Texas Republicans push for a referendum to vote on the state seceding from the U.S. in 2023 at meeting that declared Biden's win illegitimate

You can cut and paste to your heart’s content if it makes you feel better.

That's nice. You can continue to post ignorant nonsense it it makes you feel better.

Cruikshank held that only the states or local government could create the right to keep and bear arms; and if it did, the US Constitution protected that.

You're delusional, which is why you can't cut and paste that.

United States v. Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875)

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.

Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)

In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.
We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States.

Ignorance is bliss!

So is being an idiot.

Re: 182 - Wasting your time with that FReeper. He has pushed multiple ideas regarding the 2020 Presidential election including quo warranto, devolution, etc. “He” also was running interference for Mike Lindell not making his packet captures public after Lindell said he would, then claimed Lindell had done what he said he would (made them public) - and that they were being reserved for future use in litigation such as quo warranto.

In other words, little if any credibility.

Last thing I remember

I was running for the door

I had to find the passage back to the place I was before

"Relax," said the night man

"We are programmed to receive

You can check-out any time you like

But you can never leave!"

As a Department of Justice official, Clark was not a “Trump employee,” but a U.S. government employee.

I'm well aware of Dr. Franklin's background. I suspect that his namesake is spinning in his grave.

FBI agents are Federal special agents. The statutory authority under which they may make an arrest without a warrant is set forth in the Federal statutes. Henry only applies to arrests by Federal authorities.
The statutory authority governing state or local authorities would be State statutes.

Since SCOTUS ruled that the federal "statute states the constitutional standard" for Fourth Amendment warrantless arrests, any state statute failing to meet that articulated standard is null and void, or do you think that statutes can trump the U.S. Constitution? In 1959, this was well settled law.

Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 33-35 (1963).

The only legal issue in Ker was whether or not the police were legally in the apartment where they found the brick of marijuana. Since the cops found the brick of marijuana in the defendants' apartment, they rightfully concluded that they had witnessed it in the defendants possession and arrested them for a crime occurring in their presence. The case is not inconsistent with Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 100 (1959) in any way, shape or form. Nothing in Ker suggests that any law enforcement officer can arrest a person for a minor crime not witnessed to be occurring in his/her presence. That is quite different from a police officer arriving after the event, taking the side of one party against the other and usurping the role of a magistrate to arrest someone for an offense which is not a felony in violation of Henry.

And it is readily apparent that not all state and local police are required to have knowledge of a felony; just a reasonable belief that an offense has been or is being committed is sufficient.

Wrong. According to both Henry and Ker to arrest for a crime which is not a felony, the police officer must witness a crime occur in his/her presence. The standard was not simply "probable cause", but also had a witnessing component, which is now being omitted contrary to SCOTUS precedent for minor offenses. That actually used to taught in U.S. law schools and appeared in case books with specific mention of domestic disputes until the 1980's.

I have carefully considered that at the time of Texas v. White Chief Justice Taney had died. Carefully considered, this is still irrelevant to Texas v. White. ... Had Taney's dead body have been there, it would not have voted. Had Campbell remained on the court and cast a dissenting vote, it would have changed nothing. During the war, the Court was expanded to 10 justices so Lincoln could appoint 5. Had they needed more insurance, Congress could have made it 11 or 12 justices.

And you again refuse to acknowledge that personnel on the court determines how it rules, and what precedents it recognizes as binding, and which are overruled. Warren Court precedents were not favored under the Rhenquist Court, etc.

Rewriting or reimagining history is not a legal argument.

In the case of Texas v. White , reimagining history is exactly what CJ Chase did. His opinion was counterfactual, and he did nothing to end the Reconstruction laws, or even signal they were unconstitutional, that by the plain meaning of his opinion had deprived sovereign states and their citizens of constitutionally mandated representation in the Congress.

In other words, little if any credibility.

In other words, thread hijacking by ad hominem attack.

SCOTUS on Cruikshank (1876): “This (the Second Amendment) is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”

Thus, Cruikshank held that the Second Amendment (indeed, the Bill of Rights) applied only to restrict Congress, but it did not restrict state governments. So, states and local governments could justify under Cruikshank their power to bestow the right to keep and bear arms to those of their citizens it chose, and deny same to those it chose. Some states and local governments used Cruikshank to justify denying blacks their rights.

This would certainly appear to fly in the face of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Fourteenth Amendment (1868, in pertinent part): “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

This protected American citizens from infringement by the states as well as by the federal government.

Fourteenth Amendment (again, in pertinent part): “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This applied the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the states as well as the federal government. It also was meant to stop state governments from discriminating against certain classes of citizens (especially blacks).

The SCOTUS in D.C. v. Heller (2008) recognized the right of the INDIVIDUAL to keep and bear arms in his or her own self defense, independent of any local power to restrict that right to service in a militia, but subject to reasonable local restrictions for felons, the mentally impaired, the immature (by age), et al. Heller only addressed RKBA by citizens of Washington, D.C. (and similar other federal territories), though its impact was national.

In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), SCOTUS held that the Fourteenth Amendment made the Second Amendment RKBA for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states (i.e., that the right is pre-existing, and is not dependent on a state creating one).

I really don’t care if you disagree with that.

Not thread hijacking. But you have advocated some unusual and some fringe legal arguments, and let’s be honest - NONE of what you thought would occur regarding quo warranto , devolution, and Mike Lindell’s Cyber Symposium have come to pass.