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: 8
70
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Stop attempting to derail this thread please. You are desperately trying to correlate out of context quotes to create the illusion that the OP is a fascist.

Let's take a very, very, VERY simple example. I'd prefer to avoid using a Cannabis example as well the majority of people can equally agree to that.

As an American, you have a right to trial by jury. So let's say you go to court for a motor vehicle code violation. The crime? Cracked windshield. Yes, a cracked windshield is a crime!

So miraculously you managed to get a jury trial for a traffic ticket...

He's suggesting that it is the jurors duty to find the motor vehicle code unlawful, in regards to a cracked windshield being a crime. As there is no victim whose rights have been deprived, except for the defendant of course.

It's an easy example. And you call it fascism. Makes ZERO sense.




posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by mryanbrown
 



He isn't stating that he want's his consent to be valid, and invalidate everyone else's. It's a relatively simple concept called "liberty".


"Liberty" for a few and oppression for the many is not freedom, nor is it liberty, it's tyranny.


He's saying, do what you want. Just don't attempt to require him to do something you or majority rule want him to. He will honor your rights, so long as you honor is. It's really simple man.


It's obvious that he does not wish to honor anyone else's rights, after all, he cannot even respect freedom of speech, one of our basic freedoms.

Using something like jury nullification beyond it's intended purpose to acquit people who have committed crimes en masse? That is not liberty, that is an abomination of the Constitution, it's a terrible act against the powers given to the judicial system by the Constitution.

Removing the legislative branch's powers given to them under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution is not liberty, it's a terrible atrocity against this our most sacred document.

Liberty and Freedom are the last things this member actually wants. He instead wants chaos and evil.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by mryanbrown
 



He isn't stating that he want's his consent to be valid, and invalidate everyone else's. It's a relatively simple concept called "liberty".


"Liberty" for a few and oppression for the many is not freedom, nor is it liberty, it's tyranny.


He's saying, do what you want. Just don't attempt to require him to do something you or majority rule want him to. He will honor your rights, so long as you honor is. It's really simple man.


It's obvious that he does not wish to honor anyone else's rights, after all, he cannot even respect freedom of speech, one of our basic freedoms.

Using something like jury nullification beyond it's intended purpose to acquit people who have committed crimes en masse? That is not liberty, that is an abomination of the Constitution, it's a terrible act against the powers given to the judicial system by the Constitution.

Removing the legislative branch's powers given to them under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution is not liberty, it's a terrible atrocity against this our most sacred document.

Liberty and Freedom are the last things this member actually wants. He instead wants chaos and evil.


Dude, what in the WORLD are you talking about? Are you replying to this through babblefish? Honestly what the hell are you talking about.

WHO is being oppressed?
WHAT crimes is he suggesting deserves mass acquittal?
LIST which legislative power hes suggesting be removed.

You are blindly throwing out negative adjectives without ANY resemblance of context. If you're going to bother replying, why not reply with an actual argument and not blanket statements.


edit on 14-9-2010 by mryanbrown because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Yeah, really civil, you just called me some more names and that is civil. WOW.
Now, let us take a look at something.

I call for more power to be returned to the individual.

You on the other hand state like many of the statists do, that the central government can do anything it wants.

Tell me, who is the tyrant?

Quite simple really.

Now, this will be the last time I address your argumentum ad hominems.

If you want to put together a coherent, logical argument that takes the ENTIRE Constitution into account, I will address you. Otherwise I am done with the trolling that somehow you are allowed to get away with.

And THAT.............. is the rest of the story........... gggg day.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Seriously, your avatar screams fascist to me... *rolls eyes*



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by mryanbrown
 



WHO is being oppressed?


Anyone who doesn't agree fully with the ideas expressed by the OP. Not only will they be oppressed, but eventually they will be deemed as a "threat to liberty" and ultimately executed without trial. (Because if they were given a trial, of course the "treason" they would be charged with would be nullified by the jury.)


WHAT crimes is he suggesting deserves mass acquittal?


Absolutely everything, to the point that the judicial system breaks down completely, Everyone from a liquor store robber to a serial killer if the OP had his way would be let go because the jury would just nullify the law against whatever "crime" the person is accused of. Because the OP doesn't believe in crimes.


LIST which legislative power hes suggesting be removed.


Anything listed under Article I section 8 of the United States Constitution. The OP has said that the only way he wants our government to make a new law in this country is to actually have a constitutional amendment made up for it, which completely eliminates the powers granted to the Legislative branch by the United States Constitution.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Yeah, you're a troll. I'm reporting you. You just throw out vague statements that are completely unfounded.

Edit: I like how you ignored the example. You have absolutely no idea what a "crime" is in a Constitutional sense. Finding a law making a cracked windshield unlawful is oppression, advocating anarchy and judicial collapse?


edit on 14-9-2010 by mryanbrown because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by mryanbrown
 



As an American, you have a right to trial by jury. So let's say you go to court for a motor vehicle code violation. The crime? Cracked windshield. Yes, a cracked windshield is a crime!

So miraculously you managed to get a jury trial for a traffic ticket...

He's suggesting that it is the jurors duty to find the motor vehicle code unlawful, in regards to a cracked windshield being a crime. As there is no victim whose rights have been deprived, except for the defendant of course.


Fine, let me talk about this absurd example of a "crime".

The reason that a cracked windshield is a "crime" is because it's a safety hazard. It's not actually a crime in the traditional sense of the word, because I cannot imagine an instance where someone would go to jail over such an infraction. In fact it's just a safety violation. The crack in your windshield is an obvious visual impairment which is a safety issue and could cause an accident.

I am sure that a vast majority of the time a ticket for a cracked windshield is the result.

But say this insane jury trial idea goes forward. First of all the district attorney would probably drop the charges because that would be a severe waste of the courts time. If they did not, then all the DA would have to do is cite the law saying that a cracked windshield is an infraction of the law, and show photographic evidence of the said cracked windshield and it would be up to the jury to decide the outcome. They of course could decide that the law being used isn't applicable to the charges levied and they could come back with an acquittal and thus a jury nullification but that is a massive stretch of the imagination.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by mryanbrown
 


Not to climb into anyone elses steel cage match here but....

The reason there are laws, like the one you stated, about cracked windshields is because if there were not laws like this some people would drive around with totally shattered windshields putting themselves and the rest of us at risk. These laws are meant to stop the stupidity of the few from effecting the rest of us.

Oh, and for the record, if you get such a ticket all you have to do is fix the windshield and the court will drop the charges.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Greetings my friends,

I have been watching this thread developing, knowing where it would eventually go. As expected it went to the point of severe disagreement, name calling, judging, and discord. And, this is a thread which has a basic essence of Freedom. How does such an idea devolve to this point? Here are my thoughts, for what they are worth...

The Articles of Confederation were a valiant effort at establishing freedom, yet they lacked the essence of the Declaration of Independence, and thus failed in to be perfect.

The Constitution was even further from the essence of the Declaration of Independence, thus it too has failed to be perfect and has become the main chain of the oppression people are now waking up to feel.

When people come together to form a government, they tend to want to set up a society which grants as much freedom as possible, while maintaining an order which they feel best suits them. They compromise on rules and regulations, which while agreeable to some, invariably takes away some freedom from some. This is the nature of a compromise. As the society evolves and grows, more compromises are made which continue to eat tat the liberties of more and more for the sake of the whole. This is NOT liberty, but a compromise of Liberty for a perceived order.

The assumption all this rests on is that without these compromises, chaos would ensue. In fact, chaos would ensue because mankind has been conditioned to need control to function peaceably.

When has mankind been allowed to function without control? It isn't in any history books. It is however, recorded in several Religious texts and Oral traditions around the world.

It was at the beginning of our creation. Long ago before people were tricked into handing over there own God given free will to another for safe keeping. It isn't a bad thing that this occurred. We were primitive. We were superstitious. We needed to be guided to evolve. We are growing past this stage now. People today are more educated, more knowledgeable to the world around them. More self sufficient than at any other time in the history of mankind. It is now that we are able to get back to our roots and reclaim our individual right to self govern.

We are all Kings and Queens over ourselves, owing to no one allegiance to their will. Our will is our own to do with what we want. Problems occur when we seek to force our own will on another. That is the nature of oppression and it occurs in EVERY form of Government. Any Man who seeks to force his will on another deserves to lose his right to his own. Any Man who willing hands his will over to another deserves to be the slave that he is.

Mankind has spread out on this Earth to the point where there is not a single piece of land left to migrate to where he can enjoy perfect freedom. Every piece of land is claimed by another and has attached to it strict rules to live by. Even now world powers battle for resources and dominion. Bodies fill the fields and cities where peace and harmony once occupied ages ago. There are only two kinds of peace that will follow this evolution of Man. Total world governance under one body, tyrrany in its greatest form, or Anarchy, each being King and Queen of themselves...

The later you will be told cannot exist, that you may accept the first.

The later can exist and should exist, but....

There must be one Law, to maintain order.

That one Law comes from God, or if you choose to not believe in such, nature or even Logic.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Simple, all encompassing, freedom for all.

Treat each other with the same respect you wish.
Love each other with the same love you wish.

It starts with each and every individual. It starts with YOU.

Failure to accept this will only result in global governance. It is a necessary step to keep us from destroying each other.

Look around, can you not see it taking shape? It grows right before your eyes.

With Love,

Your Brother




edit on 14-9-2010 by IAMIAM because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


Fantastic post. I agree entirely. It is time to reevaluate government. I suspect we will have our countries FIRST Constitutional Convention within the next 10 years. We need to finish falling into anarchy so that people may evaluate what is most important to them, and so that we may come together as communities in a single voice. Sending people who are intelligent, and Constitutional who lack corruption. Have to finish collapsing and cleaning house first.

Constitution v2 here we come.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by mryanbrown
 


My friend, it is my HOPE that we never have another Constitutional convention.

It is my HOPE that we have a world wide Declaration of Independence.

If you haven't yet done so, please read The Plan.

It is linked at the bottom of my posts.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by The Sword
 


Do you really have to have insurance? I mean, can you not save money? Can you not set up a payment plan?


You mean car insurance? In Ohio, where I live, you can get a Surety Bond instead of insurance policy. Being financially responsible is just good sense anyway. Case in point. In a Common Law scenario, you and I have a car accident. It is clearly your fault, I have witnesses. I ask the County sheriff to convene a Common Law Court, which he does, and a jury is named from our peers in the town. I am hurt, but physically and monetary wise, so I sue you for the damage. If you do not have a Bond, Insurance policy, or property that will sell, you cannot pay. So I order the Sheriff to put up for public auction your house and property to satisfy the claim.

See, even in a Free State thing, we all have to be responsible for our own actions, each and every time.

And to comment on the OP, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT only has power because the State, and the People, gave them that power. We, the States, can take it back, take it away, anytime they wish to, legally and with honor. I have been seeing this come for quite some time now, I am just waiting for the first shots to be fired, and this looks like it to me. May Grace and honor be with the States that decide to go against the FED, and may they win out, and cast aside the next of vipers that is set about ruining the fair nation, and enslaving each one of us.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


The Declaration is great and all. But we *need* government. A central, neutral authority that may intercede between disputes. We simply need to optimize and simplify Constitution. 230+ years without a major revision, we need to be as forward thinking during the revision. Society just isn't in a position yet to be as thoughtful.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Its unfortunate that we even have people to "interpret" the Constitution who in which are appointed for life. If that isn't King-like then I don’t know what is.

However, many have brought up the 14th Amendment as to why many State rights are void and that Federal jurisdiction reigns supreme, but have we really all looked at the fine lines and history of that Amendment?

I know I have brought it up several times before but there are several threads, including this one that makes it relevant.

Constitutionality of the 14th Amendment:
www.barefootsworld.net...



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Plain & simple, you will never return the power to the people until you first remove it from the corporations and special interest who currently control our government.

When politicians are forced to spend tens of millions to run for offices, (jobs) that pay only 1/4 million per year, any fool can see that something isn't quite right. When the Supreme Court gives corporations "people" status and allows them to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns, again it becomes obvious that it's money and not human beings that are in control of our government. I'm beginning to think that due to their extended control over our elected officials in government, via lobbying and campaign contributions, corporations may now control our Supreme Court as well.

Unless we act immediately to totally outlaw the lobbying of congressmen by anyone other than individual american voters, (no paid lobbyist of any kind) and restructure our current campaign finance laws to strictly limit the amount of money spent in one's quest for office, then we might as well get used to the status quo. If you were a congressman, would you listen to the needs of an individual voter or would you listen to the needs of a corporation that is willing to donate enough money for you to buy, I mean persuade, a million voters? If you were looking to stay in office, the answer is obvious.

Government, if left uncorrupted, serves a crucial role in protecting the rights of individuals and providing the necessary social services needed to sustain our way of life. The problem is that we have allowed money to corrupt our government and it's the money that needs to be removed from the picture before we pass the point of no return, if we haven't already. Instead of "following the money," we need to "remove the money."

You know what they say, "Money Is The Root Of All Evil."



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


The Declaration is great and all. But we *need* government. A central, neutral authority that may intercede between disputes. We simply need to optimize and simplify Constitution. 230+ years without a major revision, we need to be as forward thinking during the revision. Society just isn't in a position yet to be as thoughtful.


My friend, we already have government even without government.

I'll use your own family as an example. This is assuming your family is loving of course.

If a dispute arises in your family, do you take it to the Government?

No, the family members come together and help the two disputing parties reconcile their dispute. If it is done lovingly, both are healed and the dispute is neutralised.

We are ALL one big family on this earth. This is how it should happen with ALL.

If you see two people disputing, you help them come to agreement. Not by judging, but by healing the pain which caused the dispute.

Everyone on earth is a mediator. Mediators, not judges.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Good Morning everyone, which in my terms means good night.

Hey IAMIAM. I have read your thread, you are a closet anarchist and beautiful being, just like Christ. Never let things get you down.

I actually took another path to the same place you have come to. A different road, but the same path.

During my earlier years was my tribulations. Then I flourished in modern society and I asked WHY. Why all the work? Was it getting me anywhere quicker?

Been on the Golden Path for awhile now. The Golden Rule is the only one I follow.

God Bless and Peace.

And to everyone else. I will get back to comments in about 3-6 hours.

The arthritis does not let me sleep too long, another parallel IAMIAM.

If you look deep enough, you will find fractals within fractals. We can only show the path, they must make the choice.

Peace everyone.


edit on 14-9-2010 by saltheart foamfollower because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Hey IAMIAM. I have read your thread, you are a closet anarchist and beautiful being, just like Christ. Never let things get you down.


My friend, I have been out of the closet for some time now.

Keep up the good work. We are just planting seeds which will grow under the tyranny that is to come.

When the season is ripe, that is when I shall harvest.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


Agreed, however you can't simply jump into that type of society. You need a massive transition to allow society to evolve to that point. So we don't need to move through 10,000 individuals until the two disputing parties can agree on an arbitrator.



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join