Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Isara

Since Cruz cited the fact that SCOTUS and this government is lawless, the idea that we can pass MORE LAWS that they will just ignore, render invalid and strike down is ridiculously absurd.

The LAWLESS will not be moved by MORE LAWS.

What is so hard to understand about that fact?

You cannot restrain tyrants via civil means in a society that is no longer civil, or religious or moral.


2 posted on 06/26/2015 4:04:19 PM PDT by INVAR ("Fart for liberty, fart for freedom and fart proudly!" - Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last
To: INVAR

How is tyranny to be restrained?


7 posted on 06/26/2015 4:11:29 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Article V. If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: INVAR

“The LAWLESS will not be moved by MORE LAWS.”

So your remedy would apparently be civil war.

Hey, I think I will stick with Cruz.


10 posted on 06/26/2015 4:12:39 PM PDT by DaxtonBrown (http://www.futurnamics.com/reid.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: INVAR

You’re right that the SCOTUS is lawless, but what’s the harm of trying to amend the constitution or even impeach judges? Sure. We’re likely to fail, but we should make every attempt to peacefully resolve these issues.

In this gay marriage ruling, the Supreme Court literally took every other democratic, peaceful means of resolving the issue—short of a constitutional amendment—from us. We can discuss it as much as we want (free speech and all—HA!), but a constitutional amendment is the only recourse left short of open rebellion (non-violent civil disobedience or violent revolution). No law, no vote can change a Supreme Court ruling—only a constitutional amendment or a rebellion. I’ll still choose the former.


28 posted on 06/26/2015 4:36:05 PM PDT by CitizenUSA (Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: INVAR

Even the old Soviet bloc states at their worst did not allow this sort of rubbish and degeneracy foisted upon their citizenry. This is as bad as it gets.


50 posted on 06/26/2015 5:23:43 PM PDT by Bluewater2015 (There are no coincidences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: INVAR

Gonna vote for Cruz

Off to see how the Roman Senate ended up with Caligula


55 posted on 06/26/2015 5:36:07 PM PDT by nomorelurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: INVAR

yes charles murrey’s book covers this “By the people.” The priest from louisiana gets it. civil disobedience. martin Luther King — letters from a Birmingham jail gives the rrational.


60 posted on 06/26/2015 5:50:15 PM PDT by kvanbrunt2 (civil law: commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong Blackstone all iCommentaries I p44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: INVAR

“The LAWLESS will not be moved by MORE LAWS. You cannot restrain tyrants via civil means in a society that is no longer civil, or religious or moral.”

Are you going to attack the white house? Is that your solution?


92 posted on 06/26/2015 6:53:33 PM PDT by Marcella (TED CRUZ Prepping can save your life today. Going Galt is freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: INVAR

“You cannot restrain tyrants via civil means in a society that is no longer civil, or religious or moral.”

Well put.

We moved to a rural, conservative, armed area to be ready for what come what may.

And to quit feeding the fascist beast. The best way to show civil disobedience is to quit financially supporting this government.

Unfortunately, no matter how mad most people are, they don’t want to disturb their comfortable lifestyle. Or, I’m also guessing that many here are either elderly or not in the best of health, and that makes them reluctant to take a financial risk. But unless we ALL do so or are willing to go to even the next step after this, the future we leave to our kids and grandkids will be hopeless.


103 posted on 06/26/2015 7:39:36 PM PDT by Hardens Hollow (Couldn't find Galt's Gulch, so created our own Harden's Hollow to quit paying the fascist beast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: INVAR

Yeah, bought more ammo today. Everything is available again, market’s saturated with goodies. I’m going with the premise window will be gradually closing and it all disappears once festivities start.


110 posted on 06/26/2015 8:44:23 PM PDT by TheBigJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: INVAR

if Cruz doesn’t make it to POTUS....he might just make a bang up POTCSA.


150 posted on 06/27/2015 4:39:45 AM PDT by Vaquero ( Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: INVAR

Looks like we need a NEW battle flag.


151 posted on 06/27/2015 4:42:05 AM PDT by Renegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: INVAR

if there is no law, then, there is no law

if those that govern are not restrained by the law, then those that are governed are not restrained by the law


152 posted on 06/27/2015 4:51:41 AM PDT by bert ((K.E.; N.P.; GOPc.;+12, 73, ..... No peace? then no peace!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: INVAR

I agree. Offering up a populist amendment to the Constitution is a bad idea. If anything there should be a deliberate and strong push to repeal 17A. If there could be one solitary reason we are at this point with SCOTUS, 17A is it.


161 posted on 06/27/2015 5:43:18 AM PDT by Rodamala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: INVAR
The LAWLESS will not be moved by MORE LAWS

One more time, with feeling.

172 posted on 06/27/2015 7:11:50 AM PDT by going hot (Happiness is a momma deuce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: INVAR

Hey Ted. Why don’t you just change the name of the “Defense of Marriage Act” to the “Defense of Holy Matrimony Act?”

SCOTUS already changed words to fit the law. Not only has a precedent been sent, it was sent the same week by SCOTUS. So now, while it is fresh in everyone’s mind, strike.

This is your fight and your nomination. SCOTUS teed this up for you and this change of words will save religion from the throes of “State” sponsored terrorism against religion.


218 posted on 06/27/2015 11:39:04 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Change the Defense of Marriage Act to the Defense of Holy Matrimony Act. Game, set match.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: INVAR
" The LAWLESS will not be moved by MORE LAWS. What is so hard to understand about that fact? You cannot restrain tyrants via civil means in a society that is no longer civil, or religious or moral."

This is also the perfect answer to those who advocate more gun control as a solution; those who expect perps bent on murder and robbery to worry about another minor-penalty law.

224 posted on 06/27/2015 1:04:32 PM PDT by Crystal Palace East (90% of MSM is lies, except the National Enquirer, of course :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: INVAR

Bingo.

At some point people will realize that peaceful solutions are not going to be the answer.


233 posted on 06/27/2015 4:00:53 PM PDT by Red in Blue PA (war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, obama loves America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: INVAR

He shares the same weakness as many moral superheroes - he’s trying to stay within the rules / lines / boundaries, which the bad guys don’t obey but readily remind the good guys of in the hopes of constraining them.


292 posted on 06/28/2015 7:57:49 PM PDT by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: INVAR

That is what I keep saying to those who want to call an article five convention. A government that ignores the current constitution is going to ignore any new changes unless they are of the sort that they are happy with.


300 posted on 06/29/2015 12:18:38 PM PDT by RipSawyer (Racism is racism, regardless of the race of the racist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: INVAR
I am proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that would subject the justices of the Supreme Court to periodic judicial-retention elections. Every justice, beginning with the second national election after his or her appointment, will answer to the American people and the states in a retention election every eight years. Those justices deemed unfit for retention by both a majority of the American people as a whole and by majorities of the electorates in at least half of the 50 states will be removed from office and disqualified from future service on the Court.

This is more substantial then a mere law. It would be impossible for the Imperial Court to ignore an amendment aimed directly at them.

320 posted on 07/04/2015 1:39:33 PM PDT by FreeAtlanta (Restore Liberty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson