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.
How is tyranny to be restrained?
“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.
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.
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.
Gonna vote for Cruz
Off to see how the Roman Senate ended up with Caligula
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.
“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?
“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.
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.
if Cruz doesn’t make it to POTUS....he might just make a bang up POTCSA.
Looks like we need a NEW battle flag.
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
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.
One more time, with feeling.
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.
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.
Bingo.
At some point people will realize that peaceful solutions are not going to be the answer.
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.
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.
This is more substantial then a mere law. It would be impossible for the Imperial Court to ignore an amendment aimed directly at them.