Posted on 08/04/2014 5:37:03 PM PDT by chuckles
That is a fake argument for your fighting conservatism.
The feds DO have the right to decide who is married in the military, and they always have, they also have control over their own medical facilities.
Quit this game playing.
Gay marriage, legal dope and abortion are all libertarian. I don’t guess people are really reading my posts. Not responding to Putin and pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan are all libertarian ideas. No more foreign entanglements, ya know. If you go to a pot party and talk to these morons, they are all libertarians. Legalizing dope has been the answer to all American ills for decades now. Ask a libertarian their opinion on gay marriage. Now who else is in favor of gay marriage? It’s wacky you don’t see that.
Shove it out your ass.
Let me put it this way: show, from the Constitution, the authority of the federal government to define marriage.
The feds DO have the right to decide who is married in the military,
Nope.
To say this is to assert that persons serving in the military are property or have relinquished to the federal government the power of attorney
ERT marriage.
and they always have,
Right. [/sarc]
they also have control over their own medical facilities.
One thing that is inescapable, is that you will do whatever it takes to stay with your pro-abortion/gay marriage agenda.
Obama only created gay marriage for the military, federal employment and immigration during his administration, yet you fight to retain it with tooth and nail.
ANY liberal could do the exact same thing you are doing, as you defend the status quo and oppose the pro-life movement and pro-marriage conservatives.
…apparently you're an idiot, incapable of understanding basic English sentences.
I am not pro-abortion, nor am I pro gay-marriage.
Your tactic of labeling everyone who does not perfectly agree with you as such will only drive people away.
Obama only created gay marriage for the military, federal employment and immigration during his administration, yet you fight to retain it with tooth and nail.
You refuse to talk about the court's complicity/role in all of this and ascribe sole accountability to Obama?
I loathe the guy, but you're an idiot if you think it's all Obama's fault — doubly so for failing to acknowledge the courts and their actions.
ANY liberal could do the exact same thing you are doing, as you defend the status quo and oppose the pro-life movement and pro-marriage conservatives.
…I'm not doing what you think I'm doing — but then again, you only care that I don't perfectly agree with you.
The problem is corporate status.
The government uses the 14th Amendment to invoke, and then presume, corporate status on the People.
What this doors is reverse the relationship of the People and the government. Under the original Constitution, the government was derived from the People, the People had rights outside government reach, and the government was limited by nature.
But incorporation flips this relationship, because the government is the “creator” of the corporation. So regarding corporations, the government has unlimited power, and corporations have limited privileges granted by the government, and existing at the pleasure of the government.
So you see, all of the excesses of the government at every level - federal, state, county and city - come from incorporation. So the mechanisms by which the incorporation of human beings is presumed is THE root issue, the enabling concept of tyranny by definition, because it has no limits by definition.
Unfortunately however, this mechanism is hidden in plain sight through its very commonality. Everyone thinks they know what incorporation is, but few really do. The ultimate irony is that we have not lost a single right - they just aren’t being used anymore. So it’s really not a master of rebellion, because we already have the goal. We’re just not using it.
doors = does
master = matter
(damn autocorrect)
And what happens when we use the right but the government takes umbrage?
Specifically, when the government sees it as a corporation indulging in privileges not granted and you see it as exercising rights?
Is there any way, at all, where you can invalidate the presumption that you are a corporation?
Yes, there are a number of ways. Making what is called a "special appearance" challenging (de facto corporate, i.e. administrative or statutory) jurisdiction is a direct refutation of corporate presumption, and forces the government to prove their jurisdiction or drop their case. This is most easily accomplished by simply carefully reading the law, which many times contains extremely explicit applicability definitions that can simply be invoked directly.
Another thing that can be done is to lobby Congress to remove the presumption of corporate applicability from laws in the first place, or at least raise the bar in its evaluation or lawful presumption by government authorities, and make abuse of this issue trigger the loss of all indemnification for any government employee who misuses it.
But the biggest thing would be to simply spread the word that this is an issue at all. Virtually no person in America except legal professionals even know this subject exists, let alone that it is routinely used to remove every right they have in favor of limited privileges.
How to spread that word is the biggest problem. But success in spreading it is another problem, because people are liable to believe that if corporate law doesn't apply, then no law applies, and in that case they'd run amuck and it would be chaos - a catastrophe. So common law courts would have to be acknowledged once again, to prevent this perceived void in applicable law.
If this sounds overwhelming, your beginning to truly understand the problem.
Maybe I could do a brochure on it…
If I can help, just let me know. I wrote an application of it to Robert's Obamacare decision called One Stone, Two Powers: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America. Read through that to get an idea of how these concepts apply to actual laws.
Also read it for a reality check, because the Chief Justice himself invokes these two different powers to explain and justify his own ruling.
Do you realize that a DU member could sign up here and argue with us pro-life, pro-marriage conservatives all day, year after year, using the same technique that you do, fight our politics, our party, our candidates, our legislative proposals, everything, just by using your methods.
The federal government has a lot to do with abortion, and not just abortion on military bases for federal employees, but in foreign policy, and their national issue influence is immeasurable.
Here is just one example:
*The Mexico City Policy requires all non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services as a method of family planning with non-US government funds in other countries. The policy has not been in effect since January 23, 2009. Since 1973, USAID has followed the Helms Amendment ruling, banning use of US Government funds to provide abortion as a method of family planning anywhere in the world.
The policy was enacted by Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1984, rescinded by Democratic President Bill Clinton in January 1993, re-instituted in January 2001 as President George W. Bush took office, and rescinded January 23, 2009, 2 days after Democratic President Barack Obama took office.*
very good sir !
True liberty is not license.
I confess that Edmund Burke is only a name to me; I have never read any writings of his. But what you say is not at all surprising. Adam Smith himself is after all hardly unfamiliar with conservative social thought; he wrote only two books of which I’m aware, one of which is renowned Wealth of Nations - and the other is entitled Theory of Moral Sentiments . . . from which I frequently have occasion to quote:The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing.I think that an excellent explanation of the behavior of “sheeple” and of the motives of journalists which explains why journalists tend to be socialists.The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors.
In my mind we are losing our rights because we have been convinced we are a democracy and not a republic. If 51% votes to lose the second amendment, would we lose it? What we are seeing now is the public is slowly losing the thought that sodomy is an abomination so the liberals and hedonists "claim" a right they never had. Enough people have been convinced that our Founders were Deists and the Constitution didn't come out of the Bible. We should have individual rights and responsibilities, but for decades now we have had group or "corporate" status. Let me read the supplied link.
Sorry, I couldn’t finish your screed. Dazzling with BS is not the same as making a point. The reason Obamacare is illegal is it forces people to pay a fine just for breathing in America. Call it a tax or a penalty, you still have to participate just for being here. I don’t see the connection with libertarianism. Roberts was wrong. Paying attention to minutia is not the same as looking to Original Intent. This is why most people hate lawyers. They can argue for 2 days to make you thing white is black.
That's just wacko Sovereign Citizen mumbo jumbo with no connection to reality.
LOL, so you curse what you don't understand, as if that will change the facts. What a child you are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.