See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: The Bill of Rights has been Revoked!
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://misguidedchildren.com/politi ... -rights-has-been-revoked/17959
Published: Apr 2, 2014
Author: Matthew Peavy
Post Date: 2014-04-02 23:47:20 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 259
Comments: 16
Posted by Matthew Peavy / March 31, 2014 bill of rights Justice Sonia Sotomayer – dismantles the Bill of Rights The Bill of Rights has been revoked! While you were focused on the missing Airliner, there was a little case being heard in front of the Supreme Court called U.S. v. Castleman. The case was a landmark win for the gun control left wing, but what no one realized, is that our Constitution no longer affords us “rights.” No longer rights that are inviolate The case was decided March 28, 2014. The US Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Bill of Rights is no longer made up of “Declaratory and Restrictive Clauses.” They are judicially now perceived as “privileges.” A “privilege” can be revoked for the slightest of legislative causes, but a “Right” is “Forever Inviolate” … We the People no longer have that. U.S. vs Castleman The case was about domestic violence, a cause we can all get behind. But, in the end, the Supreme Court has taken away not just domestic violence abuser’s right to bear arms, but all of the people, and in turn has made all of the Bill of Rights void, and made it a Bill of Privileges that can be revoked. The Preamble states: “The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further Declaratory and Restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.” While the Constitutional Conventions desired further declaratory and restrictive clauses, the Supreme Court has now taken our rights without anyone noticing and replaced them with privileges. It’s time to wake up America, first this year the NDAA gives Obama the power to arrest anyone without reason and detain them indefinitely. Now we have our Constitution shredded, and still we just move on like nothing has happened. There is a movement in the country that is gaining momentum called the Constitutional Emergency. It may be our best hope at restoring the America we all loved. Patriots are needed and sacrifices will be made — – if you loved the way things used to be and the way the founders intended, check them out and pray that we that make the journey succeed. - See more at: http://misguidedchildren.com/politics/2014/03/the-bill-of-rights-has-been-revoked/17959#sthash.LtWmYTjj.dpuf
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: christine (#0)
Some of the idiot lawyers have yammered for years about asserting your fifth amendment "privilege" or they might say that someone waived their fifth amendment "privilege." I have noticed a lot of that with politicians, perverting rights into privileges, or at least trying to make people believe that the government granted them these so-called "privileges" and can deny them any time they choose.
Paul Craig Roberts
More high-level court matters with the name "Castleman" involved, Tennessee and elsewhere: Digest of Decisions of the United States Courts - Google Books: Mechanical Appliance v. Castleman, [1909/1910?] | Mound City Co. v. Castleman, 1911 CASTLEMAN v. ROSS ENGINEERING INC, , December 22, 1997 - TN Supreme Court | FindLaw: Billy CASTLEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant supreme.courts.state.tx.us: 05-0189 Borg-Warner Corp.: Barry Castleman, Ph.D, expert asbestos witness, 2006 law.wlu.edu: In a Class by Themselves: A Proposal to Incorporate Tribal Courts into the Federal Court System Without Compromising Their Unique Status As "Domestic Dependent Nations", by R. Stephen McNeill; Pg. 7 of 63, Footnote 34: David A. Castleman, Comment, Personal Jurisdiction in Tribal Courts, 154 U. PA. L. REV. 1253, 1259 (2006). "Instead of following the familiar state-court judicial model, the existing framework determines tribal court jurisdiction depending on which classification the parties fall under: 'non-Indian, Indian nonmember, and member.'"34 Edited: link 1 info + punctuation. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
The case was decided March 28, 2014. The US Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Bill of Rights is no longer made up of “Declaratory and Restrictive Clauses.” They are judicially now perceived as “privileges.” A “privilege” can be revoked for the slightest of legislative causes, but a “Right” is “Forever Inviolate” … We the People no longer have that. Didn't this all start with Saint Abraham Lincoln and his BS??? Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
#2. To: christine (#0)
(Edited)
While you were focused on the missing Airliner, there was a little case being heard in front of the Supreme Court called U.S. v. Castleman.
#3. To: christine (#0)
No longer rights that are inviolate
-Alex Kurtagic
#4. To: All (#2)
Domestic violence existed when the Constitution was written and throughout world history long before that but our Founders did not make the 2nd Amendment conditional on it. The Judiciary's job isn't supposed to be social-engineering and endorsing or dodging issues of Unconstitutionality. They're supposed to be upholding our rights, not "color of law" infringements of them. Archiving and recommending the discussions on this issue at these two links: thehighroad.org: SCOTUS rules that you lose your gun rights after misd domestic - US v. Castleman; 2 pages currently See also: the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Lautenberg Amendment after the O.J. Simpson trials. reddit.com: In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court keeps guns away from those guilty of domestic violence : news; 100+ Comments
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#5. To: All (#4) (Edited)
a person convicted of one of the misdemeanor violations listed in the Lautenberg Amendment (18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (9)) is prohibited from possessing any firearms or ammunition at any time under any circumstances.[7] As a result, a number of police officers and military personnel have been dismissed as a result of domestic violence crimes, some of which were committed before the law was passed. This is not due to the letter of the law, but is a side effect of their loss of access to the firearms needed to carry out their duties. Edited paragraph 1. the Lautenberg Amendment
Application to members of the military and police
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#6. To: GreyLmist, All (#4)
This bears repeating!! Domestic violence existed when the Constitution was written and throughout world history long before that but our Founders did not make the 2nd Amendment conditional on it. The Judiciary's job isn't supposed to be social-engineering and endorsing or dodging issues of Unconstitutionality.
-Alex Kurtagic
#7. To: All (#4) (Edited)
Why didn't they discuss the constitutional issue? Because Castleman DIDN'T ASK them to. Comment excerpts: "Many states have laws that say they must arrest someone (this is usually the male, even if he is the victim). [...] any false accusation can lead to being stripped of your constitutional gun rights." "Another reason to avoid cohabitation with others." "Doesn't even have to be a sour relationship situation for someone to be wrongly arrested for domestic violence. A few years ago, at 2am I was ridiculously drunk and attempted to drive to the store, so my husband stopped me by holding me down (basically sitting on me) in our driveway, NOT hurting me at all, but I was being belligerent and yelling and the cops showed up and arrested him for domestic violence. He was in the military at the time, so the charge effectively meant without the ability to bear arms, he would be dishonorably discharged. Our state has a mandatory arrest/charge law in cases involving domestic dispute, and the county will prosecute even if the 'victim' doesn't want it to happen. When the cops showed up and said someone had to get arrested, I yelled at them to arrest me instead, but they didn't, probably because they didn't want to deal with a drunk girl, and because it probably looked better to arrest him. Luckily after an expensive lawyer fight the charges were dropped but for a minute there it had the potential to ruin both our lives and I've been jaded about domestic violence laws ever since. And even without the conviction, the mere fact his background check will always show he's been arrested for domestic violence has made our struggles to improve our situation in life vastly more difficult. All because he wouldn't let me drive drunk. Neither of us harbor any ill will for each other over it, we just think less of our justice system now. There should definitely be different categories of domestic violence charges for something like this, two people arguing until one of them gets arrested is not the same as someone actually beating their spouse." "The best way to get rid of the second amendment without actually changing the Constitution is to slowly increase the list of people the goobernment denies permission to practice their 'god-given' rights. First, it was felons, than it was people who had mental problems, then it was people who committed domestic violence, next it will be people with below a certain IQ. Pretty soon, we will all be on a list that denies us the right to own firearms, but we will still have the second amendment on the books. But whenever I talk about the slippery slope, I get told there is no such thing and I am being paranoid." "I didnt think the constitution had 'ifs', 'ands' or 'buts' when it comes to our guaranteed rights. Must be the crooked politics again." "At least since United States v. Miller, the court has ceased following the constitution's explicit wording when they can get away with it." "Most of the amendments list multiple independent rights in the same manner as the 2nd Amendment does, yet only the second amendment has been ruled so that one right dependent on the other." "Yelled at my brother in the front yard 20 years ago. A cop was driving by, arrested me. Class C misdemeanor family violence, lost my gun rights forever. [Edit to add: I plead guilty. I didn't think it was a big deal, it was the lowest level misdemeanor. And I was 18 and stupid. [...] the part of their punishment that is having a criminal record. They could lose their jobs over an assault conviction and have an extremely difficult time finding another one.] A class C misdemeanor family violence I got 20 years ago for yelling at my brother in the front yard. Stopped me from working in the family business. My dad, granddad and all my uncles run pawn shops. I can't work with them anymore because the lowest lvl misdemeanor took my 2nd amendment rights. I couldn't even accept a $1 an hour promotion to the sporting goods dept in Wal-mart because putting a box of bullets on the shelf will be a felony for me, for the rest of my life. Every place that runs my record sees a 'family violence' charge and assumes I beat my wife. Everybody that runs their record and sees 'assault' is going to think they are violent and attacked somebody. [...] A 'minor charge' can easily ruin your life." "I know a guy who got arrested for DV and spent holiday weekend in city jail. All he did was kick a bathroom door in his own home and crack it." "broke a potted plant, domestically violent I am....I never wanted a gun anyways but now I can't." "This is a terrible law, and I can't believe the SCOTUS upheld it. It is a violation of millions of american's constitutional rights." "We're going to take away guns from violent people. Even if there is no proof that they were violent. Can't they just take them from anyone they want at that point?" "Over 90% of all criminal cases end in pleas. Something like 95% actually. Fighting your case is expensive, and usually extremely risky. What can get you 1 year of probation through a plea could land you in prison for 10 years if you fight and lose. It's no accident." "Most crimes are settled by a plea deal these days. Don't have money for a good lawyer? DA: '1 year or 50. Your choice until I walk out of this room...' This is highly discriminatory toward young and/or poor people." Edited punctuation and spacing + for bracketed inserts at Comment #8. reddit.com: In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court keeps guns away from those guilty of domestic violence : news; 100+ Comments
The 9-0 opinion is entirely about what "violence" means, and that is all. The court does not address the constitutional issue at all of whether or not it is OK to deprive someone of firearms rights for being convicted of a misdemeanor.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#8. To: James Deffenbach, Christine (#1) (Edited)
I have maintained that what we actually have is a private corporation "acting" in the capacity of government, a public/private partnership with benefits, privileges and obligations, but NO RIGHTS because it's a man made organization. Actually, we have a BANKING ENTITY providing GOVT SERVICES to its MEMBERS. Our RIGHTS as men and women come from God and are innate unless we waive them by CHOOSING an alternative. The imitation government that seems to be in charge doesn't have the capacity to offer rights it can only offer privileges to those that sign up to be a member of the club through any of a variety of applications like SS Insurance, a DRIVER LICENSE, a VOTER REGISTRATION, A POSTAL ADDRESS, and on and on. [Haven't we been trained from birth to enjoy the "privileges" of membership in any of the Mickey Mouse Clubs like "SAM's Club and etc., ? Anyone that enjoys the benefits (or even the expectation of benefits) of Socialist Security has joined UNCLE SAM's CLUB and thereby enjoys the privileges and obligations of membership. It's really that simple ! Not only that, you, as a CARD CARRYING SOCIALIST make "contributions" (that's what FICA payments are legally called) to THE GREATEST TERRORIST ORGANIZATION ON EARTH. It is a conscious choice to join and amounts to selling your soul, forfeiting your rights to a con-man (Uncle Sambo), and accepting the benefits as well as the obligations of membership in MAN's club and by so doing you remove yourself from God's protective jurisdiction and become liable under man's statutory scheme to rule over you as BENEFACTOR. [See Luke 22:25-26] [LUKE 25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. Some people may not believe in God or even in the advice rendered through the biblical scriptures, I understand that, but one's belief doesn't make facts of fiction. Time will tell. I have noticed a lot of that with politicians, perverting rights into privileges, or at least trying to make people believe that the government granted them these so-called "privileges" and can deny them any time they choose.
"Resolve to serve no more,” he says, “and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.”
Étienne de La Boétie
#9. To: All (#4)
Comment excerpts: "At work we won't even hire people with domestic abuse charges." "if they are dangerous, lock them up, if they're safe enough to be out on the street, time served, Rights restored. Pretty soon almost EVERYTHING will be a felony that strips us of our Rights." "I'll repeat what I've said for a decade, that Lautenberg and similar FED laws are an end around to gun control, with an aim to disarm all Americans." "The 2nd amendment is hardly an inalienable right if you lose it the instant 'someone' thinks you should" "I'm of the opinion that when the word 'misdemeanor' is included in the criminal descriptor, then by the very definition of the word, the crime in which it is associated with is MINOR. Therefore, I am also of the opinion that NO CRIME which can be described as 'minor' is worthy of denying someone a fundamental right for the rest of his/her life. [...] ALL THAT SAID... Castleman was NOT a case which should have gone before the Supreme Court. The law is fairly clear with respect to what constitutes physical force (nearly anything) and Castleman, for whatever reason, plead guilty to it. Once he did this, it was pretty much game over." "Castelman plead guilty to domestic violence. Years later Castleman and wife were arrested on gun trafficing charges. The wife was buying the guns." "I gave the ruling a cursory reading, and most of the discussion dealt with the level of violence that Castleman had pled guilty to, so it looked to me that they essentially said, 'We're not really going to draw a line in the sand just yet, but we do know that this guy crossed over it'" "I also read that the SCOTUS position on this is that this is a 'regulatory' act and not a 'punishment'. Which, according to that aforementioned miniscule portion of my brain, is legal-speak for saying 'since it's not a punishment, it's A-OK'. [...] I take exception to this...how can revoking any fundamental right NOT be viewed as a punishment?" "If you pled to driving 61 in a 55 zone in 1989 because you thought it'd be cheaper to do that than fight it, and your state tomorrow decided to retroactively revoke the RKBA [Right to Keep and Bear Arms] of anyone with a ticket on their record, wouldn't you consider that an ex post facto increasing the penalty after the fact? Would you have pled to the ticket if that penalty had been in place at the time?" "back before the Lautenberg Amendment was enacted. People would plead guilty to such charges just to get the charges behind them. Little could they imagine the adverse consequences that would await them in the future. Whether or not this is technically an 'ex post facto' application, it's clearly a moral injustice. The lesson to be learned is to be very, very careful when choosing a domestic companion. Choose wrong, and you will be paying for the rest of your life, in many ways. Lautenberg was just the opening gambit in a strategy of whittling down gun rights by disqualifying one group after another. First it was the 'wife beaters,' now it's the 'mental defectives' (including, perhaps, veterans with post traumatic stress syndrome), and soon it may be anyone with a so-called 'mental defective' living in their household." "the constitutionality of Lautenberg was not challenged by Castleman so the Court did not look at it. It is still open to a challange of constitutionality." "Castleman was not a good case on which to challenge Lautenberg." "that seems to be pretty much the bottom line. Castleman was not a good case with which to challenge the law." "This was a terrible case to take to the USSC. Reading Justice Scalia's concurrence it is quite obvious that if we want to win this particular fight we need to take it to the state legislatures and have the laws on domestic violence changed so that they do not lump non-violent conduct in with violent conduct. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...-1371_6b35.pdf "the more I think about it, I tend to agree; this ability to discern violence/non-violence is really an authority you want residing in locally-accountable officialdoms" "Not long ago there was the case of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). It was a ruling on a technical point of eminent domain law (specifically involving the 'takings' clause of the Fifth Amendment applied to the States through the 14th Amendment and the meaning of 'public use'). The result (a very broad interpretation of 'public use') was found to be unsatisfactory by many. As a consequence, the legislatures of 42 States revised those States' eminent domain laws to avoid a Kelo result." thehighroad.org: SCOTUS rules that you lose your gun rights after misd domestic - US v. Castleman; 2 pages currently
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#10. To: GreyLmist (#9)
YOU, and most Americans today HAVE NO RIGHTS despite your taking "exception" ... you waived your rights through membership in the Social Democracy and accepted the obligations of membership which include submission to regulatory statutes. WAKE-UP ! GreyLmist: I take exception to this...how can revoking any fundamental right NOT be viewed as a punishment?"
"Resolve to serve no more,” he says, “and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.”
Étienne de La Boétie
#11. To: noone222 (#10)
Actually, that was a quote I included in my post from the Comments section of the linked site there but, yes, I likewise view it that way. WAKE-UP ! Did a telemarketer or billing department call early and jog you from your slumber today? I know what that's like all too frequently and it's especially irksome during the "daylight savings time" system-joltings. Even trying to make some coffee can be more of an ordeal after their phone-invasion tactics on their appointed schedules because coffee pots seem to be designed purposely nowadays to be troubling -- unpourable without splashing, even when a person is fully awake. Also part of the dystopian, telemarketing plan to diminish our energy and outlook, imo. Well, that's enough about them at the moment. What is it you think Americans should be doing to get beyond the status quo doldrums and make some improvements if they "HAVE NO RIGHTS", as you say? GreyLmist: I take exception to this...how can revoking any fundamental right NOT be viewed as a punishment?"
YOU, and most Americans today HAVE NO RIGHTS despite your taking "exception" ... you waived your rights through membership in the Social Democracy and accepted the obligations of membership which include submission to regulatory statutes.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#12. To: GreyLmist (#11)
I'll have you know I made two pots of coffee this morning without spilling any ... of course I wasn't phoned up by any telemarketers ! I propose that we refuse to participate in the systems intended to entrap us or quit claiming to have rights that have been forfeited in order to enjoy the conveniences of slavery. Even trying to make some coffee can be more of an ordeal after their phone-invasion tactics on their appointed schedules because coffee pots seem to be designed purposely nowadays to be troubling -- unpourable without splashing, even when a person is fully awake.
"Resolve to serve no more,” he says, “and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.”
Étienne de La Boétie
#13. To: GreyLmist, 4 (#11)
TWCable has a nifty callerID app which I've come to love; if I don't recognize the person or number, I don't answer. Most of the time when the answering machine comes on, the caller simply hangs up. Perfect.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#14. To: Lod (#13)
Most of the time when the answering machine comes on, the caller simply hangs up. Perfect. Thanks, Lod. I have callerID but it's the kind where you have to already be awake to use it. :) Telemarketers should have to pay us to use our homes and phones to conduct their business and we should get a tax break for their acquisitions of our premises. At the very least, I think phone companies should have to provide an option to ring through only pre-approved numbers during sleeptime. TWCable has a nifty callerID app which I've come to love; if I don't recognize the person or number, I don't answer.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#15. To: noone222 (#12) (Edited)
Two pots of coffee without spilling any and telemarketer-free, he says. Well, I could probably accomplish that feat too if I turned the ringer off on my phone and used a stovetop or campfire percolator instead of the newfangled dripmakers. I'm guessing that includes the Fed Res system but where are the alternatives? Still not ready to go. And consider this that I read at rumormillnews: Gold is hailed as something inherently valuable, a "warehouse" of "wealth". The focus is entirely on the warehouse instead of being on the actual wealth which is commodities and services; things that sustain and enhance existence. This is grand deception on a grand scale. This is the love of money subtly infused into an entire population until the "I" cannot reason that it must have the assistance of others to survive and prosper. A "warehouse", empty and devoid of considerate and empathetic human interactions, is indeed empty no matter it be builded of solid gold. Edited last line. I'll have you know I made two pots of coffee this morning without spilling any ... of course I wasn't phoned up by any telemarketers !
I propose that we refuse to participate in the systems intended to entrap us or quit claiming to have rights that have been forfeited in order to enjoy the conveniences of slavery.
It would seem that the whole world has been deceived into believing [..] gold is money [...].
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#16. To: GreyLmist (#15)
If I were to propose a metals monetary system (which I haven't) it would be a tri-metal system consisting of gold / silver / copper. This would allow everyone to enjoy a monetary system where debt is extinguished and parity might be possible with the use of copper and silver to balance out the wealthy class' monopoly of gold. I agree that commodities are the answer. Gold is hailed as something inherently valuable, a "warehouse" of "wealth".
"Resolve to serve no more,” he says, “and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.”
Étienne de La Boétie
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest