Supreme Court has insulted our intelligence with its decision: we’ll give them ours in November

coachisright.com ^ | June 25, 2012 | Kevin "Coach" Collins

[jmaroneps37]

This morning we have once again been reminded that our system of checks and balances no longer functions for the good of the American people.

Nine lawyers in the Supreme Court, hiding behind legalese, written by other lawyers has decided that American’s, through our various states, have no right to either enforce the sovereignty and security of our borders or demand that the federal government’s lawyers do so.

We don’t count in the cynical view of the lawyers that have wormed their way into controlling our lives essentially “because WE say so.”

Oh they claim the United States Constitution sanctions and supports their denial of our rights of self-defense, but the truth is they have stolen away the power of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution by bowing to claims that what is abundantly obvious is not at all obvious. In effect the Supreme Court has cynically asked us “Who are you going to believe, us or your lying eyes?”

To say this was not a political interpretation of law twisted to favor those who would erase our borders and open the flood gates of the world to our midst is the type of infuriating insult we have to take with us as we vote to correct what has happened to our government from top to bottom.

This decision ought to be carried like a “bloody shirt” by every American alarmed by the ever quickening pace of the destruction of our freedoms.

They have reduced our lives to a children’s game of tag as the Supreme Court acting as egalitarian school yard monitors admonish us to “Play nice with the new children!”

Well we don’t want to “play nice with the new Children!” We want to kick them the hell out of our country....

[Kevmo]

I think the objection to your post was that it was too long.
***There is nothing in the rules about posts that are too long. Like I said, if a mod likes what it says, it stays. If not, it goes, for similar excuses as you have found.

If it was painful to read all that data, shouldn’t they have done something about the blog pimp who generated all that?

[evangmlw]

Could the states not sue the Federal government, and force them to enforce the law? How can the President say, “We will not longer enforce the law?”

[Admin Moderator]

Basically, if the mod likes what’s being said, it’s allowed. If not, it’s removed.

It had nothing to do with that. Another poster complained via Abuse and your post was large enough to make it difficult to scroll past it. Hence it was removed.

[Kevmo]

Thanks for addressing that. Is it in the rules that a post is supposed to be a certain length?

Do the mods do anything about blog pimps? When is a blog pimp a blog pimp?

[humblegunner]

If it was painful to read all that data, shouldn’t they have done something about the blog pimp who generated all that?

Don't axe me, I'm just a street vendor around here.

[jmaroneps37]

The benefit of voting a conservative Congress into power next November is that the larger it is the better chance
we have of someone devising a way to defeat this injustice. Too bad some people don't understand this but here's my final try: just imagine if we had every single Senate seat and every single House seat and there were no factions so everyone is on the same page - now can anyone say that would make no difference? Of course it would!
We will never get numbers like that but a BIG swept in November gives us a good start. Voting in a conservative Congress is the first step here, but unfortunately some can't understand that.

[Admin Moderator]

It’s a judgement call. The poster in question does respond often to threads other than his own. We generally zot the ones who only post from their blogs and add nothing else, or get overly-snotty to other posters.

[ctdonath2]

#1: no, states may not exclude from their borders anyone whom the federal government has - legally under federal law - permitted into the country.

The problem is that the federal government has abdicated its component of this principle, leading to...

#2: AZ tried to duplicate and enforce federal law on the matter, which (see #1) it lacks power to.

#3: Practical duplication of #2.

The federal government being empowered with a monopoly on naturalization & visas, and being obligated to defend borders, the abdication of said powers & obligations creates a terrible problem for those whom the Constitution relieves of a natural right thereto. AZ had best rediscover Writ Of Mandamus and/or State Militias[1].

[1] - and I don’t mean those camouflage-wearing traffic cops some states call a “militia”. They’d be wise to discover the gaping hole in US Code 922(o).

[Kevmo]

Another poster complained via Abuse and your post was large enough to make it difficult to scroll past it. Hence it was removed.
***Then what are the admin moderator’s guidelines? Someone else went to all the trouble of posting an entire thread about “giant catholic” posts:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2899075/posts

Those posts typically have quite a few pictures and are even harder to scroll through.

If it is enough to call “abuse” via the abuse button, then some clarity would be in order from the moderator. Otherwise, the obvious issue of FReepers hitting the abuse button because they don’t like what is being said is the real issue, not the length of the post.