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.

 

‘Constitution Has No Binding Power on Anything’; Confusing Because it’s Over 100 Years Old

page: 2
25
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
This piece of bile encrusted filth should have stayed over at "Not Geniuses" where he lived up to the name instead he fell even deeper in to the cess pit over at MSNBC. Every word from his mouth in this segment was an uneducated lie not challenged in the slightest by MSNBC which isn't surprising in the least. He gets the Dumb-ass of the Year Award in my book.

Its a revealing statement and one that we've been warning about for 3 years - the argument used to be at a deeper level and they were accused of wanting to violate the constitution and they replied "no, we respect the constitution, its not about that - it about freedom" and then it became "the constitution is irrelevant" and soon it will "freedom is silence, shut up".




posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
This guy is a paid blogger. NOT a Politician or anyone of note. And, yes, he does seem like a pretty uneducated tool.

Just to point out, when he uses the words "no binding power over anything" I do not think he is referring to the Constitution itself - it seems to me that he is referring to the grandstanding act of reading it, for the first time ever, when the 112th Congress is sworn in. It appears he is referring to the act of reading the document and not the document itself.

As for everything else he said - well he's entitled to his opinion. I'm just a bit saddened that he was allowed a platform from which to share it.

~Heff



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq
This piece of bile encrusted filth should have stayed over at "Not Geniuses" where he lived up to the name instead he fell even deeper in to the cess pit over at MSNBC. Every word from his mouth in this segment was an uneducated lie not challenged in the slightest by MSNBC which isn't surprising in the least. He gets the Dumb-ass of the Year Award in my book.

Its a revealing statement and one that we've been warning about for 3 years - the argument used to be at a deeper level and they were accused of wanting to violate the constitution and they replied "no, we respect the constitution, its not about that - it about freedom" and then it became "the constitution is irrelevant" and soon it will "freedom is silence, shut up".


Such eloquence deserves a star!!

I watch vids like this and my instinct is to head to the reloading bench.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

This guy is a paid blogger. NOT a Politician or anyone of note. And, yes, he does seem like a pretty uneducated tool.

Just to point out, when he uses the words "no binding power over anything" I do not think he is referring to the Constitution itself - it seems to me that he is referring to the grandstanding act of reading it, for the first time ever, when the 112th Congress is sworn in. It appears he is referring to the act of reading the document and not the document itself.

As for everything else he said - well he's entitled to his opinion. I'm just a bit saddened that he was allowed a platform from which to share it.

~Heff


Agreed. He is a paid blogger and it's sad that he was given a platform from which to spew his ill informed bile.

I also agree that reading the Constitution by the GOP is nothing more than a grandstanding BS act to calm those incapable of seeing through the left/right paradigm that has become the norm in this nation.

I also agree that C7H5N3O6 is the bomb. Dinotrobenzene is easier to make but we'll just leave it at that.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bozzchem
reply to post by mydarkpassenger
 


And a star for you as well! You painted that piece of trash in a manner that I failed to do. Much thanks for adding to the thread!! Your post is most deserving of a flag!


edit on 30-12-2010 by bozzchem because: (no reason given)


Thanks mate. Glad you started this - people need to know about those creeps.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq
This piece of bile encrusted filth should have stayed over at "Not Geniuses" where he lived up to the name instead he fell even deeper in to the cess pit over at MSNBC. Every word from his mouth in this segment was an uneducated lie not challenged in the slightest by MSNBC which isn't surprising in the least. He gets the Dumb-ass of the Year Award in my book.

Its a revealing statement and one that we've been warning about for 3 years - the argument used to be at a deeper level and they were accused of wanting to violate the constitution and they replied "no, we respect the constitution, its not about that - it about freedom" and then it became "the constitution is irrelevant" and soon it will "freedom is silence, shut up".


Here is the rub, The question is what constitution are they talking about? You see the corporate de facto has adopted a document similar to the constitution (originally) but changed as thier corporate charter. All they need to do to change it is for the corporate board to vote on it, and they change it regularly and they print knew copies every year. So when they say they respect the constitution they are talking of thier corporate charter not the Organic constitution of our founders it is a very effective decpetion. Most members of congress do not even know this.
edit on 30-12-2010 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
I was wondering why I couldn't understand the Gettysburg, it was written over 100 years ago. That makes sense now.


Does that also mean that the Declaration of Independence is also void because it is over 100 years old? I guess so.

I'm glad Ezra Klein has no power in our government at all.

SM



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
Just to point out, when he uses the words "no binding power over anything" I do not think he is referring to the Constitution itself - it seems to me that he is referring to the grandstanding act of reading it, for the first time ever, when the 112th Congress is sworn in. It appears he is referring to the act of reading the document and not the document itself.


I don't see how but if you are not right - imagine the implications of the statement - there would be no binding legal basis for the federal government to exist, for freedom of speech, for freedom of religion, for freedom of assembly and association, and so on. The whole damn thing collapses in to "do what we tell you to do or suffer the consequence".



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Wow. Reading all the reflexive spew is really something. If you people would get your head on right and stop going off half-cocked you will hear he is talking about their action of reading it aloud that has no binding power on anything. he is NOT saying the Constitution has no binding power. Second, he is right about the language being confusing, especially as it is applied to modern circumstances. If it was so simple there'd not be a Supreme Court. Then again, maybe you guys are the real experts.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
c'mon...you know what was said in that video...and it did NOT say THE CONSTITUTION HAS NO BINDING POWER ON ANYTHING"...it's the reading of it on the first day of a new congress...again, it's the reading of it on the first day of a new congress.......and once more...it's the reading of it on the first day of a new congress...that has no binding power on anything.
and as far as confusing???.........why do you think we need a supreme court? what reason was it even created?
because....constitutional law with the bill of rights has to be interpreted for the modern age.
example:...."money" is now defined as speech, "corporations" are now defined as humans...



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by pajoly
Wow. Reading all the reflexive spew is really something. If you people would get your head on right and stop going off half-cocked you will hear he is talking about their action of reading it aloud that has no binding power on anything. he is NOT saying the Constitution has no binding power. Second, he is right about the language being confusing, especially as it is applied to modern circumstances. If it was so simple there'd not be a Supreme Court. Then again, maybe you guys are the real experts.


Actually you are quite incorrect. The organic congress that these actors are posing as are duty bound to follow the constitution to the letter and original intent at all times they are acting in any federal capacity. So saying it is not binding because it is just being read out loud is absurd. Reading it is a reminder that it is binding at all times.

It is not confusing at all except to those who refuse to study the history of it. We have ample writings from our founders on thier original intents and meanings and there is no excuse. It is only modern hacks who have tried to reinterpret it and twist it to meanings that serve thier agenda and ignore it when it doesn't that have muddied the waters. This is easily remedied by a study of the founders true intent to which we have an abundance of writings.
edit on 30-12-2010 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by pajoly
Wow. Reading all the reflexive spew is really something. If you people would get your head on right and stop going off half-cocked you will hear he is talking about their action of reading it aloud that has no binding power on anything. he is NOT saying the Constitution has no binding power. Second, he is right about the language being confusing, especially as it is applied to modern circumstances. If it was so simple there'd not be a Supreme Court. Then again, maybe you guys are the real experts.


Don't push your inability to read and comprehend a document that has multiple sources of references regarding its verbiage on others. Obviously you've read few, if any, of the posts thus far.

I don't need black robed tyrants to interpret plain English that has NUMEROUS sources regarding the intention of the language specifically worded in the Constitution. We the People have allowed ourselves to be corralled by individuals who believe they know what is best for us. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. May those who pave it get there first and find a really hot spot!



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
While I don't agree with the man's sentiments on the Constitution, I have to say that I dislike the thought of being bound to a document for the rest of societal existence. I can say that right now the US, as a government, is certainly not adhering to the Bill of Rights or the subsequent amendments to the Constitution but if a future American society feels that some of those amendments are needed to be changed/thrown out they should completely be able to granted there is a consensus to do so.

Definitely not now but in the unforeseeable future, society's attitude towards the Constitution IS going to change for better or worse and the Bill of Rights might just be an insignificant historical document.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq

I don't see how but if you are not right - imagine the implications of the statement - there would be no binding legal basis for the federal government to exist, for freedom of speech, for freedom of religion, for freedom of assembly and association, and so on. The whole damn thing collapses in to "do what we tell you to do or suffer the consequence".


The guy is just an Internet blogger. Nothing he says, no matter how stupid, misguided, or vitriolic - has any bearing upon anything other than this guys social reputation.

All that's happened here is MSNBC paid the wrong "expert" to appear on their show. This typically happens when their "go-to" guy can't make it and they scramble to get a butt in the seat.

~Heff



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mistafaz
While I don't agree with the man's sentiments on the Constitution, I have to say that I dislike the thought of being bound to a document for the rest of societal existence. I can say that right now the US, as a government, is certainly not adhering to the Bill of Rights or the subsequent amendments to the Constitution but if a future American society feels that some of those amendments are needed to be changed/thrown out they should completely be able to granted there is a consensus to do so.

Definitely not now but in the unforeseeable future, society's attitude towards the Constitution IS going to change for better or worse and the Bill of Rights might just be an insignificant historical document.


You are not bound to the constitution. It is a restriction on government not the people. It can be changed by people as illustrated in the Declaration of Independence. The current de facto congress acts completely outside the scope of authority granted in the organic constitution. It has no right to restrict individuals in thier daily lives. People are free to do as they please as long as they are not harming others or violating thier rights. If they do violate others rights that is handled locally. All else is outside government authority to act on, regulate, or be involved in any way shape or form.

The bill of rights does not grant rights it merely warns government not to violate natural rights. Changing the bill of rights does not take away those rights for they existed before the constitution. They were only illustrated in it as a warning to government to keep their hands off.

If they abolished the second amendment the right to keep and bear arms would not go away. Even the Brits have the right to keep and bear arms despite thier lack of a second amendment. They just have not stood up as a people and claimed and exercised it. This goes for all peoples of the world.

Rights are not granted by written documents they are natural expressions of the people to live in peace and safety and defend it if necassary.
edit on 30-12-2010 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Ezra Klein has no binding authority.

MSNBC is slanted at least as far to the left as FOXNEWS is to the right. That's why I ignore both of them.

This guy is just a troll. Ignore him and he'll go away. Start turning off MSNBC whenever you see him (or anyone else with similar views) and they'll quit showing his face. That's the real power of We The People: the power to ignore guys like this into obscurity.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by bozzchem
 


IMO (hey it's my opinion) the vast majority of Progressive Liberals believe exactly what he's saying. Thankfully we have the document to protect us from asshats like that kid, as Progressives gain more and more power our rights will deteriorate faster and faster.. the document is simply the foundation, it's people that need to protect it, less tyrannical self absorbed progressive tools like this guy take them away. Hell after this year I promised to never vote for dems again, as I did last election .. I've never seen such a devastating abuse of trusted power all in the name of corporate profit and personal gains.. hopefully with the new Republican Congress votes will stall and nothing gets done. Because that's my favorite type of Government.. one that can't pass new laws.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

You are not bound to the constitution. It is a restriction on government not the people. It can be changed by people as illustrated in the Declaration of Independence. The current de facto congress acts completely outside the scope of authority granted in the organic constitution. It has no right to restrict individuals in thier daily lives. People are free to do as they please as long as they are not harming others or violating thier rights. If they do violate others rights that is handled locally. All else is outside government authority to act on, regulate, or be involved in any way shape or form.

The bill of rights does not grant rights it merely warns government not to violate natural rights. Changing the bill of rights does not take away those rights for they existed before the constitution. They were only illustrated in it as a warning to government to keep their hands off.

If they abolished the second amendment the right to keep and bear arms would not go away. Even the Brits have the right to keep and bear arms despite thier lack of a second amendment. They just have not stood up as a people and claimed and exercised it. This goes for all peoples of the world.

Rights are not granted by written documents they are natural expressions of the people to live in peace and safety and defend it if necassary.
edit on 30-12-2010 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)


I'm not sure it could be better stated than hawkiye has done so here.

I feel bad for having nothing to add but this post truly tells it like it is. Thanks hawkiye for your involvement with this thread. You really have your head in the game whereas many of us have quite a bit of catching up to do to get ourselves on the same plane as you!



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by bozzchem
 


IMO (hey it's my opinion) the vast majority of Progressive Liberals believe exactly what he's saying. Thankfully we have the document to protect us from asshats like that kid, as Progressives gain more and more power our rights will deteriorate faster and faster.. the document is simply the foundation, it's people that need to protect it, less tyrannical self absorbed progressive tools like this guy take them away. Hell after this year I promised to never vote for dems again, as I did last election .. I've never seen such a devastating abuse of trusted power all in the name of corporate profit and personal gains.. hopefully with the new Republican Congress votes will stall and nothing gets done. Because that's my favorite type of Government.. one that can't pass new laws.


I don't disagree with your premise. I tend not to use terms such as liberal/conservative; progressive, etc. since I see them as a divide and conquer tactic. I'm guessing you consider yourself a conservative based on your post but wonder about your thoughts regarding the Patriot Act? In our lifetime, there is no more an egregious grab for power by the Feds than was done via the Patriot Act while the "conservatives" held the CONgress.

I fully agree with you that the best government is one that can't pass new laws!!! How many F-ing laws do we need???? Free people don't have so many laws that they can't even know what they are. Free people don't have the largest prison population in the world while having roughly 5% of the worlds population.

I have no faith in the Republicans but do see them as the lesser of two evils when compared to the Democrats. Both need to be eradicated and the true power needs to be returned to the People. Whether that happens in our lifetime is the question du jour.
edit on 30-12-2010 by bozzchem because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
You said:

I watch vids like this and my instinct is to head to the reloading bench.

My reply:

Good point, fine instinct there. The problem is that this zionist piece of filth will pack his bags, with others (if they have any sense at all) and settle in another sovereign land which is ripe for infestation. May I suggest Russia, israel, or Australia (freshly neutered~no guns).

In a couple of generations, this will translate in to another world war based on (hopefully) ideals, not minerals or some such plasma tv component. The Z word may become illegal online, so we'll need to use analog radio and add voice scramblers, since voice recognition is fairly advanced. Maybe Morse code ought become mandatory once again for ham licensing, though I'm pretty sure they are licensing everything now so no one will really care about kissing their registering (data collecting) butts. I can tell you: they are about to attempt to license bicycles. I never wanted to bring this up, but it is time to once again pre-sell their idea, in order to vaccinate the masses against the idea.

Hope it's clear who said what. I seldom get the qupte stuff to function properly, and I am trying to avoid quoting your entire post.
edit on 30-12-2010 by starless and bible black because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join