Posted on 04/27/2011 7:00:42 PM PDT by OneWingedShark
I thought you guys might like to read it.
Sorry for the formatting, it’s poorer than I would have liked.
You lost me on step 6.
Actually, you lost me before that. “If two or more persons conspire to injure, etc.,... in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” That sounds like it would have to a right secured in the U.S. Constitution or a federal law to be covered by this provision.
Armchair lawyering usually turns out poorly, which is partially a condemnation of our bloated system and partially evidence that people often see what they want to see in the law. (I’m guilty too.)
But really, step 6 is a show-stopper.
Good luck on that one.
To be read later
sfl
findin the cops and prosecuters will be a stretch tho...
Sounds easy till you get to step 6, then takes a hard turn into impossible. “Send lawyers, guns and money”. Repeat.
So then you’re saying that the 14th Amendment’s restriction on States from “depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” is not being violated when state lawmakers pass State Statutes which a) contradict the State Constitution, and b) are enforced, with full force and authority of the law, to the point where their implementation is in-practice an amendment/revision of the State Constitution?
The last step was a bit of a tongue-in-cheek/sarcastic comment on how law-abiding our “law enforcement” is.
You left out a judge. Other than that it is a wonderful example of sarcasm.
Finding police officer, prosecutors, and a judge willing to uphold the Constitution *should* be child's play. Finding exceptions to that criteria *should* be difficult.
It shows how far the cancer has eaten that the above statement is exactly reversed in practice, through the simple expedient of the MSM redefining commonly used words so that they mean precisely opposite of what was commonly understood only a few generations ago.
#6 it the hard one.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
It seems doubtful that US Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 13, § 241 would apply to a violation of a state law or constitution.
It also seems unlikely that the 14th ammendment would change that, since the standard SCOTUS interprtation of it is “it means whatever the hell we want it to mean at any given time”** and I doubt they will want it to mean what you want it to mean.
** - Same as the rest of the Constitution
You hit on something that REALLY disturbs me; the USSC is the head of the most lawless of the three branches: the Judiciary.
I do not say this lightly; but consider how many judges think of themselves as god-kings and wrap themselves up in precedence, rather than what the law ACTUALLY says, expecting all lesser beings [mere mortals] to bow and swoon and revere their pronouncements as utterly infallible! {Which is laughable on its face considering how many overturnings of rulings there are...}
One of the best/worst examples is the 2005 Kelo v. New London decision. In this case the city (New London) argued that the *projected* tax-revenue [increase] of using eminent domain to seize Kelo’s property and turn it over to a private developer... and they won!
Consider the ramifications of this: the IMAGINARY “we think” is valid & satisfactory justification for the taking of someone’s property. THERE ARE NOW NO PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS!
I can’t believe I forgot to ping you. / *Ping*
Better late to the party than to never be invited at all. Thanks... ;-)
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby. Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
If your judge in part 6 fails to do their job, their are in violation as well.
Grand Jury may be the only other way to do this short of an armed uprising.
Ah, good catch!
Thank you.
What would you do with the corrupt judges who go to work every day with the idea that they rule the country however they want to and have progressed beyond the constitution, if based on nothing else but the unconstitutional decisions made by other judges over the decades.
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.