I certainly hope you are right. And I certainly hope some of them get the message.
Posted on 09/08/2005 3:40:23 PM PDT by RDTF
First question: Yes. Second question: No.
constitutional rights apply only to people who are rich enough to buy them.
You can bet that whatever happens in N.O. there will be much discussion. What is being done there is insane at this moment.
Most of the holdouts are safe and dry, and not hungry either. Louisiana is loaded with people that have been generating their own power, and using forklift batteries to store it. This is, ironically, because of the hurricane threat. Diesel generators mixed with a few solar panels are no more costly than grid power. The guy that wrote the book on this idea lives near N.O.
That's what I want to know. What can WE do right now to stop this? I'm still new to Freeping but tell me who to contact and I can send emails and make phone calls!
"If I cannot convince at least two more friends to join the NRA after this, I will be greatly disappointed. If the NRA cannot find the political will to turn this into an eventual victory, I will be more greatly disappointed."
I have not heard a peep from the NRA nor have I heard any serious conservative pundits mention the issue.
The last time I checked, the Marshall Court which decided Marbury v. Madison was a "court of competent jurisdiction." So, Marbury demonstrates exactly what I said.
What a maroon. Learn to read with care. Then try to reason logically from what you read. It will do marvels for your posts on FR.
All of them?
Why would you want to rescind the ability of the President to protect people from deprivations: " -- of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law --- " ? Doesn't he have a sworn duty to do so?
BTTT.
Because many applications of those powers exceed his authority, unless you subscribe to the selective incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment. The law as it stands is thus, too broad.
What makes you think it's the feds doing it, or that it would be legal if martial law, which isn't mentioned in the Constitution, were declared?
Mandatory evactuations are legal, confiscating arms is not.
I certainly hope you are right. And I certainly hope some of them get the message.
Only under certain circumstances.
"So, what's Bush's administration doing to stop this gun confiscation? Anything?"
Call the white house comment line and ask the question? I did. As far as I know the NRA is doing nothing.
202-456-1111
these are state actions, not the federal government....
Oh this is so true... quite a sad fact actually...
- plewis1250
Greeting Gentlemen,
Just pulling out the tinfoilman playing an old tune about the past. Please give me your ballpark opinion pertaining to NOLA/FEMA relating to old news of Clinton-UN paranoia and if it relates to NOLA in principle.
"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."
--Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Sec. of State,
as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992
Rex 84 FEMA's ability to assume military authority and the bottom of page has all of the cool tinfoil links.
He proposed using military bases in Louisiana, such as the mothballed England Air Force Base in Alexandria. Evacuees could live in dorms and tent cities.
LOUISIANA Ft. Polk - This is a main base for UN troops & personnel, and a training center for the disarmament of America.
(Kinda of strange that JJ and Maxine Waters
asked for the close base.)
"They've got to open the base"
Louisiana black leaders, along with Maxine Waters and Jesse Jackson, want to take Katrina victims to a shuttered England Air Force base instead of shelters.
NOPD Superintendent of Police, Edwin P. Compass III, and
Thera Bradshaw discuss public safety operations
in their respective jurisdictions. 
P. Edwin Compass, III, New Orleans
Begins Confiscating Firearms
From NRA: No Comment Yet.
ALL laws, on ALL subjects, in ALL jurisdictions remain on the books and are apparently valid, until the authority which passed them, repeals them -- or until a court of competent jurisdiction declares them unconstitutional (under US or state constitutions).
Are you aware that Marshall refuted that authoritarian type argument back in 1803, Marbury v Madison?
No one in the USA is bound to obey 'laws' repugnant to the Constitution. In fact officers of the court, like you, are bound by oath to fight such repugnant laws.
You read as poorly as you reason. I said, "or until a court of competent jurisdiction declares them unconstitutional (under US or state constitutions)."
The last time I checked, the Marshall Court which decided Marbury v. Madison was a "court of competent jurisdiction." So, Marbury demonstrates exactly what I said.
No, Marshall does not say that we are bound to obey laws that are " -- apparently valid, until the authority which passed them, repeals them -- or until a court of competent jurisdiction declares them unconstitutional --". -- Not in Marbury. He closes his argument there by saying:
" Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. "
Like you I've sworn an oath to defend our constitution. I'm defending it with these words, which refute yours. Feel free to reply. -- Or not. -- No one forced you to make your last reply, which would have ended our present exchange.
What a maroon. Learn to read with care. Then try to reason logically from what you read. It will do marvels for your posts on FR.
Your own pejorative words show an inablity to argue using logic. Thanks again.
"New Orleans Begins Confiscating Firearms "
Neww Orleans will be the blueprint for the nation....
1. I said a court of competent jurisdiction can strike down a law. 2. The Marbury Court was such a court and struck down a law. 3. So the Court did exactly what I said courts can do.
You claim that a court doing exactly what I said courts can do, somehow contradicts what I said. Tell me you're just funning me, and you do understand this obvious point. If you're serious, you're not worth another two minutes of my time.
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.