It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama could have stopped the militia with an open dialogue

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 04:17 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce
And had you paid attention in grammar class you wouldn't be making silly assertions. Understanding the Constitution requires knowing the meaning of the words used and the way they are used. Grammar. It is important.

You don't seem to understand that a policymaker isn't a sworn official. A policymaker isn't required to be sworn into office because they are hired, not elected. If you do not swear an oath to the Constitution in the course of holding your job, you cannot violate an oath you did not take. See the difference between policymakers and elected officials? One isn't required to swear an oath to the Constitution---the other is required to swear that oath.
If you aren't required to swear an oath, you can't violate that oath.

I was part of a team of policymakers at a local hospital when I worked there. The hospital was owned by the county. I did not swear an oath when I took the job at the hospital. I didn't violate anybody's rights if I didn't respond to their concerns about policy because I took no oath to uphold the Constitution. Nor did my boss. Nor did the administrator of the hospital. We were all hired and we all had a hand in making hospital policies.
The people who had taken the oath were the men elected to county government positions, in our case, that body is called the fiscal court and the chief executive is called the county judge/executive. (He has no judicial powers, only executive powers.) So if a citizen came to me, a policymaker, and I refused to talk to them, they would have to go to the elected officials in charge of the hospital and address their petition for redress of grievances to the elected officials---not us lowly peon policymakers. I cannot violate an oath I did not take.
Likewise, I was involved in policy making at the University when I worked there. Specifically, policy for the archaeological field school of which I was Crew Chief. I didn't swear an oath to uphold the Constitution to take that job either. To complain to the elected official in that case you would need to go the Board of Regents of the University because when they are appointed by the Governor, they do swear an oath. If memory serves me, but I could be wrong, the president of the University swears an oath during his investiture to that office. So it would be those people who should be petitioned, not lowly policymakers of the University.

Redress is still a transitive verb---requiring action. Your wishing it to be intransitive doesn't make it so. You have yet to post a link to a legal dictionary that shows it as a word that doesn't require action---an intransitive verb. You have ignored the links I've posted to help you with your grammar education so I'm done.




posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 04:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
Understanding the Constitution requires knowing the meaning of the words used and the way they are used. Grammar. It is important.


Which is why the Supreme Court stated

Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues.

A statement that you want to ignore!


Redress is still a transitive verb---requiring action.


You still have not actually read and understood the Constitution, the right guaranteed in it is to

to petition the government for a redress of grievances


Nowhere is there a right that you will get redress, despite what you want.
edit on 20-2-2016 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: diggindirt
Reply to Flatfish:



You have the right to petition for a redress of grievances.


Correct.
To petition (a verb transitive, meaning to file a formal, written request)
for (a preposition, means to obtain)
redress ( verb transitive, a remedy or the means to a remedy on the part of the Government)
of (preposition, means for or about)
grievance (noun, a real or fancied complaint)

The citizen/s must take action in the form of drawing up a petition in order to compel the government to supply a remedy or the means to a remedy for their complaint/s. The use of the verb transitive "redress" is the "guarantee" you seek because it requires action by the body being addressed by the very nature of the word.
Please show me how redress can occur without a response from the government being petitioned.

Again, I am not contending that the government must comply with the requests in the petition/s but they must provide a remedy or the means to a remedy. Do you not understand that the word "redress" is a verb transitive and by its very nature demands action on the part of the recipient of the petition?

Yet again, words have meaning and the authors of the Constitution knew the meaning of those words and used them carefully. The right to petition for redress of grievances had been a part of English law since the signing of the Magna Carta, a document, (one of many) upon which the founders of the US based the tenets of the Constitution. It was from this right that the inclusion of this passage in the Declaration of Independence sprung:



In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.


At the time of the Declaration, the colonists were under British law, a part of which was the right to petition for redress of grievances as found in the Magna Carta. The colonists were declaring that the King had violated the very law by which he was bound to provide a remedy or a means to a remedy, using that violation as one of many which compelled them to declare themselves independent of a tyrant.




If you'd spend a little time defining the word "petition," you'll see that there is no guarantee of success.


I've given the definition of "to petition" above. It is the act of filing a formal, written request. However, the framers of the Constitution didn't stop with the right to petition, they specified that the petition was for "redress of grievances" which by the very nature of the word---verb transtitive---means that action is required by those to whom the petition is addressed.
I don't know how to make it any plainer than simply using the definitions of the words used by the authors of the document.

Please show how the meaning of redress does not include actions by the recipients of the petition/s.


Look, the petition is a "request" and there's nothing "compelling" about it.

The petition or request could very well be deemed to be unreasonable and/or without merit and not worthy of relief or redress.

Nowhere does it state that the government is compelled to provide relief, or a means to relief, just because someone or some group files a petition requesting it.

Hell when I was 16, I petitioned my dad for a new Ford Mustang and the only thing he was compelled to give me was the clear understanding that if I wanted that car I was going to have to buy the damn thing myself with my own money, because he sure as hell wasn't buying it for me.

By your own definitions listed above, the "petition" is simply a request for "redress" or relief. Nothing binding or compelling about it in any way.

I think you just pulled that part out of your ass.







Your father provided you the "means for relief" to your petition---work, save money, have a car. See, it's that simple, a remedy or a means to a remedy. Same with government. I made it clear---the government doesn't have to provide the requested remedy but may provide a means to the remedy. It could be as simple as informing the petitioner of the legal way to a remedy, say, by filing in a court of law and providing the name and location of the proper court. They don't have to give you legal advice but must tell you where and how to obtain the means to a remedy.

Have you never filed a petition with government? If you had done so, you would know these things. They must provide you with the "means to a remedy" if the person the petition is filed with cannot or will not provide the remedy.


You have absolutely no idea what you're even talking about.

No one owes you relief, a means to relief or even simple advice just because you filed a petition.

The Constitution says you have the right to petition, it doesn't say one damn word about anyone, government or otherwise, owing you anything.

They could just as easily tell you that your petition is without merit and that you should just shut up and go home.

Your post on the subject are nothing short of pure unadulterated ignorance!



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Wow this is a stupid thread. Ur clearly a bundy supporter. Why oh why in god's name, with all the so called "grievances" in this country towards the government do u think farming land rights and two arsonists should be at the TOP of Obama's to do list. Or do you not have an inkling of how much work it is to be the President?

How was their first amendment right violated? They had access to every news media just outside. They could say and apparently do w.e they wanted. There are so many other problems in the US and in the world that Obama doesn't even have the time to address, and you think this is important? That this deserves a presidential address to the the nation?

How warped is your view of America? Go Vote for Trump he seems to live in Imagenary Land as well.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Obama doesn't want to talk with a militia of white people. He only gets involved or has an opinion about the troubles of black people.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Byrd


How is "capturing and occupying a building" a "petition for redress"?

It is my understanding that the petitions had been ignored.


Rejecting a petition is not ignoring it.


Note that he starts out by offering them escorts. There is no order to leave. (He does not believe that he can issue an order to leave because he doesn't believe he has authority on land that the federal government claims to own.)
He as much as admits that the petitions have been ignored.


He's correct -- he can't enforce laws on another's property (Federal property.) And his (possible) opinion that the petitions possibly were ignored were a maneuver to get them to leave peaceably.


Clearly if you watched the video linked above you heard him say they want replies to the petitions. You can see it was completely peaceful and civil.


The answer was "denied."

I've also heard the other videos as well - like this one, calling others to come to the refuge and bring guns and be prepared to fight.. "Bring guns and be prepared to fight" is not my idea of peaceful and civil.

And driving around waving guns is not peaceful and civil. People were frightened, people were furious, schools were closed and the town asked them to leave on January 7th - and they refused. Occupying an area (while armed) in spite of overwhelming response from the locals asking them to leave is NOT peaceful. "Bring donations to the legal fund and be prepared to stand up in court in support" is my idea of civil and peaceful.

And the ranchers they claimed to be helping by tearing down fences said publicly that they did not want the help and did not authorize fence cutting.

That's disrespectful of the ranchers. How is that helping?

They decided to tail various people in Burns around prior to occupation... and display their guns while doing so. I don't consider someone following me while showing their firearms as a peaceful sign. Maybe you do, but I don't.


As for land usage, in the first press conference they asserted that the land should be returned to its lawful owners. The ranchers who have lost land unlawfully should have their property returned to them.

...and they sneered at the idea that the Native Americans owned it. What I read in several places was they said the Native Americans didn't take care of their land so it was okay for the ranchers to have it instead.

AND... if you read the Wikipedia article about how the refuge was formed AND if you do a search for the land records, you will see that it was created in 1908 (so no one owning property at that time has a dog in the fight because they're dead.)

It turns out that the government never forced anyone to sell their land. The economic downturn was NOT due to the refuge, but due to factors in the market.


That would leave the land that was obtained by the federal government lawfully, that is donated or sold freely, without threat or coercion, for a specific purpose (conservation, preservation, etc.) would be turned over to the county by the federal government to be administered by the county according to the terms of the covenant by which the landowners conveyed the land to the federal government.


Why? The county doesn't want this. They don't have the manpower or the money to manage it. Here's the Harney County budget Compare this to the Fish and Wildlife Service budget which brings in jobs and money to the county to the tune of 15 million dollars annually..


Bullying is as much of a problem today in governmental agencies as it is in our schools.

In my opinion, a long gun-carrying individual following someone around (when that person clearly doesn't wish to be followed) is a bully.


I'm betting they made numerous copies of those documents and sent them to faraway places. You can bet they didn't destroy their own evidence!


I'd bet that there's no such documents.


Ammon answers questions from the press, explaining that it is their wish to return the plundered lands to the people of the state and county. There are no threats of violence, none at all.

Then who sent death threats to the sheriff who wouldn't help them after all? Are death threats from armed men not violent?

Ranchers?

The original property owners are dead. Their heirs aren't contesting the transfer.

The Hammonds were notorious for sending death threats over grazing issues and whether cattle could walk across the land itself but no land had been taken from them.

What ranchers?

On the bright side, thousands of people who also had a dog in this fight have donated tens of thousands of dollars (and at least 600 have showed up in person) to help restore the refuge and undo the damage.

...and holding someone's property hostage and damaging it really isn't my idea of "peaceful."



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

So, if you demand something from the Federal Government; the Federal Government is obligated to give it to you? That's your argument?
The first says you can petition for a redress. It does not say that you are guaranteed one.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 12:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish
It isn't me who is ignorant of the meaning of words and parts of speech.
If you could prove to me that "redress" is an intransitive verb, I might take more notice of what you say. But since you have less knowledge of grammar than an average fifth grader, I'm inclined to ignore any further posts of yours on any subject.
Your endless parroting is quite tiresome and your lack of understanding of language is just plain sad.

The blame for the incident in Oregon lies squarely at the feet of the elected officials who failed in their duty to the people they are supposed to be serving.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 12:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: NotTooHappy
a reply to: diggindirt

So, if you demand something from the Federal Government; the Federal Government is obligated to give it to you? That's your argument?
The first says you can petition for a redress. It does not say that you are guaranteed one.


Is your ability to read and comprehend somehow impaired?
Look up the meaning of the word "redress" in a legal dictionary. I've posted the links numerous times but if you don't trust my links, find your own. Then look up the meaning of transitive verb. I didn't write the document but I learned basic English grammar in fifth grade and had my first civics class in seventh grade.

Just so you know, there is no such thing as "a redress"---that's not what the First says at all. You need to know basic English grammar before taking up arguments about it.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
Is your ability to read and comprehend somehow impaired?


Yours appears to be, you still do not understand the 1st amandment states "and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"

You have a right to petition, you do not have any right for a redress!



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Flatfish
It isn't me who is ignorant of the meaning of words and parts of speech.
If you could prove to me that "redress" is an intransitive verb, I might take more notice of what you say. But since you have less knowledge of grammar than an average fifth grader, I'm inclined to ignore any further posts of yours on any subject.
Your endless parroting is quite tiresome and your lack of understanding of language is just plain sad.

The blame for the incident in Oregon lies squarely at the feet of the elected officials who failed in their duty to the people they are supposed to be serving.


I think everyone in this thread knows the meaning of the word "redress."

Problem is, one person in this thread, (namely you) can't seem to wrap their head around the fact that you have no right to redress.

You only have the right to petition or request it, you have no intrinsic right to actually get the relief you're petitioning for.

Let's just say we agree on the definition of "redress."

Maybe you could show us where in the Constitution it says that anyone is entitled to redress or relief simply because they filed a petition.

If you really want to bitch about not getting something you're supposed to be entitled to, IMO you should be complaining about the fact that someone allowed you to graduate grade school without a proper education.

The protesters in Oregon got better than they deserved and those who are still alive are damned lucky that they too, aren't pushing up daisies from a pissed on grave like LaVoy Finicum.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish



Let's just say we agree on the definition of "redress."


Show me your definition from a legal dictionary. I've provided links. You disagree with the legal dictionary's definition?
You can disagree all you wish, doesn't change the meaning of the word.

You keep focusing on the petition part of the clause and ignoring the other verb used in the clause. That verb is "redress" and is a transitive verb.
In order to understand the amendment you must understand the history of the amendment which began with the Magna Carta.



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 06:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Flatfish



Let's just say we agree on the definition of "redress."


Show me your definition from a legal dictionary. I've provided links. You disagree with the legal dictionary's definition?
You can disagree all you wish, doesn't change the meaning of the word.

You keep focusing on the petition part of the clause and ignoring the other verb used in the clause. That verb is "redress" and is a transitive verb.
In order to understand the amendment you must understand the history of the amendment which began with the Magna Carta.


You make about as much sense as a one man circle-jerk.

A petition is a request. (Which is the part you're ignoring.)

Redress is the act of providing relief.

You have the right to request relief and the government has the right to deny your request.

Simple as that.

You do NOT have the right to demand relief and the government is NOT required to provide it to you.

Nothing compulsory about it.

Although, there is another word that you may be interested in looking up, as it's more than applicable to describe your position in this debate.

The word is; Retarded.




edit on 22-2-2016 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Still waiting for that definition you've been unable to provide.
Insults aren't evidence for your arguments. Have a nice day.



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Flatfish

Still waiting for that definition you've been unable to provide.


Still waiting for you to actually read and understand the constitution!



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE
If you were black you'd be laughing your ass off at the ignorance of ur statement. You talk as if Obama is the champion of black ppl. The world isn't as black and white as you imagine it.

Post script: George Bush wouldn't give two facks and a half about these ppl. Cheney would have sent in the team from Waco Texas.




top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join