Posted on 04/26/2018 10:09:47 AM PDT by rightwingintelligentsia
Time for Mueller to send in the goon squad for a 4am raid to determine if they were ever paid.
We’re not talking about biblical discernment, here.
Discrimination rides on good and bad vehicles in some good and shady venues. Think RICO. Think 1A. Think destruction of private property, in the example of ANTIFA in Charlotte, NC.
Suppression of speech is not going to fly very far, except on the Left, where the vehicle for discrimination against it, is increasingly slander, mis-representation and deprivation of income against a “customer”. A subtle form of “violence” against a customer will get a hearing.
It already has.
There you go. And, Congressional Leftists will serve as the goon squad. They certainly attempted to raid Diamond & Silk in that hearing.
1A targets the feds and NO ONE else. Read the freaking thing. It is talking DIRECTLY to the feds and NO ONE else.
This is about Constitutional UNDERSTANDING which is facilitated by an understanding of the Declaration of Independence, and Biblical discernment could certainly help indeed.
I think where the problem comes in is that in an FEC filing the Trump campaign listed the payment as "Field Consulting". I assume that was an error on the campaign's part but it was never corrected.
“The feds” enforce “the freaking thing”, it seems to me.
We must be talking with cross purposes. My point is that Congress will make FB and others a utility, which inmho, they are.
No they don't. That is why about 80% of the federal government is unconstitutional. Creeping tyranny for the last 100+ years. The frog sits in the water until it boils and he dies. Lets "jump" for reinstating the Constitution before WE die.
Congress will make FB and others a utility
More unconstitutional acts of the feds which by definition are acts of tyranny. If they can do that to FB, they can basically commandeer any and all businesses in the free marketplace, turn us into a third-world dictatorship, and then we'll truly be a Marxist/Communist Leftist Totalitarian paradise.
The First Amendment has been incorporated against the states. That's why schools, teachers, city councils, etc., have to recognize first amendment rights.
However, it does not apply to private businesses.
-PJ
Again, Rita, 1A binds the FEDS and no one else. The feds are to OBEY 1A. Nowhere does the Constitution empower the feds to enforce 1A on anyone except themselves.
The First Amendment has been UNCONSTITUTIONALLY incorporated against the states.
The counterfeit “incorporation doctrine” is why the feds UNCONSTITUTIONALLY and illegally banned prayer and the Bible in schools, banned state anti-abortion laws, banned anti-gay marriage laws, and the parade of horribles goes no and on.
Below is a rather lengthy explanation of why the 14A (a strictly Post-Civil-War Reconstruction Amendment limited to instating ex-slaves as full citizens) was NEVER intended to be used to incorporate the first ten amendments against the states by the feds.
From Bork’s “Tempting of America”:
“Miller was following sound judicial instinct: to reject a construction of a new amendment that would leave the Court at large in the field of public policy without any guidelines other than the views of its members. [ ] In a word, the history of the fourteenth amendment gave judges no guidance on any subject other than the protection of blacks. Beyond that, the Justices had nothing more to apply than their personal views. That, Miller thought, was reason enough to confine the amendment almost entirely to the subject of race” (id. at 37-38).
What is below is from an earlier post that I think is applicable to invalidating any true constitutional justification for the Incorporation Doctrine upon which the 1964 Civil Rights Act has been justified…
What is the basis for saying that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended it to apply only to former slaves?
- The historical context of the post-civil war reconstruction period to instate the former slaves as full U.S. citizens with full rights as others.
- The legal context of this being the middle of the three reconstruction amendments.
- The lack of clear text that proves specific provision of unparalleled and massive expansion of federal power which would have been completely out of place from the purpose of these post-civil war reconstruction amendments and would have produced much evidence, of which there is none, of debate and discussion about such a radical departure from American governance, as noted below.
- The weight of the probative value of accuracy and precedent in a SCOTUS case decided four years after the amendment was ratified versus 131 years later.
- The intent of the ratifiers, not the drafters. As noted below, there is scant evidence the ratifiers intended to apply Corfield v. Coryell rights and it is the intent of the ratifiers, not the drafters, that counts.
From Bork’s “The Tempting of America”:
“The fourteenth amendment was adopted shortly after the Civil War, and all commentators are agreed that its primary purpose was the protection of the recently freed slaves. As we have seen, of the amendment’s three clauses, two have been pressed into service of judicial imperialism - the due process and equal protection clauses - while the third, the privileges and immunities clause, has remained a cadaver that it was left by the Slaughter-House Cases. [ ] The fifth amendment’s due process clause, which applied only against the federal government, was later copied in the fourteenth amendment, which applied to the states. ‘There is general agreement that the earlier clause had been understood at the time of its inclusion to refer to lawful procedures. What recorded comment there was at the time of replication in the fourteenth amendment is devoid of any reference that gives the provision more than a procedural connotation’ (J. Ely, “Democracy and Distrust” (1980) at 105-16). That is true, and it is more than enough to condemn the hundreds of cases, stretching from Dred Scott to today, in which the courts have given the due process clause substantive content in order to read their own notions of policy into the Constitution.
“Ely’s attempt to make the privileges and immunities clause do the work that has been improperly assigned to the due process clause is, however, unsuccessful. He points out that ‘there is not a bit of legislative history that supports the view that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was intended to be meaningless’ (Id. at 103). That is hardly surprising. One would not expect ratifying conventions to enact a constitutional provision they intended to mean nothing. But that hardly solves the problem, and the problem is that we do not know what the clause is intended to mean.
“Bingham and Howard meant these additional rights [taken from Corfield v. Coryell]. That the ratifiers did is far less clear. Certainly there is no evidence that the ratifying convention intended such power in judges, and it is their intent, not the drafters’, that counts. Nor is it easy to imagine the northern states, victorious in a Civil War that lead to the fourteenth amendment, should have decided to turn over to the federal courts not only the protection of the rights of freed slaves but an unlimited power to frustrate the will of the Northern states themselves. The only significant exercise of judicial review in the past century had been Dred Scott, a decision hated in the North and one hardly likely to encourage the notion that courts should be given carte blanche to set aside legislative acts.
“Had any such radical departure from the American method of governance been intended, had courts been intended to supplant legislatures, there would be more than a shred of evidence to that effect. That proposal would have provoked an enormous debate and public discussion.
“We know there is no evidence that the ratifiers imagined they were handing ultimate governance to the courts. We know that a constitutional revolution of that magnitude would have provoked widespread and heated (to put it mildly) discussion but there is no record of any such discussion. The rather sweeping mandate must be judged counterfeit” (R. Bork, The Tempting of America (1990), excerpted at 180-83).
And, therefore, in reference to Justice Miller’s opinion in the Slaughter-House Cases, Bork says, “Miller was following sound judicial instinct: to reject a construction of a new amendment that would leave the Court at large in the field of public policy without any guidelines other than the views of its members. [ ] In a word, the history of the fourteenth amendment gave judges no guidance on any subject other than the protection of blacks. Beyond that, the Justices had nothing more to apply than their personal views. That, Miller thought, was reason enough to confine the amendment almost entirely to the subject of race” (id. at 37-38).
The Slaughter-House Cases, therefore, remains as legal precedent today and is not successfully refuted, assailed, or overturned. The scope of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were post-Civil-War Reconstruction Amendments specifically limited to targeting former slaves, even though the 14A was famously hastily and badly written. Slaughterhouse nailed it as Bork said.
What follows is a relevant excerpt of Justice Miller’s Slaughterhouse opinion.
“Was it the purpose of the fourteenth amendment, by the simple declaration that no State should make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, to transfer the security and protection of all the civil rights which we have mentioned, from the States to the Federal government? And where it is declared that Congress Shall have the power to enforce that article, was it intended to bring within the power of Congress the entire domain of civil rights heretofore belonging exclusively to the States?
“…these consequences are so serious, so far-reaching and pervading, so great a departure from the structure and spirit of our institutions; when the effect is to fetter and degrade the State governments by subjecting them to the control of Congress in the exercise of powers heretofore universally conceded to them of the most ordinary and fundamental character; when, in fact, it radically changes the whole theory of the relations of the State and Federal governments to each other and of both these governments to the people…” (Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 67, 69).
Regarding the general understanding of the P&I Clause before the 14A, Bork says, “Most people have always thought that the article IV clause simply prevented a state from discriminating against out-of-staters in favor of their own citizens” (id. 181).
Regarding what the P&I Clause was intended to mean in the 14A, Bork says “One would not expect ratifying conventions to enact a constitutional provision they intended to mean nothing. But that hardly solves the problem, and the problem is that we do not know what the clause is intended to mean (Id. 180).
So Bork’s point is judges should not insert their own personal moral viewpoints of what THEY think a clause should mean where they have no guidance from original understanding of the text. He therefore approved Justice Miller’s judicial restraint and “sound judicial instinct” in doing just that.
Issues and effects of previously applying and now rejecting the unconstitutional “Incorporation Doctrine”:
1) The most obvious and important effect of rejecting the Incorporation Doctrine is reasserting the Constitution as the rule of law, the legal protector of our freedoms against the tyranny of the feds.
2) Rejecting the Incorporation Doctrine reasserts the local governance and sovereignty of the states which are governed by the people of the state through the ballot by representation and directly by initiative and propositions. The majority of people of a given state are in control of what that state does as long as the feds don’t interfere.
3) History shows it is the feds who impose noxious, immoral, and unconstitutional requirements on the states. History also shows that the states, left alone, generally are in harmony with the rights, freedoms, and morals of its individuals. The easiest example is abortion. Before 1973, the states generally prohibited abortion. It was the Supreme Court and their wrongful application of the 14A against the states that outlawed state anti-abortion laws, allowing the infanticide of some 70-100 million unborn. Another easy example is currently, the greatest pressure against gun ownership isn’t the states, it’s the feds. It was the feds who unconstitutionally banned prayer and the Bible in schools. The federal government has probably been the single greatest power promoting immorality in America.
4) The freedom of states to run their own show, generally, is much more in line with the constitutional design of federalism. And, again, history tells us that the chances of a state disarming its citizens or forcing unconscionable measures is much less likely than the feds wrongfully using the 14A as their club, because states are local governance that the people are better able to control.
-PJ
Well, if we have, I don’t know why in the face of pretty strong evidence and rationale, you would still hold on to the decrepit and constitutionally unsupportable “incorporation doctrine” which has lead to a parade of horribles some of which I listed.
-PJ
yeah, just like the minority of freedom lovers in colonial America were howling at the wind.
Tell it like it is. Tyranny is tyranny no matter how you cut it.
We’re in a war for the soul of America in case you didn’t notice. Your’e either engaged in the fight, a POW, or an MIA.
Thanks rightwingintelligentsia.
The Demagogic Party is trying to smear them, claim that what is obviously happening every single day is not happening.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/diamondandsilk/index
They are so cute, every time I see them wish I could give them a hug!
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.