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.

 

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the law of the land...PERIOD!

page: 3
31
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2020 @ 06:45 PM
link   
I'm sure some of you know a post such as this would attract like minded people like myself like carrion to a buzzard, so here I am.

I'm currently filing lawsuits.

Here's an example of overreach in the used to be great state of California:

On March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom Declared a State of Emergency.

On March 11, 2020, Governor Newsom’s office published the fact that it was California Department of Public Health’s policy of preventing gatherings of groups larger than 250 people “should be postponed.”

This was not an executive order by the governor, instead it was a California Department of Public Health policy.

This policy does not cite a single law that gives the California Department of Public Health authority to shut down events of 250 people or require social distancing of more than 6 feet.

These may be good guidelines to follow, but they are simply policies, they are not the LAW.

To make it clear that this was just a policy and not a law:

On March 12, 2020, Newsom issues his next executive order (N-25-20).

This executive order states that:
“All residents are to heed any orders and guidance of state and local public health officials, including but not limited to the imposition of social distancing measures, to control the spread of COVID-19.”

Notice the language of this order.
“All residents are to heed any orders and guidance …”.

If you look up the word heed in the dictionary, you will discover that it means “to give consideration attention to.” It does not say you must obey.

Gavin Newsom in his executive order utilizing his powers granted him after declaring a state of emergency told the citizens of California that Californians should takes the advice given by the California Department of Public Health into consideration when making decisions.

Contrary to what you may have been led to believe, Gov. Newsom did not actually issue an executive order REQUIRING Californians to practice social distancing, nor did he actually ORDER gatherings of over 250 people to shut down.

All he did was ADVISE people to pay attention to what these organizations were saying.

These were merely recommendations!!!

Cal. Health & Safety § 120235 makes it clear that the quarantine powers of the local health officer were never intended to be a community lock down.

Cal. Health & Safety § 120235 clearly states that: “no quarantine shall be raised until every exposed room, together with all personal property in the room, has been adequately treated, or, if necessary, destroyed, under the direction of the health officer, and until all PERSONS having been under strict isolation are considered noninfectious.”

The quarantine laws are clearly intended to be applied to individuals not to the entire county or the ENTIRE state!!!

California Government Code section 8567 states that all orders under the California Emergency Services Act must be in writing and they take effect immediately.

When the governor calls a state of emergency, he may suspend any state statute, rule or regulation. (Cal. Gov. § 8571).

Take note that the governor does not have the authority to suspend the California Constitution. As such, any rights contained in the Constitution are still in force!!!

Which brings me to TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 (and possibly Section 241 as this continues..)

These county and state health officers and the law enforcement working beneath them enforcing their overreaching POLICIES are violating our rights under color of law.

Here's your remedy:

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242:


"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."

www.justice.gov...
Anyone so fearfully blitzed out of their mind can crawl back into their virus free hovel and rot.

You are worthless and I have not an ounce of sympathy for your position, thinking, or rationale.

Your willful complacency and apathy are subjecting your children, and my children, and their children's children, to a life of servitude and financial ruin.

What I have laid out above is happening around the country where they know they can get away with it.

Deny Ignorance, right?????

That is all.

⭐+🇺🇸


edit on 5/15/2020 by EternalShadow because: correction, eta




posted on May, 15 2020 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: DrumsRfun
a reply to: DBCowboy

I am more into slapping the hell out of people before I would shoot anyone.
As far as the constitution......yer call?




I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

As for what I'm DOING about the over-reach?

Working and arguing with state officials right now. I don't feel the need to actually start "shewting" them just yet.


No need to argue your rights DB, just sue them.

That is literally the ONLY way your going to be taken seriously.



posted on May, 15 2020 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
If you don't think this is the case, then maybe you should read up on some US history, or move to Canada if you don't agree. Many supporters of these executive orders, either don't know, or could care less about "the law of the land."

Thankfully, there are a few sheriff's around the country who are sounding off against the Executive Orders that many governors are forcing upon the public.

These sheriffs know full well that a Governor’s Executive Order is "not enforceable by law enforcement." Here are a few examples:


Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker has threatened to deploy law enforcement against business owners who reopen before he grants them permission, defying his pandemic lockdown orders.

“Businesses and individual professionals who are licensed by state agencies will be held accountable for breaching public health orders,” Pritzker said during a press conference on Wednesday, according to Illinois Policy. “Local law enforcement and the Illinois State Police can and will take action.”

“The Governor’s Executive Order is not a law,” Kendall County Sheriff Dwight Baird explained. Sheriff Baird said that his department will not order businesses to shut down, nor will they break up wedding celebrations or other events.

Massac County Sheriff Chad Kaylor said he has spent hours studying the executive order and the coronavirus pandemic.

“It became clear to me that the Governor’s Executive Order was not enforceable by law enforcement. The order was not drafted by a legislative body; therefore, it is not a law. The order was not signed by a judge,” the sheriff explained.

“Ultimately, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the law of the land,” he wrote. “Each person is free to speak and have your own opinion. You are free to assemble, and you are free to worship.”

Sheriff Kaylor said that his office will not enforce Pritzker’s executive order.

tinyurl.com...


"I will enforce the laws when they are violated but I will not arrest for a failure to heed a recommendation on how to act whether in a business or out in the general public. If you do not want to protect yourself and not practice safe distancing or wearing of mask, that is your individual decision. It may not be the right one, it may not be the responsible one, but last time I checked there is no 'escape clause' in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights allowing for suspension of our constitutional rights when there is a virus plaguing us."

newschannel20.com...








Seems as if, despite your claim that the US Constitution is the law of the land, that youve forgotten about amendment 10. You know, that pesky one about states rights? And you are aware that each state has their own Constitution as well right? As much as you may hate it, governors like Cuomo had little choice but to step up when thw federal response is too slow or ineffective.



posted on May, 15 2020 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Did the Governor suspend the State Constitution of New York?



posted on May, 15 2020 @ 07:32 PM
link   
There is a difference in free speech and yelling "Fire" in a crowded venue.

And so there is the right to endanger yourself but not others.

Your rights end when others begin - and that is a very thin line that is always trumped by the welfare of others.



posted on May, 15 2020 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Here's a good read you might be interested in: It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

IMO, there have been actions committed by a few tyrannical governors, that crossed that "very thin line" in regards to the welfare of others. But these bozos are too drunk on their own power to admit fault and continue to disregard citizens rights and freedoms, as outlined in our Constitution.

"This was arguably the deadliest decision in American history":

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo finds himself engulfed in scandal as a growing number of Democrats join state Republicans in demanding an independent investigation into his controversial policies and how questionable actions may might have contributed to the catastrophic outbreak of coronavirus in New York nursing homes.

More details have emerged in recent days raising major questions about potentially fatal decisions made under Cuomo’s watch as the death toll in New York’s nursing homes swells to over 5300 and continues to climb

www.breitbart.com... tion/?fbclid=IwAR3ZvtcpSObnh8nJ_jqM5EtAMnOV_8oTCcpIaEtzC4jPG72QCDf0nEi3rCA



edit on 5/15/2020 by shawmanfromny because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2020 @ 08:25 PM
link   
It never ceases to amaze me how fast people will give up their born rights to ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO HAVE NO POWER OVER THEM.

No seriously, I'm amazafied right now.



posted on May, 15 2020 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Philosophically you have a point.

Arguing that in a court of law is another matter entirely.



posted on May, 15 2020 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalShadow

I agree

Those people who are scared and afraid and are supporting the erosion of human rights are absolutely worthless and deserve no sympathy for their mental health and mindless behaviour whatsoever.



posted on May, 15 2020 @ 09:41 PM
link   
"Constitutional rights" are exactly that! "RIGHTS"!
The only way, by "law", that rights can be suspended, is by a declared "martial law". Which in the US. TPTB know it wouldn't go over very well. And martial law has not been declared by the Fed or any state government, with good reason. Because the "Corona Virus" would be the least of their worries. This ain't Canada, or Europe. It's The U.S.A., a REAL Rebublic. Here the "law", "governs", "them". Petty tyrants can't stand "law".

They'll hold up their right hand, "swear an oath" to die for a/the "law", never having read it. If they did? They didn't understand what they read. Educated "Lawyers", make horable "patriots".
These are the "public educated" of our "civilized country".

This whole thing will become a sh*t show in the U.S.A. (as designed). Be willing to die for some sort of a standard. Otherwise, you will have "standards" forced upon you, that you probably wouldn't agree with.

The people that preach "equality" the most, will "enforce" equality on you, with arms. As they promote disarming you. That is the very thing the "law"/C.O.T.U.S. (which would not have been ratified without the Bill of Rights), was designed to prevent.

The people that are "afraid" of freedom? Should stay home. They are free to do so, that is their "right",

The problem in the U.S.A. is we got "public educated" idiots (trained monkeys) doing what they're taught/educated to do, and not enough men/women that can govern themselves. Which every "government" in history has created. The first attack by government/lawyers, is on "right" and "wrong". Already happened. Right lost that one.



posted on May, 15 2020 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Hmmm then how come Trump gets a pass on the Foreign Emoluments Clause?



posted on May, 15 2020 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

Obviously he doesn't, because you're bringing it up.



posted on May, 15 2020 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

How?

Because a federal appeals court tossed out a lawsuit by congressional Democrats who had sued President Donald Trump for allegedly violating the Constitution’s emoluments clause. Maybe the U.S. Supreme Court will rule that Orange Man is bad, but until then he's INNOCENT until proven guilty.

Next?

Trump wins appeal in case where Democrats sued him for allegedly violating emoluments clause

Individual members of Congress lack legal standing to sue the president for alleged violations of law, said the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a unanimous ruling Friday.



posted on May, 16 2020 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd
There is a difference in free speech and yelling "Fire" in a crowded venue.

And so there is the right to endanger yourself but not others.

Your rights end when others begin - and that is a very thin line that is always trumped by the welfare of others.


So we can only have one person on a highway at one time, because the second person could collide with them?

So we can only have one person living in an apartment complex, because other people might start a fire in another room and hurt/kill them?

So we can only ever have one person in a bank, because a second person might come in a rob the place?

Is that the world you want to promote?

Life is full of risks. That's the definition of life. The world doesn't stop because you might get a boo-boo.



posted on May, 16 2020 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny




The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the law of the land...PERIOD!

Prove it. Take a real stand.



posted on May, 16 2020 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Should we have fire fighters at all or just let everyone take their own risk with fires?
Why or why not?



posted on May, 17 2020 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
Thankfully, there are a few sheriff's around the country who are sounding off against the Executive Orders that many governors are forcing upon the public.

Yes, most people simply don't understand that Executive Orders generally only affect government agencies and/or employees, they do not have any affect on Citizens or private businesses, and this goes for both Presidential/Federal and Gubernatorial/State EOs.



posted on May, 19 2020 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Including the 10th Amendment, right?





posted on May, 21 2020 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalShadow
a reply to: peter vlar

Did the Governor suspend the State Constitution of New York?






Why would he need to?

[Quote] The... gubernatorial power to issue an order suspending the statute of limitations derives from Executive Law § 29-a.  Initially promulgated in 1978, Section 29-a was amended by the state legislature just a few days before the COVID-19 disaster emergency to, among other revisions, provide the governor with authority not just to suspend laws in response to an emergency event, but also to “issue any directive” in response to the emergency.


www.gibsondunn.com...

www.governing.com...

edit on 21-5-2020 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2020 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: lincolnparadox

Every constitutional expert on ATS always seems to skip that pesky Amendment number 10. Most of them stop reading the bill of rights after the 2nd



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join