Due Process is dead. . . . Lady Justice has been sexually assaulted

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I've seen plenty of people on this site argue that certain people like Antifa should be denied due process.

I haven't seen that, at least not in any great number. There will always be those who oppose liberty, of course.

What I have seen concerning Antifa, and what I agree with concerning Antifa, is that looting and vandalism and impeding/threatening others is not free speech but rather criminal activities. Absolutely they should get their due process: their day in court to answer for their actions. That's due process, a process established in law that is due every citizen before conviction.

Condemning criminal actions is not denial of Constitutional rights.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

And what of all the people that think the counter-protesters should bear the blame for Charlottesville because they didn't have a permit? Let's ignore the fact that it's a lie.

How is requiring a permit to protest not a restriction on the First Amendment?

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: DBCowboy


While I find it funny that the democrats are being hit with the same crap they did to Kavanaugh, I guess this is a case of "live by the sword, die by the sword"

Consistency is what matters.

Investigate first. Rapists should not be in positions of authority and accusations should be investigated. Accusations should not be presumed true without compelling evidence.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

There is no right to protest enumerated in the Constitution. There is a right to assembly, meaning one can freely associate with who they choose, and a right to petition the government for redress of grievances, which means one can sue the government. These two seem to have been combined by some to form a right to protest, but that right itself is not enumerated.

I do support the right to protest, as long as such protest is peaceable and does not serve to impede or interfere with others. In other words, stand on a sidewalk holding signs and chant all you want; keep your hands to yourself, do not confront others, and do not try to form a blockade. Those are not peaceful; they are attempts at instigating violence.

I do not think it is appropriate to require a permit to protest, however, just as I do not believe a permit should be required to carry a firearm in public. However, both are required and that is not a hill I care to die on, primarily because I would do so alone.

You've brought up Charlottesville twice now. That was a taste of what happens when two competing groups do the protest thing the way we have come to see it, a'la Antifa, the KKK, the Black Panthers, the Proud Boys, etc. I denounce all of those groups, as I have seen violence coming from them. Other than that observation, that episode in history is best left in the history books... the driver who killed the woman was recently convicted of doing so and is now in prison. Let us learn the lessons of it and that be the end of it, lest we repeat that particular lesson with even greater zeal and violence.

Should we not let it rest, and should it come to my doorstep, I will not be the one starting the violence... but I will likely be the one to end it. I do not want that to happen.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

There is no right to protest enumerated in the Constitution.

Neither is the right to bear all arms. I think we can all agree that someone like Jeff Bezos should not be allowed to buy a nuke.

So the argument could be made that as long as you're allowed to arm yourself in some way the government can put as many restrictions as they want on what you can actually arm yourself with.

Bad news for Fairfax: 4 of his employees have resigned over the rape accusations.

Two of them of staffers and the other two are on his PAC.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Neither is the right to bear all arms.

Yes, it is. The entire 2nd Amendment.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Nuclear warheads are arms, as in armament. Grenade launchers are arms. Patriot missiles are arms. Under the wording of the US Constitution as it stands right now, none of them can be prohibited, or even regulated.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

So you believe that Bezos should be allowed to own a nuke? What about Antifa?

Like I said, the way it's phrased as long as you have a right to bear arms your right has not been infringed. That doesn't mean that you have the right to bear all arms.

originally posted by: MisterMcKill

originally posted by: DBCowboy

Fairfax Given Until Monday To Resign Or Face Impeachment

Now that a second credible accuser has stepped forward with allegations that Justin Fairfax (D-VA) raped her, members of his own party will start impeachment proceedings Monday if he refuses to resign the lieutenant governors office this weekend.

iotwreport.com...


All joking aside from the complete clusterflock of Virginia politics, what the hell?

Now I don't give a god damn what effing "party" you belong to, but people in the US are innocent until proven guilty.


Not any more.


All you need to do is accuse.


Screw evidence. Screw testimony.

Just find someone you don't like, accuse them of some crap, and ruin their lives.

If democrats want to impeach then have a trial. Prove guilt.

PROVE GUILT!


Our country is so effing screwed up.

Normally I would agree, but this man is not entitled to his government job. The issue is that he can no longer govern effectively because people have lost trust in him. Maybe he did it. Maybe not. But people still need leadership that at least pretends to be accountable. So he should resign. His life is not ruined. He will do just fine for himself in the private sector. I appreciate your sense of justice, but I think it is misplaced in this case.

interesting thought, but can it truly be said that people have lost trust in him, due to his actions? the truth is at this point that those who have lost faith in him have done so based upon what is currently unfounded accusations. and being told to distrust him by main stream media pushing the unfounded accusations. the quite simple fact of the matter is that this should not have been made public until such a time as the currently baseless accusations, had been heard and decided on in a court of law, based upon evidence of said crime being committed. as should ALL such claims. the fact of the matter is that the publication of accused crimes like this is actually a bar to someone being even able to have a unbiased and fair trial, since it is being decided first in the court of public opinion before the accused is even being properly investigated. and even an investigation can be tainted by the person being found guilty in the court of public opinion.

Sorry, but in todays society, where woman can retroactively rescind permission, Rape is meaningless.

Thank you higher academia, by pushing for more womans rights, they now have less.

Funny how that works out.

Has Alyssa the Maligner spoke up yet? She was so concerned when it was a white republican.

Is this not a just cause?

Is this woman less credible than "ballsy-fraud"?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

So you believe that Bezos should be allowed to own a nuke? What about Antifa?

No, I don't. I am not speaking of my belief. I am speaking of the words that are written down. According to them, yes, Bezos should be able to have a nuke in his backyard... and so should someone associated with Antifa.

What does belief have to do with the words? Will they change if I believe enough?

As to your personal 'interpretation,' the Constitution is not written in a secret code. It says arms without further specification and thus means all arms. If it were intended to limit the types of arms, it would have further specification.

TheRedneck