Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 10/02/2024 4:50:21 PM PDT by griffin
Where As:
*Seeking political office is a high responsibility and demanding of a supreme level of trust between officeholders and citizens and
*Ethical conduct and ESPECIALLY adherence to National and State Constitutions, as well as other existing laws is mandatory and
*It is a crime to lie to a law enforcement officer during the course of their investigation and
*It is unethical and in many cases a crime to lie within a contract and
*It is a crime to lie under oath in a court of law and
*It is a crime to fabricate false and misleading data on engineering projects that may impact public safety and
*It is a crime to provide false and misleading information on 4473 firearms purchase forms, IRS fillings and many other documents that regulate commerce between individuals, government authorities and places of business
Therefore, Let it be known that from now on:
*It is criminal to attempt to attain, or attain, public office while lying to the public for the purpose of attaining that office. Lying to the citizenry for political position is abhorrent and represents a grave threat to the public good
*It shall be a FELONY to intentionally and willfully lie, deceive, provide false information, or cause others to do the same, in the objective of attaining, and in the performance of, any political office at the National, State and local levels of government punishable by no less than 3 times the number of years of the office term length which the candidate attempted to obtain through deceit and mistrust, or did obtain and perform deceit while in the performance of their duties. Additionally, a fine of no less than _____ dollars shall be administered and a lifetime ban shall be imposed for any future candidacy of public office and a lifetime ban of engaging or funding future political activity shall be imposed.
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Who determines what is and is not perjury?
“Meanwhile, a bold DA in a red state would start indicting Democrats.”
Um...already happening. Gotta return to rule of law and civility - else it’s gonna get REALLY nasty.
BINGO.
And that is a big part of the problem, yes? :)
Like Mayorka$$ telling us Springfield is blossoming.
Horse/tie/drag till gone, or we can try to establish a framework to do it in a civilized manner. Right now I prefer the former. But I’m a charitable guy. For now.
“Since prehistoric times wood tar has been used as a water repellent coating for boats, ships, sails, and roofs.”
“[Wood] Tar was once used for public humiliation, known as tarring and feathering. By pouring hot wood tar onto somebody’s bare skin and waiting for it to cool, they would remain stuck in one position. From there, people would attach feathers to the tar, which would remain stuck on the tarred person for the duration of the punishment. That person would then become a public example for the rest of the day.”
“Coal tar was formerly one of the products of gasworks. Tar made from coal or petroleum is considered toxic and carcinogenic because of its high benzene content”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar#Wood_tar
Politicians generally lie.
Why are you voting Democrat?
I want them to steal money and give it to me in exchange for my vote.
A lot of voters leave every bit as much to be desired.
Good suggestion.
_____________________
It’s an interesting idea, but I’m afraid the First Amendment won’t allow it. The answer is an educated and astute electorate. Obozo is the master of fraud and deceit. However, my real worry is on the horizon with the deep fakes by AI to the point where holograms, voices and people are all fake.
It’s legal for politicians to lie in Congress due to legislative immunity, which protects them from prosecution for statements made during official proceedings.
They just continue to do so wherever they are and the MSM plays along.
nah, it’s not legal. It’s just not illegal, yet. And it matters the time, place and reason for which they lie.
See post 9. It’s got nothing to do with 1A issues. If it was, then there’d be no such thing as perjury.
It like fraud.
I agree it’d be difficult to actually do.
“Why are you voting Democrat?”
Why do you make no sense?
-Menken
It is each citizens duty to know the con being played or the truth being told, and to act on the difference.
Normally, I’d agree.
Here in N Idaho democrats can’t win so they call themselves Republicans and run as liberal rinos...and the new people coming in, astonishingly, (cuz they made the effort to escape here from other communist hell holes) don’t bother to educate themselves or separate themselves from their bad habits that lead to their hell hole...They don’t care to educate themselves....and end up voting for the rino with the most signs and best sounding falsehoods.
So here we are...and it’s up to the same bunch of Patriots that care to know the truth to TRY to take our time, volunteer and go door to door, to educate the sloths.
It’s getting damned tiring.
Hard to prove that someone making a political promise is lying
Go focus on real problems
simple minds. simple input.
"Outrageous Lies and Deception by Political Candidates - Violation of Trust. Should be Illegal."
I basically agree with you regarding holding candidates legally responsible for their campaign trail lies.
But also consider that evidently lots a bunch of voters have not really studied the federal government's constitutionally very limited powers. In fact, here's a quick lesson about those few powers.
If a given federal social spending program is not reasonably related to the US Mail Service, then you can bet that the program is unconstitutional and probably win your bet most of the time.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;"
"It is one of a few government agencies explicitly authorized by the Constitution of the United States." (non-FR)
The congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified the federal government's constitutionally limited powers as follows.
”Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country.” —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Otherwise stated, most federal domestic policy is now based on state powers, and uniquely associated state revenues, that the very corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification (17A; popular voting for federal senators) federal government steals from the states (people's wallets) by abusing its 16th Amendment powers (16A; direct taxes), Congress not able to reasonably justify probably most taxes under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers and a few other constitutionally enumerated expenses.
What's probably going on is this. Post-16th Amendment ratification (16A; direct taxes), low-information voters are clueless when candidates for federal office promise them every constitutionally indefensible federal social spending program under the sun to try to get themselves elected, voters generally taking the bait and electing these crooks.
Once in office, lawmakers fulfill their campaign promises, including kickbacks, with unconstitutional federal taxing and spending programs.
So on one hand, post-17A candidate lawmakers, are making unconstitutional campaign promises, no express constitutional power for Congress to deal with most social issues outside voting rights protections.
On the other hand, post-16A ratification, low information voters are not practicing caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) when they elect crooks to office.
It takes two to tango.
"16th Amendment : The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived [emphasis added], without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“If the tax be not proposed for the common defence, or general welfare, but for other objects, wholly extraneous, (as for instance, for propagating Mahometanism among the Turks, or giving aids and subsidies to a foreign nation, to build palaces for its kings, or erect monuments to its heroes,) it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles [emphases added].” — Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2 (1833).
“Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves [emphasis added]. It seems to be the law of our general nature.” - Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)
Pelosi: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." (non-FR; 6 sec.)
Illegals are indeed getting immediate Social Security, contrary to Democrat claims (7.11.24)
Democrats [and RINOs] Are Terrified Of An Educated And Informed Public (3.12.23)
Since Congress and likewise renegade states have repeatedly proven that they are enemies of the people imo, it is now up to Democratic and Republican Trump supporters to effectively "impeach and remove" ALL (exceptions?) state and federal lawmakers and executives in November.
In fact, it's up to us Trump supporters to take the first MAJOR step in draining the swamp by supporting hopeful Trump 47 with a new, Constitution-respecting Congress, new state lawmakers too, not only so that he will not be a lame duck president from the first day of his second term, but will support him to quickly finish draining the swamp.
Supporting Trump to finish draining the swamp includes supporting him to put a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes by leading the states to repeal 16&17A, effectively "seceding" ALL the states from the unconstitutionally big federal government by doing so.
Finally, let's not allow the anti-Trump media try to fade our memories of what we witnessed on July 13.
Down the Memory Hole: Google Hides Autocomplete Suggestions Related to Trump Assassination Attempt (7.28.24)
I agree. Horrible idea.
Of course it does. The First Amendment was specifically intended for political speech. It is there specifically so that criticism of those in power (whether truthful or not) cannot be criminalized. That would be the result of a law such as what was proposed. ANY criticism of those in power would be met with accusation of lying and the candidate making that criticism would be convicted and jailed.
The person would not ACTUALLY have to be lying; those already in power could simply use the threat of prosecution to suppress political speech by opposing candidates. The Founders understood this and therefore ensured that those in power could not abridge the right of opposing candidates to speak freely.
Why do you think this is a bad idea? Who’s currently in power, and what do you think they’d do with a law such as this?
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.