It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxAn actual crime requires an actual victim. Who is the victim of vagrancy? Who is the victim of panhandling?
Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxYes you are. You're just pretending it is perfectly all right to do it under color of law.
Sigh...ok, not really I don't make the laws any more than I made foreign policy as a Soldier. A municipality; which is why I live rural is free to make whatever laws they wish to protect their business or other interests.
If the elected officials of an area make vagrancy a violation or "crime" then move to somewhere it is not.
Nope, laws are blind if I wandered around downtown sleeping and pissing on someone’s business or lawn I'd expect the law to be enforced regardless of my income.
Don't like the laws run for office - run on the "invite the homeless to camp in your yard or business” campaign. I’m sure the resident taxpayers and homeowners will be all over that program.
I await the results of your campaign.
Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxThis may come as a shock to you but the people have the inherent political power in the United States, not politicians. As a person who holds the inherent political power in this nation, I have no need to run for office, but my campaign for freedom has been true and steady in this site since I joined. I do not rely on tax dollars to survive. I do not demand the public respect my uniform. I do not make any demands other than obey the law, and I would hold that same expectation of you. Obey the law. The actual law, not legislation that pisses all over the law.
I signed my life away many years ago and yeah; I earned a pension doing it. I have nothing further to prove regarding my duty or oaths - I own my property (paid for working as a mercenary for the US Government depending on who you ask I guess) outright and will likely die defending it soon when the US colapses and we get more vagrants - lol.
I apreciate the taxpayers every 1st and 15th and will until the day I die and thanks for the kick ass medical care too - best part it was cheap, only one or two boken bones and one gunshot wound.
Originally posted by backinblack
Isn't it odd that local councils suddenly enact those laws just prior to a major event in town??
Like hiding the mess??
I find that criminal in itself...
Jesse Ventura’s Conspiracy Theory show about the police state and FEMA camps, which TruTV never aired because of constant government harassment and pressure, has already been memory-holed and is now under threat of being removed from You Tube as well. The show covers the takeover plan and what they don’t want you to see – how martial law is being implemented in America. Get these videos now and share them before they disappear forever. During his last appearance on the Alex Jones Show, Jesse Ventura confirmed that TruTV was forced to pull the show from their schedule due to government threats.
Former Gov. Jesse Ventura and his crew at Conspiracy Theory have blown the FEMA camp issue wide open in a truly groundbreaking episode from the program’s second season on TruTV. The “Police State” episode proves once and for all that the feds have trained to take on American citizens, planned for riots and disasters and made preparations to maintain order at any cost. Tune in this Friday, Nov. 12 at 10 PM Eastern/ 9 PM Central and leave the denial at the door. This powerful episode is the largest and most in-depth investigation into FEMA camps to date– and it is scheduled to air on television. Radio host and filmmaker Alex Jones returns to the series yet again, as the team takes you to confirmed on-the-ground facilities, confronts the legislators who authorized FEMA camps and breaks down the full-scale technologically-integrated police state that includes Fusion Centers, FEMA, the Department of Homeland Security and more. ! At one of many real and verified FEMA locations, Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones approach a “Residential Center” run by Homeland Security in central Texas where they find locked doors, double-fences and escape warnings around the entire perimeter. Further inside the facility, they witness a playground complex, swings and slides for children. The crew walks up to the front door and attempts to get some answers. But the officials refuse to either confirm or deny the facility’s purpose, including whether or not American citizens are being held inside. However, our past investigations into this facility reveal that it has confined both children and adults, including immigrants, refugee seekers and American citizens.
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by EssenSieMich
I don't really know why people are even surprised or reject the existance of FEMA camps..
We have been indoctrinated for years to accept placing people in prisons for even the smallest of crimes.
Sometimes merely for the crime of being poor..
So there are already tens of thousands of normal people locked up as we speak and yet we accept that with barely a whimper..
Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxSigh...nobody makes laws. Laws exist and either discovered or they are not. Legislation is not law, merely evidence of law. If it were actually law, judges could not use their power of judicial review to overturn legislation as unlawful.
You are also the one who claimed that ordinances such as vagrancy and panhandling "don't seem to be unjust", which is fairly inferred to mean you support this sort of legislation.
Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxIt is interesting to watch you try to sit on the fence and pretend you are really an okay guy even though you clearly support legislatures enacting bogus legislation, and then suggesting that those who don't like it can just leave. America, love it or leave it, right?
Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxLaw is law. Legislation is not law. You pretend to be impartial, and then turn right around and show your bias. It is not as if you spoke to the homeless who are not pissing and sleeping on someone's business or lawn and are either using public parks or sidewalks, and doing their best to respect the private property of others, but are still harassed by the police who rely on the very same ordinances you pretend are there to protect private property owners.
Pissing on private property is not "public urination" it is trespassing on private property, and that is entirely different than vagrancy ordinances.
Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxI love the law, starting with both the Federal Constitution and all State Constitutions. What I don't like are posers who expect to get paid by taxes taken from hard working people so they can piss all over those Constitutions, yourself included. If you are who you say you are then you took an oath to uphold the Federal Constitution, but instead you preach acting under color of law and show no regard at all to the unalienable rights of others.
Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxThis may come as a shock to you but the people have the inherent political power in the United States, not politicians. As a person who holds the inherent political power in this nation, I have no need to run for office, but my campaign for freedom has been true and steady in this site since I joined.
Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxI do not rely on tax dollars to survive.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux I do not demand the public respect my uniform.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux I do not make any demands other than obey the law, and I would hold that same expectation of you. Obey the law.
Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxThe actual law, not legislation that pisses all over the law.
n. 1) any system of regulations to govern the conduct of the people of a community, society or nation, in response to the need for regularity, consistency and justice based upon collective human experience. Custom or conduct governed by the force of the local king were replaced by laws almost as soon as man learned to write. The earliest lawbook was written about 2100 B.C. for Ur-Nammu, king of Ur, a Middle Eastern city-state. Within three centuries Hammurabi, king of Babylonia, had enumerated laws of private conduct, business and legal precedents, of which 282 articles have survived.......yada yada goes on and on.....To a great extent common law has been replaced by written statutes, and a gigantic body of such statutes have been enacted by federal and state legislatures supposedly in response to the greater complexity of modern life.
2) n. a statute, ordinance or regulation enacted by the legislative branch of a government and signed into law, or in some nations created by decree without any democratic process. This is distinguished from "natural law," which is not based on statute, but on alleged common understanding of what is right and proper (often based on moral and religious precepts as well as common understanding of fairness and justice).
3) n. a generic term for any body of regulations for conduct, including specialized rules (military law), moral conduct under various religions and for organizations, usually called "bylaws."
1. the act of making or enacting laws.
2. a law or a body of laws enacted.
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people.
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
You need to go back to law school then – legislatures at every level from local to federal can and do enact laws and regulations every day; many of them are nonsense but they are laws none the less. (I put the definitions down there for you at the bottom.)
I don’t see anything wrong with a law against vagrancy if it is enacted by duly elected representatives. That is what they are for; no doubt, to enact the will of the people through laws that both limit and allow certain activities.
Vagrancy statutes have not been well received by the courts, due to their abuse, and have often been declared unconstitutional due to their vagueness, and their ignoring of due process.
The Jacksonville vagrancy ordinance, under which petitioners were convicted, is void for vagueness, in that it "fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute," it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions, it makes criminal activities that, by modern standards, are normally innocent, and it places almost unfettered discretion in the hands of the police. Pp. 405 U. S. 161-171.
1) I am on the fence about this issue or I wouldn’t have asked my original question which was “are people being locked up for being poor or homeless; which IMO clearly they are not.
2) This has nothing to do with America as there are good many places that do not have such laws for one to live.
3) Everyone has the right to vote with their feet or to petition the government – in this case the local one for redress of grievances.
You must be a lot smarter than me because I just don’t get it. The city; who manages the public property for the people who elect them can and do place limits on the times one can use the property and for what purpose. This seems reasonable to me as all manner of issues can arise from people hanging about at all hours sleeping and #ting and what not. Public, health (feces is nasty) and safety (the lives of those sleeping) are indeed something to be protected by such regulation and laws.
Of course the laws protect property owners; we pay the taxes - the homeless may or may not, likely not I'm guessing. We congregate together as people and form governments to protect our interests after all....
If I had a business in the area I’d not want people living in my front stoop or in the alley behind the store – likely as not the same poor homeless person would sue me if I opened by back door into them in the morning.
In that case can you please point to the place in the Constitution that indicates a municipality cannot make laws to limit the access to or to govern the use and care of the property for which it is responsible? I am curious where that part is.
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
SEC. 13. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches may not be violated; and a warrant may not issue except on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized.
SEC. 17. Cruel or unusual punishment may not be inflicted or excessive fines imposed.
SEC. 24. Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.
I take no taxes from anyone; I entered into a contract with the government of the people and in exchange for that contract; which limited a good many of my own freedoms by the way, for a good long time - I got paid a wage and after some time (24 years) a small pension.
This is a lawful enterprise as the Constitution does specifically enumerate power of the federal government for the collection and disbursement of taxes for the purpose of defense does it not?
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
…to support the Constitution, which is the cement of the Union, as well in its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the States and to the people as equally incorporated with and essential to the success of the general system;… to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics – that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe;…
“I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for… protection against standing armies.
As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia
Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]
The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force.
The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.
Bonaparte… transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the danger of standing armies.
We elect the representatives and they make policy which I carried out – easy to understand huh…
I own my property (paid for working as a mercenary for the US Government depending on who you ask I guess) outright and will likely die defending it soon when the US colapses and we get more vagrants - lol.
How’s that been working out so far for you?
What laws do you recognize then – speed limits, or helmet laws? It must be really expensive to be you if you don’t obey the laws you don’t like….
Again, I think you are confusing the world as you want it to be with the world that is….
Again, don’t really know what the issue is if you are spouting some “I’m a sovereign" type thing you read on the internet but to me looks like a law and legislation are pretty much the same thing as are:
Personally, I have never been asked to enforce any laws in the US ever but I have executed a lot of hostile diplomacy in my day and I know one thing for sure – the one with the most guns usually wins any debate. glad I'm on that side.
Nope, in scanning that I see nothing about vagrancy...
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.