Who here is an expert on the Constitution?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Look into UCC redemption. your SNN number is on all printed US money...
its very disturbing. In Canada my birth certificate big red number on the back is on our money. When i found this out i was shocked.

[edit on 9-12-2006 by thedangler]




posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 05:45 PM
link   
SSN sorry.. edit button is missing



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   
MY social security number is printed on US money??????????????????

Everyone's?


Roper



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   
I am just a law school student, but one thing about laws that needs to be taken into consideration is that the text of statutes and constitutions, while given heavy weight, are not the only things courts consider when making laws. Courts look to the common law or make policy considerations along with looking to the text of the constitution or statutes, when they decide what the law will be. So even if the 2nd Ammendment says people have the right to own guns, a court may choose, correctly or incorrectly, limit this in its interpretation of what the law of gun ownership rights should be. They may way non-gun owner's rights, the interests of the government in keeping society clear from gun crime, etc. in making the law.



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   
research UCC redemption yes your SSN is on American money the dollar bill. my American roommate didn't believe me. he Researched in for 30 minutes and he lots his mind when he found out how the monetary system works.

UCC redemption.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by jaguarmike
If any militia group tries to get an WMD they should be executed. Guns are one thing, WMD's are absolutely insane.


So it's okay for only the corrupt and vile regimes and its minions to have them? The only thing keeping the bastards(take your choice) half way in line is the fact that somebody with the knowledge of how to construct a WMD might actually get close enough to reach them or their family. If not , we'd all be bowing and scraping when the lord/god/king/ came walking by. I believe that if we aren't vigilant about protecting our liberties to include keeping the elites just paranoid enough about their own self preservation not to use WMD like Saddam Hussein did against the Kurds is the only way that we're ever going to maintain what little liberty we have left.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 03:27 AM
link   
Although you bring up a valid point- I believe it's half mistaken and this is why. You can make the argument that many countries having WMD's makes warfare more complicated in that no one in their right mind wants to make a false move and step on anyone's toes. Countries without the Nuke don't have as much power or say as the one with the Nuke. In a perfect world, no one should be allowed Nuclear technology. But you know what, the cats out of the bag, and there's no going back now- at least not in our lifetimes.

However, that's irrelevant in itself and also if you apply it to the people. First, WMD's are a terrible way to ensure freedom. Why? Not only is it absolutely insane for a militia group to attempt to obtain a weapon that can wipe our species off the map, but it is the last of the last of the last of the options, and then still isn't good enough.

Nuclear weapons are the biggest threat to our survival, hands down. Nothing ever can come close to the destructive power of a Nuke (except the elements, the force of Hurricane Katrina was roughly the same energy as 100,000 nuclear weapons? I read that somewhere).

WMD's like Saddam had with the Kurds doesn't scare these elitists. Freedom of mind and spirit scares these elitists. This is why there is such a push to label the majority of the poplulation as insane, drug us up, put chemicals in our food, pump us full of anti-whatever drugs, and brainwash us with propoganda on the internet, television, and newspapers.

The real fight is over truth and sanity.

So yes, I stick with my original statement: any group or militia that attempts to obtain a WMD should be executed.

Now further, we've established that it is ok constitutionally to have a militia and it is also ok to have firearms.

Next question, is it a state right to have a militia? And if so, is it a people's right to have a militia? This is a really big confusion for me.

Edit for comment: if you really want to ensure freedom, how about you disseminate what you believe to be the truth to all the police and military you know, and not to follow illegal orders one day if that day comes. That's a strategy that can work. Not everyone can be swayed to the dark side, and not everyone is a palpatine either. We're dealing in a small percentage of horrible people here.

And further, I really hope you don't mean what you say when you think it is ok for a militia or a related group to have a WMD to keep the bad boys in check. Because even though I believe in freedom, 1776 freedom to be exact, and believe you bring up good points- if one day in the future the stuff hits the fan... and if you're responsible for getting a weapon of mass destruction... expect death crgintx. Because on that day you'll be a terrorist, and on that day you'll be jeopardizing the lives of millions. Is that really what you want? Is that really what you would want to support? You need to watch the movie "The Rock" - Pay attention to the end when the general comes to his senses.

Defeating the battle against legitimate terror is a group effort. It's not just the police, military, and other groups- it a job everyone must band together to accomplish.

I'm sorry, but saying it is ok for a militia to have an WMD is beyond insane. Please think deeply about the subject before you give such an opinion.

Also, you can make them just as paranoid by never picking up a hamburger again from McDonalds, saying no to psych meds, starting up an independant newspaper and giving out free copies, or being happy and helping people. That's scarier to them than a horrible catastrophe. You know why? They are comfortable with death. They are deathly terrified of happy people. It's pretty simple when you look at it for what it is.

[edit on 10-12-2006 by jaguarmike]



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 07:00 AM
link   
I'm a retired USAF Ammo troop. I worked with both nukes and chemical weapons and at the risk of scaring the pee out of everybody, it only takes about 10 people to decide whether a WMD is to be deployed or not. If that isn't a militia, I don't know what one is. Simple fact.

I believe that if we don't get some serious transparency within our current govt that a WMD will be used by them on US soil to create a flag flag scenario to justify a larger war in the Middle East and even stronger police state than we have right now.

They've already killed innocent women and children in the name of the law and order at Waco and Ruby Ridge and if you think they wouldn't use a WMD against US citizens standing up for their civil rights outlined under the US Constituion, you're sadly mistaken.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
I am just a law school student, but one thing about laws that needs to be taken into consideration is that the text of statutes and constitutions, while given heavy weight, are not the only things courts consider when making laws.


You just scared the hell out of me! You are a law student? You believe that courts make law????

The House and Senate make bills, the President signed them into law.

The Constitution of the United States of America IS the law of the land!

The Constitution of the United States of America is written in stone and must have a constitutional amendment to be changed and that must be ratified by 2/3 of the states.

No Court or Judge has the right to legislate from the bench and we need to start hangin' the bastards that do.

Roper



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Just read all the quotes made by our founding fathers. Sure it was different then than it is now. The police are to protect and serve but whos gonna protect you from the police? A government should fear its citizens.


Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master! -Thomas Jefferson


[edit on 10-12-2006 by AMANNAMEDQUEST]



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roper

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
I am just a law school student, but one thing about laws that needs to be taken into consideration is that the text of statutes and constitutions, while given heavy weight, are not the only things courts consider when making laws.


You just scared the hell out of me! You are a law student? You believe that courts make law????

The House and Senate make bills, the President signed them into law.

The Constitution of the United States of America IS the law of the land!

The Constitution of the United States of America is written in stone and must have a constitutional amendment to be changed and that must be ratified by 2/3 of the states.

No Court or Judge has the right to legislate from the bench and we need to start hangin' the bastards that do.

Roper


Legislatures make *STATUTES* and at times can ammend the constitution. Courts interpret the statutes and constitution. The way the courts interpret the statutes is "THE LAW."
Often statutes and constitutions have ambiguities that even the most conservative judge will have to interpret, and thus create law from the bench. For example, the 14th ammendment gives one the right to "due process" of law. What exactly is "due process?" Well, the Supreme court over the years has made law defining what due process really is. For example, the supreme court has made several laws at to when one can be tried in a particular state's court, even though the 14th ammendment makes no mention of jurisdiction.
Also, laws often conflict with eachother or a law may conflict with some unwritten law or policy. For example, the constitution guarantees freedom of speech and says nothing about having the right to a good name. Yet one can sue for slander, violating somebody's free speech rights because courts have traditionally held one's right to a good name outweighs anothers right to free speech in most situations.
When it comes to gun control, even if the 2nd ammendment is interpreted to give people the right to own guns, that right must be weighed against other rights that may conflict like the general public's right to be safe from gun violence. It is highly debatable which rights are more important, and the analysis gets complicated by questions like whether anti-gun laws will really keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but nonetheless courts are free and constitutionally empowered to make that analysis when ruling.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   


en.wikipedia.org...

Bill of Rights is the term used to describe the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.


Talking about what the CotUS says in regard to guns, is admitting that you are a vassal of the federal government. See, if they say guns are illegal, you must obey. The militia is going to be expected to obey the Supreme Commander in Chief and if they do not, they will be no different than an individual who doesn't surrender their guns. The militia where I live is akin to local partisans. How does the ubermensche deal with partisans? Either kill them or starve them. Yeah, you could try to win them over, but they're hill-people, so brute force is so much more effective.

Better to understand the structure of the founding documents than to cling to some fragile line-items within them. At the next Constitutional Convention, the right to own guns will be much more clearly described and delineated.

Anyway, you might want to read and grasp Chisolm v. Georgia, which I posted a link to earlier. It is the foundation for understanding the CotUS and its articles. The 11th Amendment was passed at the 3rd Congress.



en.wikipedia.org...

Amendment XI (the Eleventh Amendment) of the United States Constitution was passed by the U.S. Congress on March 4, 1794 and was ratified on February 7, 1795.

The Judicial powers of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

The amendment was passed after the Supreme Court's 1792 ruling in Chisolm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793), that federal courts had the authority to hear cases in law and equity against states by private citizens, and that states did not enjoy sovereign immunity from suits made by citizens of other states.



I think its important to look more closely at the documents themselves.



...the question is, how is the Constitution referred to in the 11th amendment? Does it say "US Constitution", "Constitution of the United States" or "Constitution of the People and Their Posterity"?

The people who interpet these things are said to be honest men. John Jay was such a man, and when asked to determine the truth of the matter, he said to the lowliest farmer, "It's your country, and you are sovereign."


[edit on 10-12-2006 by smallpeeps]



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   
constitutions have ambiguities that even the most conservative judge will have to interpret, and thus create law from the bench.

The Constitution of the US is not up for interpretation! It's simple to understand.

A judge that interprets it is playing politics and has an agenda that is not in the betterment of "we the people".

Tell me what part of "shall not be infringed"in the 2A is hard to understand?

Roper



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roper

A judge that interprets it is playing politics and has an agenda that is not in the betterment of "we the people".

Tell me what part of "shall not be infringed"in the 2A is hard to understand?

Roper


Bravo...Bravo...Salutes Roper.

It is obvious to me that as time goes by more and more issues need to be decided upon by judicial decree because the American Public will not sign up on the agenda. This too is politics and not for the betterment of "we the people." Watch for this closely...politics enforced by judicial decree...not by laws being passed. This is merely another way of forcing Admiralty Maritime Law onto the land...a practice which the Colonists who knew what it meant..hated.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   
So if the purpose of civilian gun ownership in the US is to facilitate the overthrowing of the government, why is it illegal to plot to do so?



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roper
constitutions have ambiguities that even the most conservative judge will have to interpret, and thus create law from the bench.

The Constitution of the US is not up for interpretation! It's simple to understand.

A judge that interprets it is playing politics and has an agenda that is not in the betterment of "we the people".

Tell me what part of "shall not be infringed"in the 2A is hard to understand?

Roper


Rights are not absolute. Your freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Similarly, your right to bare arms does not entitle you to bring an uzi on an airplane or bring a gun to jail with you. The 2nd ammendment's right to bare arms has a "cut off" point somewhere, where one's right to own arms is outweighed by other factors. Where that magical cut off point is, is up to debate. You and I probably agree that the cut off point is closer to not being able to bring an uzi on a plane than nobody whatsoever being allowed to have sharp objects in their house.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Cutoff points.
Let me see here. Where should a honest, law biding citizen NOT be allowed to bare arms in the USA?

Can't think of any but I've only had 2 cups of coffee.


You see any place that forbids arms is a place you had better have arms. The bad guys will not obey a sign that reads" no guns".

As long as I have mine arms, you or they can have arms. Now then we are all equal.

What if citizens of the USA had firearms on them on 9-11-01 in those 4 planes? Word has it on the streets that you never bring a box cutters to a gun fight.

Roper



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
So if the purpose of civilian gun ownership in the US is to facilitate the overthrowing of the government, why is it illegal to plot to do so?


In most nations it is illegal to plot to overthrow the Government. What Americans have not been totally brainwashed into is the position that our government is some kind of benovelant ruler looking out for us. This is quite contrary to the prevailing thoughts in the Continent.

What is still known by many of us is is that Government always tends twords tyrany. It is just done often by means which are not obvious to the multitudes. Admiralty Maritime Law is one of them. The Law of the Merchants enroaching on land for the purposes of the Merchants. Notice that this is a concept seldome taught to the public through the "Public Schools." A study of the Crown and Crown Colonies will make this clear and neither is this is taught in schools here.

As I have stated before...we are not subjects..we are Citizens here. We are the Government.

THe question came up here to illustrate the deception which is going on in our public schools...by the question of whether the Militias belonged to the State/Government. or the Public.
Obviously a piece of education is missing from our minds if the question must even be asked. THe state is the pubic....not some seperate entity not beholden to the public will. If this is not so than a hijacking has taken place with the consent of the school/education system participating in this hijacking.
Militias have always been by the public...memebership..not state membership. This concept has been hijacked by dumbing down the public through incomplete historical education. Something important is missing from our educations. Militias have always been ordinary people banning together for common protection...or common purpose. Our National Guard is a new concept and never was the Militia though they tend to make us think so by our ignorance. THere was no National Guard when the Militias were around. That the National Guard is not a militia will become more and more clear as they are continually sent off to more and more foreign wars. What on this earth can some of you possibly be thinking??

Civilian Gun ownership is primarily for hunting, and self protection. The question arises....do we need protection from Government?? History of many nations shows that this is true. When Government becomes ineffective people need to be able to take care of themselves.....not look to Government for the solutions.

If some of you knew what the true nature of the Nuclear protocols were you would be shocked at how well Government looks after you. Think long and hard on this one. Many of our leaders dont even know.

If this Government has these protocols in place so too does the Government of the UK.

Try to think beyond the limits of your public education.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Wyrdeone -

A WMD by classical standards (cold war) is NUCLEAR WEAPONS ONLY

However..

Mr. Bush changed the American Governments recognition of such language..

A WMD now includes

Nuclear
Biological
Chemical


US military doctrine established well before Bush (probably in the '60s - but no I have no resources on that yet) that these were WMD's.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
I am just a law school student, but one thing about laws that needs to be taken into consideration is that the text of statutes and constitutions, while given heavy weight, are not the only things courts consider when making laws. Courts look to the common law or make policy considerations along with looking to the text of the constitution or statutes, when they decide what the law will be. So even if the 2nd Ammendment says people have the right to own guns, a court may choose, correctly or incorrectly, limit this in its interpretation of what the law of gun ownership rights should be. They may way non-gun owner's rights, the interests of the government in keeping society clear from gun crime, etc. in making the law.


I thought courts only interpreted laws, and didn't make them. I think one of the greatest shortcomings in US law is that the legislatures never give an "intent" when they vote a law into being - such as "The intent of the 2nd amendment is that anyone that wants a gun can have one for SELF DEFENSE" or "It is our intent that the Government set forth in this Constitution allow the people religious freedom, however it's management and actions will be based on Christian Principles".

[edit on 11-12-2006 by crusader97]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum