Irony alert: U.S. calls on Russia to respect peaceful protests

Im sorry that you feel that the rights granted to you have been given away. Only you can give away your rights, and by acknowledging and following these unconstitutional laws passed by state and local agencies, you have willingly given your rights away.

reply to post by aching_knuckles


Again, my argument is that the Bill of Rights specifies that Congress may not establish such laws (#1), but the states DO have the authority (#10).

Therefore, these local and state laws are not Unconstitutional.

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
reply to post by aching_knuckles

 

Good try. But the Constitution limits the states' abilities to do what you suggested:

Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

And this one:

Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

So no, I am not worried that the states will do what you suggested.

edit on 11-12-2011 by GeorgiaGirl because: (no reason given)

LOL
"They wont do that, because the Constitution says they cant! So there!"
....when earlier in this page you were telling me how I dont have the rights given to me in the Constitution, because local laws supercede them.

So which is it? Dont you see how you are picking and choosing and arguing both sides? Which is it, do local laws reign supreme, or is the Constitution the true law of the land?

Didnt you say you were college educated? This is getting downright nightmare scary.

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Im sorry that you feel that the rights granted to you have been given away. Only you can give away your rights, and by acknowledging and following these unconstitutional laws passed by state and local agencies, you have willingly given your rights away.

reply to post by aching_knuckles

 

Again, my argument is that the Bill of Rights specifies that Congress may not establish such laws (#1), but the states DO have the authority (#10).

Therefore, these local and state laws are not Unconstitutional.

And when the people feel the government has overstepped its bounds, we have what?...

...the right to petition for a redress of grievances. Where, in that statement, does it say that this petition must be subject to local and state laws? That is one interpretation of the Constitution, a position that has been taken by TPTB. So basically, you are arguing in favor of the interpretation that takes away most of our rights, and gives them to the current power structures.

Why the hell would I listen to you?

Originally posted by aching_knuckles


And when the people feel the government has overstepped its bounds, we have what?...

The Supreme Court

Which has ruled in favor of State rights and Citizens over the Federal Government a few times.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by aching_knuckles


And when the people feel the government has overstepped its bounds, we have what?...

The Supreme Court

Which has ruled in favor of State rights and Citizens over the Federal Government a few times.

And in favor of the Federal Government way, way, WAY more often. Cmon really? The Supreme Court upheld corporate citizenhood, for criminys sake.

Why are people still arguing to help the people that rob them? sigh

OL
"They wont do that, because the Constitution says they cant! So there!"
....when earlier in this page you were telling me how I dont have the rights given to me in the Constitution, because local laws supercede them.

So which is it? Dont you see how you are picking and choosing and arguing both sides? Which is it, do local laws reign supreme, or is the Constitution the true law of the land?

Didnt you say you were college educated? This is getting downright nightmare scary.

reply to post by aching_knuckles


Now you're being rude. Yes, I have a doctorate. And I can read. I can certainly read and comprehend the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

My argument has come strictly FROM the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Verbatim. I am not making this up as I go...I am quoting the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

FACT 1: The Bill of Rights says the Congress can't prohibit your right to assemble.

FACT 2: The Bill of Rights says the states can do anything not expressly prohibited to them by the Constitution.

FACT 3: The Constitution does NOT say that the states can't make laws related to your right to assemble, such as where, how, and when you can assemble.

LOGICAL CONCLUSION: Therefore, the states CAN make these laws. These laws limiting where, how, and when you can assemble ARE Constitutional. You still have the right to assemble and to protest--the states are not taking that away from you just because they have defined stipulations to where, when, and how.

It's simple logic.

In addition, the Constitution says the states can't elect a king or have any kind of government that is not a Republic in nature.

Everything I am saying is supported by the Constitution. If you believe I am incorrect, SHOW ME within the Constitution where I am wrong. It appears your argument is coming from what you BELIEVE the Constitution says, rather than from what it actually says.

Please don't stoop to personal attacks.

reply to post by aching_knuckles


So...

You are not denying that they have ruled in favor of State and Citizen rights over the Federal Government. Throwing in the deflective Corporate angle was a good try but it still doesn't negate the above facts now does it?

reply to post by Vitchilo


Ummm............wow........Vitchilo......................I see the usual suspects "GANG OF THREE" has bothered to opine and derail your thread...somehow Government hypocrisy should be seen through the lens of "occupy"..........WTG...JACKWAGONS......Get the EFF over the protests already

It's really too bad.........I think that this topic should be explored in more depth...I keep hearing from the administration, that all of these Countries police, military and political establishment's.....need to ..."STAND DOWN".....and allow the protestors the time to see their grievances read out and enacted...
I hope the "world" takes note and holds this administration to the fire when they start renditioning citizens for perceived crimes against the state...i.e., "protesting big guvment".............in other words..."Ron Paul" supporters
Until...of coarse.....Ron Paul......is commander in chief................that is...

YouSir

aching-knuckles, please allow me to interrupt.

Where, in that statement, does it say that this petition must be subject to local and state laws? That is one interpretation of the Constitution, a position that has been taken by TPTB.

You are quite right in pointing out that it doesn't say that in the statement. It does say that in Supreme Court holdings, which are binding on our entire system. In effect, theirs is the ONLY interpretation that matters. If you mean to call the Supreme Court, "the powers that be," you certainly can, but I don't think a revolution aimed at overthrowing the Court will garner much support. Even though the country grumbles about it, it is accepted that the Supremes get to tell us what the Constitution means.

Why the hell would I listen to you?

You don't have to, of course. But I believe that I am correct and have a fair amount of training and experience to support that belief. One needs to base their reasoning on what is true.

Logical conclusion is that the state can make such laws? What the hell!!?? They do not have a right to take away others rights. Nobody has that right. Do you think that it is right that they want to stop the public from voicing their opinion from assembly? Are you happy to give over your rights to people who would do something like that?

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Now you're being rude. Yes, I have a doctorate. And I can read. I can certainly read and comprehend the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
...........
Everything I am saying is supported by the Constitution. If you believe I am incorrect, SHOW ME within the Constitution where I am wrong. It appears your argument is coming from what you BELIEVE the Constitution says, rather than from what it actually says.

Sorry that was rude, but I wasnt calling you stupid, or implying that you cant read, I am upset that it seems you are locked within this train of thought and cant look at it outside the box you are viewing it within.

I agree with you, local governance is required where the Constitution makes no mention. However, your inalieable rights cannot be removed by local law, this is unconstitutional. The fact that this is happening (and even that you argue in favor of it) DOES NOT make it constitutional. The fact that judges have ruled against freedom, does not make it constitutional.

You ask me to show you where within the Constitution what I am saying lies...I did, and then you saw "nuh uh, a local town board ruled over that!", or "no way, a federal judge overruled that in favor of the common populace!". Do you see how you are arguing both sides now?

Originally posted by Acidtastic
Logical conclusion is that the state can make such laws? What the hell!!?? They do not have a right to take away others rights. Nobody has that right. Do you think that it is right that they want to stop the public from voicing their opinion from assembly? Are you happy to give over your rights to people who would do something like that?

I know, right??

reply to post by aching_knuckles


Point me to the page number that you did that on---this is a long thread and I am also doing laundry, so I might have missed it.

reply to post by SLAYER69

quoteOriginally posted by Danbones
reply to post by SLAYER69

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

you did see that faux news showed greek protests not russian ones...?
for the sheeples

no i guess you didn't


Yeah..

I'll take your word on it.
Unlike you, I don't waste my time watching FOX News

un like you im quoting a written source
i don't bother with tV period

which is why I provide links to back up my opinions

Originally posted by charles1952
If you mean to call the Supreme Court, "the powers that be," you certainly can, but I don't think a revolution aimed at overthrowing the Court will garner much support. Even though the country grumbles about it, it is accepted that the Supremes get to tell us what the Constitution means.

No, I am saying that at critical times throughout history, "the powers that be" have certainly affected Supreme and Federal Court decisions to the detriment of the common man. I am not saying the Supreme Court IS TPTB, merely one of their tools.

I dont know about a revolution to overthrow the SCOTUS, but some things need some serious re-analyzation.

Originally posted by Acidtastic
Logical conclusion is that the state can make such laws? What the hell!!?? They do not have a right to take away others rights. Nobody has that right. Do you think that it is right that they want to stop the public from voicing their opinion from assembly? Are you happy to give over your rights to people who would do something like that?

You really don't think that the state has the authority to tell us that we can't camp out in a public park, just because we say we have the right to assemble? You think it should be okay? If I want to pitch a tent on the highway and call it a protest, I should be able to do that?

I am saying that it is completely logical that the states can make laws such as these.

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by Acidtastic
Logical conclusion is that the state can make such laws? What the hell!!?? They do not have a right to take away others rights. Nobody has that right. Do you think that it is right that they want to stop the public from voicing their opinion from assembly? Are you happy to give over your rights to people who would do something like that?

I know, right??

It defies logic to me how people can be so complacent about it all. Oh it's ok, they've just scribbled in a few extra laws, which means that police officers will be round in the morning to kill your first born. But it's ok, becasue it's now in a little book, so it's legal, and that means it's right. Becasue the law is always right.

Originally posted by Acidtastic

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by Acidtastic
Logical conclusion is that the state can make such laws? What the hell!!?? They do not have a right to take away others rights. Nobody has that right. Do you think that it is right that they want to stop the public from voicing their opinion from assembly? Are you happy to give over your rights to people who would do something like that?

I know, right??

It defies logic to me how people can be so complacent about it all. Oh it's ok, they've just scribbled in a few extra laws, which means that police officers will be round in the morning to kill your first born. But it's ok, becasue it's now in a little book, so it's legal, and that means it's right. Becasue the law is always right.

Like I said, the conditioning is THICK. GeorgiaGirl is a doctor for goodness sakes! They will argue with you when you try to explain they are just giving themselves away....its like like if someone was walking down the street throwing gold away, and you try to stop them, and they argue with you aboiut why its best for them lol

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Originally posted by Acidtastic
Logical conclusion is that the state can make such laws? What the hell!!?? They do not have a right to take away others rights. Nobody has that right. Do you think that it is right that they want to stop the public from voicing their opinion from assembly? Are you happy to give over your rights to people who would do something like that?

You really don't think that the state has the authority to tell us that we can't camp out in a public park, just because we say we have the right to assemble? You think it should be okay? If I want to pitch a tent on the highway and call it a protest, I should be able to do that?

I am saying that it is completely logical that the states can make laws such as these.

YES, people should be free to assemble to make a protest. if it's on a road, then it's on a road. (Reclaim The Streets would be a good example of that) Democracy allows this, is america under a democracy, or a dictatorship?

Originally posted by Danbones
un like you im quoting a written source
i don't bother with tV period

Well that makes two of us

So, We both agree FOX News sucks...

Was there a point you were trying to make?