Posted on 09/20/2002 6:31:53 AM PDT by The Unnamed Chick
Not only that,but out on the street with no known job skills other than asking,"Will there be fries with that,Sir?". Well,I guess a few of them could become non-civil-service pimps,or bar hustlers who hang out on the street and try to talk people into going in the bars.
Anarchists detest the government upholding and protecting individual rights and private property rights.
How about abortion? Does a state have the right now to ban it and Roe v Wade means nothing? Or how about slavery. There is a constitutiional amendedment prohibiting it, but does this yahoo think that states can simply ignore that prohibition?
WRONG! You are confusing the "power" or the "ability" with the "right". It's not the same thing.
Yes, Libertarianism would be destructive of those rights.
"The Fifth Amendment provides, among other things, that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury. This court has held that, in prosecutions by a state, presentment or indictment by a grand jury may give way to informations at the instance of a public officer. Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 , 4 S.Ct. 111, 292; Gaines v. Washington, 277 U.S. 81, 86 , 48 S.Ct. 468, 470. The Fifth Amendment provides also that no person shall be [302 U.S. 319, 324] compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. This court has said that, in prosecutions by a state, the exemption will fail if the state elects to end it. Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 106 , 111 S., 112, 29 S.Ct. 14. Cf. Snyder v. Massachusetts, supra, 291 U.S. 97 , at page 105, 54 S.Ct. 330, 332, 90 A.L.R. 575; Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278, 285, 56 S.Ct. 461, 464. The Sixth Amendment calls for a jury trial in criminal cases and the Seventh for a jury trial in civil cases at common law where the value in controversy shall exceed $20. This court has ruled that consistently with those amendments trial by jury may be modified by a state or abolished altogether. Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90 ; Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581 , 20 S.Ct. 448, 494; New York Central R.R. Co. v. White, 243 U.S. 188, 208 , 37 S.Ct. 247, L.R.A.1917D, 1, Ann. Cas.1917D, 629; Wagner Electric Co. v. Lyndon, 262 U.S. 226, 232 , 43 S.Ct. 589, 591. As to the Fourth Amendment, one should refer to Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 398 , 34 S.Ct. 341, L.R. A. 1915B, 834, Ann.Cas. 1915C, 1177, and as to other provisions of the Sixth, to West v. Louisiana, 194 U.S. 258 , 24 S.Ct. 650." -- PALKO v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319 (1937)
"Every nation has a right to govern itself internally under what forms it pleases, and to change these forms at its own will; and externally to transact business with other nations through whatever organ it chooses, whether that be a King, Convention, Assembly, Committee, President, or whatever it be. The only thing essential is, the will of the nation." --Thomas Jefferson
"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." -- Thomas Jefferson
Because it is not a criminal charge which is the only time a defendent has a constitutional right to a jury trial.
If quacks like a duck...
Is that so? Then what did they mean by Article VI?
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Since his party controls ALL politics in the state, if he really thinks his postion has a rock-solid Constitutional/legal basis, then he should be working with his fellow RATS to pass a bill outlawing the TOTAL sale and possession of ALL guns in the state of California. I browsed through my local gun shop the other day, and if I had had the money, I would have put it down for a new Sig 245. And Lockyer's DOJ would have rubber-stamped my purchase request, just like they have done for the past four years every time I bought another gun.
To hell with Lockyer and his delusional vision of tyrannical grandeur.
In California, there are three (3) types of criminal offenses; they are defined as follows:Infraction: An infraction is a minor offense such as a traffic violation, and can only be punished with a fine.
Misdemeanor: A misdemeanor is a criminal offense that can be punished by up to one (1) year in jail, a fine of $1,000 or both. Examples of misdemeanors are such things as DUI without injury, petty theft, battery, and disturbing the peace.
Felony: A felony is a more serious criminal offense. Felonies carry with them the possibility of a fine of up to $10,000.00 as well as incarceration in the State Prison system for many years. Numerous felonies require registration as narcotics or sex offenders and carry with them severe disabilities in future life.
http://www.allen-ehrle.com/f_a_q.htm
What a stinking steaming load of rancid horse crap.
Do you really believe that?
If one party managed to "pack" the court, or they were secretly threatened by terrorists or a secret gestapo, or someone put LSD in their water, and they declared it constitutional to exterminate a given minority, you would salute and drop the Zyklon-B down the vent into the gas chambers? Because 5 people said it was constitutional?
Do you really believe what you wrote, or are you just a disruptor?
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.