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.

 

Nullify Now! US tyranny defense.

page: 2
70
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:08 AM
link   
no dresses or high heels?

i guess i'm in the wrong thread?

carry on!


oops, just can't read!


edit on 13-9-2010 by fooks because: dumb stuff




posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:27 AM
link   
You are welcome in my house.

I need 50 more like you, and just in case I will need 51 "get out of (camp) free cards"



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:31 AM
link   
camp free!


lol, good sport!

good luck with this. ty!

i haven't read enough to say but i am am for freedom in the us!


edit on 13-9-2010 by fooks because: adding more info



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I suppose you are not going to address any of the arguments huh?

Typical.

Tell me, was alcohol ever truly illegal? Or did the government overstep it's bounds on that one?
Hmmm?

Tell me, when the state of Montana passed legislation that told the federal government that, federal gun regulation would no longer be recognized, is that Constitutional?

From here-Judicial Supremacy or State Nullification


There was a time, in the early days of our Constitutional Republic, that the forces of monarchy and tyranny ran deeper than perhaps even today. In 1798, our would-be King John Adams and his Federalist henchmen in Congress trumped up war fever, a tyrant’s best friend, to pass a Sedition Law that made criticism of the President and Congress, interestingly the very ones who enacted this law, a jailable offense.


Wow, it only took the depots 20 years to appoint themselves king, kinda like today. Let us look further into this era shall we?



Vice President Thomas Jefferson, an opponent of the Federalists, who was inconveniently omitted from the protection of this law, jumped into action, but secretly for fear of the Federalists and prison where many of his colleagues in government and the press had been sent under this nefarious law.

Jefferson and James Madison drafted Resolutions that were passed by the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures respectively, whose principles can be summarized by this statement from Jefferson’s pen appearing in the Kentucky version:

“The principle and construction contended for that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism – since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction, and that a NULLIFICATION by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.”


Oh well whatukno, at least you align yourself with other high and mighty despots like Adams.

I'll be the lowly Jefferson or Madison to your Adams.

Or in modern day, your Peter Stark!


Oh, by the way, address the OP or go away, you are going to need your practice to directional debate.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


I am just saying, you did this already endisnighe.

Just because you have a new login doesn't mean that you have carte blanche to rehash your same threads over again.

And I did address your OP, I said, that it's up to the Judicial Branch of the government to decide whether or not a law is constitutional or not.

That's why they have their own branch of government. Checks and balances and what not. Not your fascist idea of government by the most angry.

Not to say that you aren't free to get your endisnighe panties in a wad and rant. Surely you can, I am just saying you have covered this subject already.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


SO, what you are saying is that instead of having 1 king now, we have 9.

That with the Cooper v. Aaron decision, that previous decisions cannot be overturned in perpetuity?

So, besides having 9 kings, we cannot overturn dead kings?

Come on, you can do it, I think. Argue the merits not the man.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


They can reverse their decision. See, if you knew anything on how this government works you would know that the legislative branch passes legislation, the potus signs it into law, and if that law is not constitutional the SCOTUS rejects that law.

Just because YOU don't like a law, doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 




Exactly, the people are passing constitutional laws through their representatives in congress. Any of the examples you've given are constitutional because of the 9th amendment. The constitution grants rights not in the constitution to the people, who are represented by congress. Lincoln said it best, "Government of the people, for the people, by the people." If you have a problem with government you have a problem with the people.


Nice straw man, attempting to say that if I do not agree with you I am against the people. BAD FORM.



Tell me, if what you say is your argument, would it not then take a Constitutional Amendment to make it so?


There is already a constitutional amendment to make it so, it's called the 9th amendemnt.


Or you just going to say that the steps to amend the Constitution are just too hard. That to break the law it is okay?


To break the law is not ok, abide by the law, even if you disagree with it but work to change it, always.


Nice sidestep let me reiterate the Constitution. What I meant by breaking the law was that Congress does not have the right to pass something that REQUIRES a Constitutional Amendment.

The Constitution is a listing of powers allowed to the federal government. The bill of rights are specific rights afforded the people. By the 9th and 10th, these rights are not limited to the rights listed, but also include all those NOT listed.

Hence my argument that the Alcohol Prohibition amendments PROVE this beyond ANY doubt whatsoever. If it is not listed the people or the states have the power. So to either limit rights or create further federal power, a Constitutional Amendment must be enacted.

You are arguing that giving another right, such as Health Care, because it is not listed is a right. WRONG.

You cannot force someone to provide for others and call that a right.
You also cannot force a person to purchase something and call it a right.

That is obfuscational at the least and deceptive at the worst.



edit on 13-9-2010 by saltheart foamfollower because: fix bbcode



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


So let us say the federal government passes a law where no whatukno's are allowed in the US.

Would that mean as a nation, we would have to follow the legislation until the Supreme Court hears a case?

By that time, all the whatuknos would all be gone?

And if you would do a search on the case I posted on, you would find the decision quite eye opening.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


But doesn't Article I Section 8 say that the legislative branch has the authority to regulate commerce amongst the several states? I think I remember reading that somewhere in there.


To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;


Oh here it says something else too.


To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


www.archives.gov...

Does that mean that our government can make laws OMG! I think it does! WOW! Amazing! Who would have thought that our government has the right to make laws! WOW!



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


That fictional law endisnighe would be unconstitutional it would violate the 14th Amendment


Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


www.archives.gov...

But if you were in charge who knows, I know we wouldn't have the 13th Amendment, so god knows about the 14th. Thankfully we don't live in your fascist regime of whoever is angriest gets to rule. I don't think personally that would be a very good society to live in.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Alright, you are back to your standard self, unless you can debate properly, EVERYONE sees you for what you are.

Thanks for not debating and doing your standard maneuvers.

Boy it is going to be fun destroying you in a Real Moderated debate.

Have fun.

edit to add-

I guess YOUR MESSIAH being allowed to ASSASSINATE American citizens is a okay in your eyes and is NOTHING like you getting thrown out of the country. RIGHT?




edit on 13-9-2010 by saltheart foamfollower because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this. You interpret the constitution differently than I do, I can respect that. I've spent enough time on forums to know that unless there is substantial, concrete evidence of something you can't change someones mind through posts alone. In this case the evidence is subject to interpretation, which is ultimately decided by the courts. Even when presented with evidence, some people just don't agree, as is evident by split decisions in the supreme court and this discussion.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


Fair enough.

Hey, one thing I would agree on, is that if a Constitutional Amendment passed to create a health care system, I would have no problem with it.

That is where you and I really differ.

I believe the amendment process is where things like this, need to be discussed. Not with a SLIM majority in Congress that they ATTEMPT to put a non rescinding clause within the bill.

What the hell is up with THAT?



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 



Alright, you are back to your standard self, unless you can debate properly, EVERYONE sees you for what you are.


Yep, using facts and actual sources to defend my side of the issue. I am up to my old tricks.

See, you seem to think that the people can just be really really angry and if they are angry enough then the government will cow to a small minority of people.

But, it doesn't work like that, I know, I know, you want it to work like that, and so you can just be an angry little bee and the government will bow to your whims alone, but I am sorry, it just doesn't work like that. We do have the consent of the governed in this country, that consent is given when a person is elected into office by the people.

Somehow you seem to think that that consent must be constant, which isn't true, that consent is a timed thing, it lasts the term of the person elected, then the people can either send that same person back or elect someone new.

But go ahead, be an angry little bee, see if you can get rid of those mean ole laws that you don't like by being REALLY REALLY angry. Maybe it will work too.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Anybody out there want to debate this?

Or discuss the site I linked or Ron Paul's position on this?

I mean communicate or debate, not other frivolous things.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Fine, let me educate you, although I feel that it's an exercise in futility.


Tell me, if the government passes blatant unConstitutional legislation, what is your obligation to follow the legislation? Are you to wait for four years or so, to get a different Congress or different President to rescind the legislation? Are you to wait for 6 or more years to let a case go to the Supreme Court, to rule that the legislation is unConstitutional?


You aren't a Federal Judge, nor a Supreme Court Justice, you are not qualified or empowered to determine if a law is unconstitutional or not.


The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.


Article III Section 2 USC

Have you actually read this document? Really it would help if you actually took the time to read this most important document of our Republic, because it seems like you have absolutely zero understanding of it at all.



What exactly is your responsibility, as the sole Constitutional empowered holder, of your rights? Not to mention the sole; TRUE, Constitutional representative of your rights. If you do not have Constitutionally defined rights, then WHO does?


1) You are not the sole Constitutional empowered holder, the federal government along with the state governments have rights as well. I know that pisses you off, and I am happy to say, I am glad it pisses you off. You also are not the sole Constitutional representative of your rights.

2) We live in a representative democracy, most often called a Republic, which means that you elect people to represent you in our government. I fear that you will never accept that or understand that, I also fear that you don't care at all about the constitution, you seem to just want to be angry.


I will add to the beginning of their site introduction, that many states have reasserted their 10th amendment rights. Montana has reasserted the rights of their citizens for the absolute right to bear arms and that their citizens need not follow ANY federally mandated gun regulations or restrictions.


Yes, under the 10th Amendment Montana has the right to do that, especially given the restrictions on the federal government listed under the 2nd Amendment.

But like it or not, the government does have the right to write laws, some of those laws may be found to be unconstitutional, and if they are found in a federal court to be unconstitutional they will be struck down. It however is not in the purview of the citizenry to arbitrarily ignore laws which in their own singular opinion are unconstitutional.

As far as jury nullification that right of a jury is supposed to only be used for the purpose of dismissing cases where the law is being used incorrectly and unjustly. It was never to be used to legislate from the jury box. Even when a jury does nullify a law overall, all it does is nullify the law as it pertains to that specific case.

It appears that you would like to use jury nullification to acquit people of any crime they are charged with, thankfully most of us like a society where criminals are actually punished for violating the law. We like the idea that we will have a fair trial where we are judged by a jury of our peers.

If you want to fight against what you feel are unjust laws that you feel are unconstitutional, then my suggestion is that you go to law school, become a lawyer, and take up cases in the supreme court. It's not hard apparently, after all Orly Taitz is a lawyer, if she can become a lawyer, ANYONE can become a lawyer.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Anybody out there want to debate this?

Or discuss the site I linked or Ron Paul's position on this?

I mean communicate or debate, not other frivolous things.


"Frivolous things." Like facts? Or do you only have a problem with facts that debunk your premise?

But I guess if I demand facts and logical debate (like another ATSer has already given you, but you chose to avoid), I am "treading on you."

So be it.




posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   
First and foremost read everything I post carefully and clearly before trying to challenge, combat or deflect.

When more then 2/3 of the national electorate demands a particular peice of legislation passed by the United States Congress and then signed into law by POTUS State's Rights as defined in The 10th Amendment of The US Constitution clause of "State's rights shall not be enumerated" the individual state cannot trump or sidestep any law that is demanded by no less then 2/3 of the populous.

If the text and wording and protections of the national law are better or supreme that the state itself the 10th becomes nullified in this case.

National level laws are deemed as "unoverturnable" by any lower body and orders the US Congress to be the sole and exclusive entity that can repeal laws it passes.

If said law is passed that enables and further enhances protections as well as adding protections as guraranteed to the individual under The Constitution no lower body can overturn it. If said law is detrimental to the overall nation itself the lower bodies can activate upon the 10th Amendment and retains the authourity to pass laws on it's own which are contradictory to the national law. But in cases where the individual state tries to make an attempt to either usurp or sidestep The United States Federal Government which grants the individual state Federal level authourity the law is in violation of the Seperation Of Powers clause. (ie, when Arizona passed SB 1070 granting the state Federal level authourity in matters of Border Patrol that is unlawful and Washington can then tell Pheonix that is was wrong and retains full legal jurisdiction to order the state law that usurps Federal authourity the US Federal Govt can in fact order it's membership to watch for violators and charge then under Federal law).

The United States Supreme Court's power is extrememly limited in this regard as no member of the Big 3 Branches (Judicial - Executive - Legislative) can overturn or sidestep the other 2. Executive however does retain what is known as "Final Authourity" on all matters pertaining to the actions and activities of The United States Federal Government. The Legislative's job in that matter is to make sure the Executive itself doesn't get to be too powerful for either itself or for the nation as a whole.

I debated this very topic with quite a few people and the previously mentioned on my post is what was determined.

For a lower body to challenge a national law there must be a blatant and obvious misuse and abuse of The Constitution itself. The Legislative's job in that regard is to make sure all laws it passes is completely adherent and compliant with The Constitution itself.

The Supreme Court does however have the authourty to declare a stance on any item it wishes but it, unequivocally and universally is forbidden from trying to impose it's will upon the Legislative and Executive.

In cases where the people's lives were improved or enhanced via the act of The Legislative the Judicial absolutely cannot and must not overturn the policy.

In cases where corporate interests threaten that of the interests of the Nation or the private sector itself the Legislative is empowered to stop the encroachment of corporate interests in the private sector. The Judicial's hands on all matters like that are bound and tied.


edit on 13-9-2010 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   
My friends, let me ask a question and think long and hard before you reach for that reply button and dismiss me as a wack job.

Who has Sovereignty over YOU?

Tick

Tock

Tick

Tock

The answer I hope you ALL arrive at is no one.

You came into this world with your very own WILL. Your very own ability to tell right from wrong. It has been corrupted as you grew older, but it still resonates inside you. You feel it most when someone does something to you that hurts. You think "Hey I wouldn't do that to you!". So, you know it is wrong behavior. What has happened in this society is we have been tricked into perceiving injury, where none exists. We are told, the pot heads are ruining the country. You don't feel the pain. You can't see the injury, but someone put it in your head and you believe it must be so. Look at the illusion of money. You are told we must have it, it is a means for trade. It is the most efficient way to do things. Is that why it takes more of this "Money" to create, manage, grow, and regulate this "money" than it costs in that money for the products it buys?

It is a tool for enslavement. It is the first link in the shackles that bind us. With it, they control us. Get out of line and break a law, what do they take? Money

You want to live in a house, what does it take? Money

You payed it off and think you own it? Guess what you will be paying till you die? Money

You want to go fishing to feed your family? Money (Liscenses)

You want to grow your own food, you'll need land! Money

You want to trade that food to someone, where is our cut? Money

You want to drink the water we cleaned up after polluting it? Money

You want to give birth? Money

You want to raise a child? Money

You want to be educated so you can better survive? Money

You want to travel? Money

You want to live? Money

Money and the Law go hand in hand. Laws are written so that more money can be siphoned off YOU!

Want to build a rudementary shack to live in? Get a permit

Want to organise a protest against the system? Get a permit

Want to own a handgun? Get a permit

Want to go hunting for food? Get a permit

Want to go fishing for food? Get a permit

Want to sell some of your excess crops? Get a permit

Want to sell some home made goods? Get a permit

Want to rent a spare room to a guest? Get a permit

When will it end? When will we stop letting them divide us? Here is how they do it.

They make you believe someone elses behavior is wrong. You elect someone into office to pass a law that prohibits/reguates that behavior.

Next election, the otherside of the coin wins. Now they have established that is ok to take your right to behave as you see fit away. You get angry and elect the otherside.

They win and take away the othersides right to behave even further. They get pissed and they win the next election.

Now they take some more of yours.

It just keeps going until we are not allowed to act, think, or believe any other way than as automatons. Workers, parts in the machine.

With Love,

Your Brother



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join