, and this constitution frames what the government can and can not do. It doesn't grant a single right, because these rights are inherent in us already. The government only acts to protect these rights.

I don't know if its your unwillingness to understand or your ignorance of Natural Law and its context within the framing of our government, but that's what it means.

Please again, ask a law professor. They will certainly side with me on this one. Or read up on history. Or read some Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, George Washington, etc, etc, etc, etc. What's funny here is that while the founding fathers were hardly a unison voice of reason, in fact they were quite divisive, the one thing they agreed with was the concept of Natural Law and Natural Rights.

But takes this as you will. I'm not going to debate something that can't be debated. Unless you want to start debating that two plus two equals four, I'm done with you. You're like a broken recording of someone scratching a chalk board with their finger nails.

reply to post by Light of Night


I have a question then, does your ability to freely associate, worship (or not) as you see fit, protection of yourself, be secure in your belongings, to not self incriminate only exist because they are granted by the Constitution? If the rights were granted by the State, wouldn't they have written say the First Amendment as such "The Constitution hereby grants the right to...", implying that we can only do so because the Government has granted such a liberty?

On a note of honor and integrity, I have spoken too soon when I referred to the right to a jury by your peers is a Natural right that we enjoy even without Government.

There are only 2 Amendments in which I believe there is a specific 'right' granted and that is the 6th and 7th. Some could argue that even those predate Government, but I believe those to be part of the social pact that we call Government entail. Even so, they are granted, but more so protected against the Government.

reply to post by sdcigarpig

The Declaration of Independence was a document to show that an illegale action was legal, proclaiming for all to read the grievences that the 13 colonies had against their mother country, and to act in accordence with the current laws of the day to gain support from the other countries of Europe.

By this logic, the Magna Carta would also be an illegal document to show that an illegal action was legal.

reply to post by SpectreDC


Look, its really simple. The US Constitution grants us rights. Just read some supreme court ruling. The rulings either state A) The people have this right or B) The people don't have this right.

Yes the government is made up of people, and so they have the same rights as people not in government positions. But it still doesn't negate the fact that the Constitution grants us Rights.

You can think what ever you want to think but the Constitution grants us rights. If the Constitution did not grant us rights then we would not have those rights.

reply to post by SpectreDC


having only briefed this thread, I apologize if this has already been pointed out.
And someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe at the time the Constitution was written, women and all blacks were considered property, with no rights, inalienable or otherwise. So yes, these Natural Laws, at that time, were only credited to white males. Through decades and decades, slowly this document has been reinterpreted as the ideas have grown to include humans. and throughout these long years of debate, the Native Americans were treated as an enemy to be destroyed, not ever included, and they were here first!

reply to post by stmichael

the difference between the rich and poor IS money, only money, its also the difference between life and death

Long before there was money, there was life and death.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

I have a question then, does your ability to freely associate, worship (or not) as you see fit, protection of yourself, be secure in your belongings, to not self incriminate only exist because they are granted by the Constitution?

Yes, that is the only reason why I am able to exercise those rights is specifically because the Constitution allows me to do those things.

If I was living in say China, I would not be able to do those things, well lets put it this way be able to do those things legally out in the open for all to see, because I would not have those rights. I would be living under Chinese law and if I was doing something that they did not allow me to do then they would arrest me and do whatever they wanted to do with me.

It doesn't matter how I "think" something should be. The only thing that matters is "how" it actually is. And how it actually is the state enforces the law and the Constitution grants us rights to be able to challenge the state.

reply to post by missvicky


While this is correct, it was a cultural black mark. Besides the dreaded 2/3rds clause, no where in the Constitution can you find a specific point in which only white males were to benefit.

Luckily through the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, they placed a means in which the People can change the Constitution.

Funnily, the Constitution was written during a time of male dominance but used wording and verbiage that was gender, race, religion and creed neutral such as "the People, etc."

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by stmichael

 

the difference between the rich and poor IS money, only money, its also the difference between life and death

Long before there was money, there was life and death.

money is a form of exchange, before money it was stealing,and so led to death

reply to post by Light of Night


Then I would have to say you were the one lied to by whatever history, civics, and ethics teachers you have ever had.

The core of this argument drives deeper into individualism and self governance. If you truly believe that you only have those abilities because the Constitution, which is written by the People to form a Government, of the People, then you have missed what exactly the Founding Fathers were attempting to achieve.

By drawing upon Natural Law and Rights as their basis for the structure of Government, they were declaring that no man can ever hold those rights against the will of another man. While you are correct that it would be unlawful in another country, it is just that, unlawful. You still retain the right to speak freely, protest the government, protect yourself, etc just without the protection granted by the Constitution.

Those things are not given to us by Government, but by our Creator, whatever that may be. It is what set us apart 200+ years ago from the rest of the world, and should still today, but that is fading fast due to the failed and possibly nefarious teachings of our country and what it was meant to be.

reply to post by SpectreDC


Great Diatribe!!!!! Star and Flag for sure.

I recently was having a debate in a thread that I was participating in and it had devolved into a debate about whether voting is a right or a privilege.

Here is my quote:

The only reason that voting is considered a privilege is because we are citizens of the Federal Government, due to the un-Constitutional 14th Amendment.
(New Jersey and Ohio did not initially ratify the 14th along with 9 Confederate states. They were, however, eventually forced to do so as their respective houses were expelled, by gunpoint diplomacy, and then re-appointed with members picked by the lacky's who were bought and paid for by the power grabbing US Congress) LInk to Reconstruction Acts.
Notice this quote from the link...

Each district was to be headed by a military official empowered to appoint and remove state officials

And this quote...

States were required to ratify the 14th Amendment prior to readmission.

Before we were forced to be citizens of the Federal Government, which gives us the "privilege" to vote. we were citizens of our respective State Governments, each of which were a Sovereign Country under Pubilc International Law.

Our rights are God Given and in-alienable, and that includes the right to universal suffrage, if that is what our STATE says.
The US Constitution was meant to limit the power of the FEDERAL government only . EACH state was sovereign under public international law.
The Orgnanic Act of 1871 created a corporation that has been masking as our country ever since.
The 14th Amendment made us citizens/employees/voluntary servants of this Corporation.
This attorney breaks down exactly why the 14th Amendment is un-Constitutional. READ IT.

Link to source (even if it is me ATS owns it)


I thought that it went well with your sentiment.

If more people starting reading the law and exercising the actual god-given common law rights that we have in this country, then we could put our system of legislated Roman Civil Right/Contract Law to bed.

Originally posted by missvicky
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

having only briefed this thread, I apologize if this has already been pointed out.
And someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe at the time the Constitution was written, women and all blacks were considered property, with no rights, inalienable or otherwise. So yes, these Natural Laws, at that time, were only credited to white males. Through decades and decades, slowly this document has been reinterpreted as the ideas have grown to include humans. and throughout these long years of debate, the Native Americans were treated as an enemy to be destroyed, not ever included, and they were here first!

It is unclear why so many believe that women were considered to be property at the time of the Founding of The United States of America. Consider this tidbit about Betsy Ross:

John was killed in January 1776 on militia duty when gunpowder exploded at the Philadelphia waterfront. Betsy acquired property and kept up the upholstery business, beginning to make flags for Pennsylvania as well.

Not only was Betsy Ross not property herself, she acquired her own property. Further, anyone who knows the history of Dred Scott, (to tie in your assertion about women with slavery), knows that Eliza Irene Emmerson "inherited" Mr. Scott as "property" after her husbands death. Even further, The Quock Walker Case serves as evidence that not all black People were slaves in early American history, or at least used due process of law to obtain their lawful right to freedom.

That there were clearly slave states who intended to continue the abhorrent practice of slavery, is undeniable, but that a Civil War was fought over this issue, the Southern States declaration of it being an issue of states rights notwithstanding, (and if they truly wanted such an argument to stand they would have better served that argument by first abolishing slavery, but imprudently did not), however the slave states were not all of America, and there were many free black People at the time of the founding of The United States of America.

reply to post by stmichael

money is a form of exchange, before money it was stealing,and so led to death

Money is money and exchange is exchange, you did not assert that exchange was life and death, merely that money was. All of which has no bearing in this thread and is just off topic.

Not quite sure what you are trying to convey. You are quite correct regarding Natural Rights. "Governments" can not override Natural Rights. It can only commit crime by trying to do so. The "Golden Rule" is Natural Rights and true law. All the rest is contract and contract can only be by voluntary consent. It is fraud for "Governments" to claim someone has given up their natural rights by failing to stand up for them. 99% of what passes for criminal law is based on this fraud and is a criminal act of government. Unalienable rights can not be taken they can only voluntarily be given away. No one would give their natural rights away except as a result of criminal fraud suckering them into doing so or fraudulently claiming they have implied to do so. Implied surrender of natural rights is government fraud. Adding to that, Governments are created by humans. Governments do not rule over their creator. Groups of individuals (Juries, Grand Juries) can collectively and with all do caution, apply themselves to "Arrest" and individual in violation of Natural Law, the natural rights of others. The reason to "Arrest" is to stop the individual's mind from continuing on a course that creates "crime", "karma", "sin" and ultimately hurts themselves. "Arrest" is an attempt to help, not harm, not punish.

Not sure where immigration comes into your argument? The uSA is one of the few places that stood up and admitted to the existence of Natural Law. People world wide should stand up and see that their creation of "Constitution" and from there, their creation of "Government" also fully recognizes Natural Law as the preeminent rule of criminal law. The solution to immigration is not to pretend everyone on earth has the right to swarm any place on earth in prosperity and suck the life out of it. The solution is for people envious of a place with prosperity to apply themselves to see that such a situation is present at their location on earth. Illegal Immigration is a means of perpetuating economic inequality. People have a right to the sovereignty of their land as an extension of their individual domains. They have right to it's sovereignty and no obligation to have it inundated by people wanting ultimately to take it away from them.

Illegal immigration is misdirection. The problem isn't with people wanting opportunity, the problem is with people in the homeland wanting to deny them equal opportunities. Much has been written, for example, about corporations starving out Mexican farms and driving them to the uSA.

The Sovereignty of a given land is in the hands of those born or by agreement allowed to participate in that sovereign land. Allowing someone to join a land is not a trivial matter. It should be decided by the sovereigns of that land. It is not a matter of rationalizing some imagined claim to the land from the past. Those who want to participate in violating the sovereignty of a land and it's living people by facilitating the invasion of that land are traitors of that sovereign land. The other inhabitants of that land have every right to move against them. The collective right of a people to their lands is as sacred as an individuals natural rights. When an individual undermines the sovereignty of a peoples lands they are indirectly undermining the health of the individual sovereign on those lands and that is also crime against their natural rights. It is crime to sell land to foreign interests as it is a crime to put a toxic waste dump in proximity to a sovereigns land. That said, "land" itself is to precious to the health of the sovereigns to be treated as an ownable commodity. Really land should be leases in perpetuity to a family so long as they care to reside upon it with the remaining territories held in trust for future generations and the select few granted the right to join.

Guys lets get the topic back on topic


The word un Americans is un American ...People in American are free to like or think or do what they want ..As long as the law says they can ...People can be racist as long as they do not tell others or show of expresson . Its the same with a wall ..America can build a wall to gard the border if they want ..its American ..As long as people can still come here ..Legal ...And then do what they want ..Occording to the law ...