Posted on 05/06/2013 8:44:56 AM PDT by True Grit
The Civil War wasn’t a civil war.
It was the second war for independence.
Those seeking independence lost.
1 win, 1 loss... tie breaker coming up?
Well worth the read.
Guess we’re gonna have us a Mexican standoff or the Feds will be arrested at the border by Sheriffs .
Which aspect of the KS law will Holder attempt to breech? It might be good to try to anticipate under what circumstances Holder sends in the SWAT team. If a patriot intends to test Holder, I would make sure that that patriot has lots of cameras and some back-up. I don’t know if a sheriff would intervene if a SWAT team swooped down on a ‘violator’.
From what I know, these SWAT teams come in at 3am and there are no witnesses or documentation. For this law to stand, we must have public support and demonstration of Federal abuses.
“Both Attorney General Holder and President Obama are trained lawyers”
As I have posted on FR previously, Obama does not have a license to practice law...therefore, he is NOT a lawyer.
The Constitution gives you the right to use deadly force to resist an unlawful arrest, search, or seizure. If the gun grab passes, law enforcement officers will become moving targets. Moving out of the state that decides to enforce it. The government thinks that you don’t need to have guns because law enforcement will protect you. The court says that law enforcement is under no legal obligation to protect citizens. It is only obligated to seek out and find those who rob, rape, or murder you or your family members.
Your #32, dead on. Zero will do far worse than Lincoln ever did.
The real argument behind this is a fight between the US constitution and the judicial principle of “stare decisis”.
The phrase originates from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim ‘Stare decisis et non quieta movere’: “to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed.” In a legal context, this is understood to mean that courts should generally abide by judicial precedent and not disturb settled matters.
However, over time, the judicial principle of stare decisis has resulted in both the direct and blatant, and gradual subversion of the US constitution.
Direct subversion of the US constitution happened, for example, in the perverted use of the Interstate Commerce Clause by FDR to give the federal government the authority to control all aspects of the interstate business, *as well* as “intra-state” business; and the equally perverted use of the General Welfare clause by LBJ to create a national welfare state.
While the Supreme Court was forced to do the former by FDR, who threatened to destroy them otherwise; they willingly used stare decisis to expand, and permit the continuing expansion, of what had been done previously, multiplying the villainy of the constitutional perversion.
On the subject of “gradual perversion”, the courts have gradually amassed a vast library of precedent, the precedent even dominating acts of congress in the law.
For example, the granting of “civil rights” to corporations, from the time of Lincoln, does not even devolve from a Supreme Court decision, but from an opinion, not part of a particular case, from the chief justice to the official Supreme Court reporter. But running with this, Lincoln ordered the idea completely fleshed out by a subordinate. And since that time, the idea of corporate civil rights utterly dominates all US business law, but has no constitutional basis whatsoever.
Other massive national power grabs accomplished through gradualism were achieved through alcohol prohibition, which ended several civil rights; and much more because of the “War on Drugs”. Likewise, the excuses of wars were a grand opportunity to steal liberties which were never returned with the peace. The courts were always willing to accept the new status quo.
And because all of this was affirmed through judicial precedent, volumes of reprehensible and unconstitutional and unconscionable laws cripple our nation.
Eventually, perhaps already, only a very conservative Supreme Court could waft away vast amounts of constitutional subversion, and prevent our destruction as a nation, but the question remains, “Would they?”
Judges and justices live and breathe stare decisis, and many times in their careers when logic or reason reject it, they will still bow down to it. Their rationalizations for doing so are just that, rationalizations, because they are no more willful in righting the ship of state than is congress.
Likewise, what justices have the intestinal fortitude to state that the vast majority of justices that came before them were wrong to worship at the altar of stare decisis, and should have acted to restore our nation’s constitutional principles?
Freudian slip, yet absolutely true.
As I have posted on FR previously, Obama does not have a license to practice law...therefore, he is NOT a lawyer.
I sure as hell would not want this lazy POS to be the only thing between me and the gallows.
It wasn’t accidental. It was deliberate. It’s how I always spell it because it’s the truth.
It wasn’t accidental. It was deliberate. It’s how I always spell it because it’s the truth.
Citing the obvious one more time: the Constitution doesn’t mean squat to this administration or to this current government. They are under orders by the world’s elite power brokers to disarm America and they will proceed at all cost. In preparation of a hot conflict the government is already hording ammo to keep it from and to deplete the citizens stock. Once government confiscation of firearms begins and if history repeats and the 20 - 80 rule stands, where only 20% of the people will resist, the end results will be very ugly. Considering the mass propaganda tailored against the people’s Constitutional firearms rights, the False Flags (Newtown etc....) and the MSM demagoguery of citizen ownership of firearms, they are counting on a low resistance turn out and a rapid sweeping of the country.
Can we ignore Holder?
Tyrannis delenda est
YUCK !!!
§ 1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers (emphases added); and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights. --Joseph Story, Amendment II, Commentaries on the Constitution 3 Amendment II: Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1890--91"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes (emphasis added), to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States." --United States v. Cruikshank, 1875.
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.