See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Government thugs handcuff children, kill dog during $60 marijuana raid
Source:
Marijuana Policy Project
URL Source: http://www.mpp.org
Published: Sep 28, 2006
Author: Rob Kampia
Post Date: 2006-10-02 17:19:33 by Neil McIver
Ping List: *Marijuana Policy Project* Subscribe to *Marijuana Policy Project*
Keywords: None
Views: 2968
Comments: 194
I want to share with you a recent horrifying example of our government's war on marijuana users. Get ready to be outraged. The following is an excerpt from a September 20 article in the "Times Union" in Albany, New York: "A police strike team raided a woman's Prospect Street apartment and handcuffed her children and killed her dog early Tuesday in a $60 pot bust. The woman called it excessive force and a case of mistaken identity, but officers said they stormed the home for a good reason: One of her sons was selling marijuana there. The Police Department's tactical squad knocked down the front door of the upstairs apartment at 110 Prospect St. and flooded into the apartment shortly after 6 a.m. 'I heard a big boom. My first reaction was to jump out of bed. We were trying to find where our kids were at and all of a sudden we had guns in our faces,' said 40-year-old Anita Woodyear, who rents the second-floor flat. During the ensuing chaos, police handcuffed two of the woman's children, Elijah Bradley, 11, and 12-year-old Victoria Perez, and shot at her dog in the kitchen before killing it in the bathroom, Woodyear said. 'That seems like an awful lot of firepower for marijuana,' said Fred Clark of the Schenectady chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. 'That's like spending $125,000 for $5.' Woodyear said she suspected police had intended to search a neighboring home, but had the wrong address on the search warrant. Neighbors said they suspect illicit drugs are dealt at other homes on the block. 'No apology, no "sorry about your dog",' she said. But police said they have no reason to apologize. They said they raided the house because Woodyear's 18-year-old son, Israel M. Bradley, sold three plastic bags of marijuana there for $40 on Sept. 15. They allege he sold two other bags of marijuana in the house for $20 on Aug. 28, they said. In addition, police said Bradley was carrying marijuana in the home on Sept. 1. 'We had the absolute right house. We had the absolute right target,' said Assistant Chief Michael Seber." Visit http://ny.mpp.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=grKMIYPGIqE&b=1773617&ct=2947891 to read the entire article. Who do the police think they're helping by breaking down the front door of a family's home, pointing guns in their faces, murdering their dog, and handcuffing the children? Was this for the good of the children? The mother? The neighborhood? No one wins -- except perhaps for the government thugs who get jacked up on the adrenaline rush that comes from threatening and persecuting others. We have to stop this madness. We have to change the laws so that government thugs no longer have the legal authority to kick in people's doors to find marijuana. If you're as outraged by the above story as I am, please turn your anger into action by helping MPP restore sense to our nation's marijuana policies. Thank you for standing with us in this important fight. Sincerely, Rob Kampia P.S. As I've mentioned in previous alerts, a major philanthropist has committed to match the first $3.5 million that MPP can raise from the rest of the planet in 2006. This means that your donation today will be doubled.
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-127) not displayed.
.
.
.
#128. To: rowdee (#124)
Thanks. I grew up in Norfolk, VA, in the shadow of Fortress Monroe. It also happens to be in immediate proximity to the location where the ironclads, the USS Monitor and the CSS Virginia (Merrimack) did battle in Hampton Roads. The Civil War was a focus of interest of mine as a kid, and Gettysburg is still my favorite getaway spot. I live in Delaware now, near the fort on Pea Patch Island that served as a prison for captured Confederates. One of them was my great great uncle who fought with the 5th North Carolina and was captured at The Battle Of The Stone Wall at Gettysburg. He and 2,435 others, mostly malaria victims are buried in a mass grave across the river in New Jersey in Finn's Point National Cemetery. This is the same cemetery where Andrew Cunanan murdered the caretaker and stole his truck, then drove to FLA to murder fashion designer Gianni Versace. I visit this mass grave often. It's well maintained (including the display of crisp Confederate flags on the four corners of the gravesite) by the Fort Delaware Society. it's a shame that such a solemn place has to carry the memory of the murdering psycho gay prostitute.
that was Cheri :P ( . )( . )
There is no week nor day nor hour when tyranny may not enter upon this country - if the people lose their confidence in themselves - and lose their roughness and spirit of defiance." - Walt Whitman
Can you imagine Ted Kennedy and Diane Feinstein rewriting the constitution?
( . )( . ) That's more like Nope ... but ignoring it looks easy enough for them !
"consensus facit legem" "consensus makes the law"
Nothing I can add to that.
you don't miss a trick, do ya? ;)
There is no week nor day nor hour when tyranny may not enter upon this country - if the people lose their confidence in themselves - and lose their roughness and spirit of defiance." - Walt Whitman
I'm striking this entire post - let's just say that you're beautiful, and leave it there.
Oh, criminy crickets! Dawg! My great grandfather was captured trying to get to Vicksburg after the Battle of Big Black River. He and a thousand or so other fellas wound up being shipped to Ft. Morton (I believe that was the name) up in Indiana or Illinois, but then shipped onward to Ft. Delaware. GGPa was then sent to Point Lookout where he served the rest of his captivity til an exchange Christmas Eve or Christmas Day....if memory serves me correctly, he was in the last batches of prisoner exchanges--they quit doing it. I've got copies of his papers going thru various camps, and what he was released with. I've often thought of how bitterly cold it must have been for some of them southern boys up there on the Chesapeake....bitter Atlantic winds. I believe I read where they had mass graves, too.
And so it was.......have you heard from her lately?
In his assertion that there are two federal governments because the constitution is inapplicable to the District of Columbia thereby allowing Congress to form and run a "second" federal government independant of the US Constitution, the case that Richard is horribly mis-interpreting is Downes vs. Bidwell. http://www.vlex.us/caselaw/U-S-Supreme-Court/Downes-v-Bidwell-182-U-S-244- 1901/2100-20036224%2C01.html This case involved duties on a businessman importing oranges from the newly acquired terriotory (from the Spanish-American War). The importer maintained that the dutied violated the US Const. requiring duties between states to be uniform and that Puerto Rico was included in this protection as a newly acquired territory. In a 5-4 decision, he lost and had to pay the 15%. The main issue was whether territories are subject to the constitution. Richard relies heavily on the DISSENT of Justice Harlan: "...we are now informed that Congress possesses powers outside of the Constitution, and may deal with new territory, acquired by treaty or conquest, in the same manner as other nations have been accustomed to act with respect to territories acquired by them. In my opinion, Congress has no existence and can exercise no authority outside of the Constitution. Still less is it true that Congress can deal with new territories just as other nations have done or may do with their new territories. This nation is under the control of a written constitution, the supreme law of the land and the only source of the powers which our government, or any branch or officer of it, may exert at any time or at any place. Monarchical and despotic governments, unrestrained by written constitutions, may do with newly acquired territories what this government may not do consistently with our fundamental law. To say otherwise is to concede that Congress may, by action taken outside of the Constitution, engraft upon our republican institutions a colonial system such as exists under monarchical governments. Surely such a result was never contemplated by the fathers of the Constitution. ... " Harlan is talking about NEWLY acquired territories (such as Puerto Rico in the instant case) and those that may be ACQUIRED at some future time. Harlan IS NOT talking about DC. His concern was that because the majority held that Congress could in effect apply duties to a newly acquired territory, Congress could, in theory, create a new, second federal government independent of the US Constitutional umbrella in newly acquired territories. Further, from Justice Gray's concurrence: " ... The cases now before the court do not touch the authority of the United States over the territories in the strict and technical sense, being those which lie within the United States, as bounded by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Dominion of Canada and the Republic of Mexico, and the territories of Alaska and Hawaii; but they relate to territory in the broader sense, acquired by the United States by war with a foreign state. ..." The majority opinion CLEARLY omits the District of Columbia from consideration and effect from the Court's holding. And here is succinctly what absolutely destroys Richard's premise: " ... It may be added in this connection, that to put at rest all doubts regarding the applicability of the Constitution to the District of Columbia, Congress by the act of February 21, 1871 (16 Stat. at L. 419, 426, chap. 62, 34), specifically extended the Constitution and laws of the United States to this District. ... " Richard relies on a complete mis-interpretation of a DISSENT in a Supreme Court Case intertwined with fantastic religious inferrences to arrive at an abjectly wrong conclusion.
In 1947, the UN created a perpetual war and named it Israel.
They would be poster children in my battle against a concon==right along side the liar in chief and cheney! The image is enough to cause indigestion at the least, and outright rebellion in the long run! GAds......
my head is spinning. KISS ;)
There is no week nor day nor hour when tyranny may not enter upon this country - if the people lose their confidence in themselves - and lose their roughness and spirit of defiance." - Walt Whitman
A buddy of mine, when his daughter was 5 or 6, a state trooper came to the house. She said to the cop, "Are you here to arrest my Daddy? Cause if you are, I'll kick your ass." Now that is brassy. LOL
“The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes, knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal.” James Fenimore Cooper
Darn good bit of research. I did not get to go in to look at that case, but if I did, I would jump on the fact that the dissenting opinion does not hold sway. You can find some good stuff in the disenting opinions at times, but they have no validity in the case itself and how the precedent may be applied in the future. That falls to the majority opinion. BTW, I have some good research here concerning what I stated previously about the jurisdictional issue. That is what I drew from in my post. It is factual to say that there are two parallel jurisdictions and that confusion over this is where much of the tyranny arises. I knew something was fishy about richard's carrying on over this. It is as I said, all of it was a distraction to pull people and resources away from what needs to be addressed. And that phony issue is not it. Fact is, those separate jurisdictions is how everything was set up, and the abuse of that is where the problem lies. People need to be knowledgable of this in order to fight the tyranny.
“The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes, knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal.” James Fenimore Cooper
The image is enough to cause indigestion at the least, and outright rebellion in the long run! GAds...... I agree completely.
Not hardly. This cite refers to the specific federal jurisdiction of the territories and posessions of the United States. You take this cite above out of context in relation to the entire opinion of the court in the instant case. From Justice Frankfurter, A 'foreign country' in which the United States has no territorial control does not bear the same relation to the United States as a 'foreign country' in which the United States does have the territorial control that it has in the air base in Newfoundland. Hence, the term "possessions" applies to the federal 'state' jurisdiction, and NOT to that of the several states. The "canon of construction" in the part of the cite above refers to the intent of Congress to apply legislation to the federal 'state' or to the several 'states', and when used in legislation the word 'state' can have these two distinct meanings. THE CONGRESSIONAL RESAERCH SERVICE AFFIRMS THIS. And the only way to know what the intent of Congress is in these instances is to read the entire law and determine in which context the word 'state' is being used. No one ever said there was a shadow government, except for you. But we know there is a shadow government that is not related to this discussion, and I have spelled that out previously as well. And there is a distinct difference between a United States Citizen and an American National. If you don't know what that is, do the research. As I stated in my other post above in this thread, we are only UNITED STATES CITIZENS if we claim to be. This is the 14th Amendment citizensip which was created by Congress for a specific purpose. When you check the box on, let's say a voter's registration, which asks, "Are you a Citizen of the United States?" and you check "YES" you are claiming to be a 14th Amendment United States Citizen. This question is on there for all of those former slaves and decendants of slaves (and others) who could not be true citizens according the the wording in the constitution. It is as I told a black guy I used to work with, "If they have to pass laws to say you have rights, then you had none to begin with." I guess you don't. Maybe this all will help, but I doubt it. ;0)
“The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes, knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal.” James Fenimore Cooper
Christine, please do not start on me. You do not know all of the story and, you are foegetting something as well. First off, I have been doing this for more years, probably, than most anyone on this list has been aware that there is even a problem. (Are you listing, Mr. Holdings?) I have not had a driver´s lic. in more than 25 years; have had private plates on my pick-up more than 20 years ago; have not had a bank account in my name in more than 20 years, and etc. etc. And I have put up with the friends, family, neighbors and strangers as well; what´s the matter, you anti-American believing all that shit? Hey, why can´t you just use regular plates like everyone else... you special or something? Jesus! Anyone believes like you, man, they belong in jail! And I have been there as well, twice for 91 days each time (and a couple of shorter visits as well). All they could do to me for contempt of court. Of course, if they knew how much contempt, they would have thrown away the key. And I have had the guns, more than 50 rifles, 20 handguns, reload my own ammo, more than 5,000 rds of armour piercing ammo, and etc. etc. etc. Most of my rifles had fiberglass bedded barrels, and I am a very, very good shot. I have been there, and done that, and you know what? It comes complete with a bunker mentality. Us against them, and, it cuts you off from normal Americans. They do not get it, and you can not reach them unless you can figure out some way to do it, that they will understand. That means education, cause you ain´t got a TV station. And what did you forget, Christine? I left the United States 25 years ago, yes, but I left the states themselves about 10 years ago (because I know full well what is coming), and I now live in Mexico, where I do not have a problem with the jack booted thugs, at least, no yet. And am I alone? No, there are about 8,000 former Americans living in this little fishing village (not so little any more), and more coming all of the time, and I understand why. Some, because they can live here much cheaper, but there are others who understand as well. Most of them won´t talk, but after you visit a little, well, they know. I have given presentations on the Federal Reserve and Disappearing Money to groups as large as 2,000 people, and I knew nothing; but I knew more than they did, so we all gained something. I have had question and answer sessions with groups that lasted sometimes in excess of 6 hours, and I had to answer dozens of questions. I have been on the radio, and did call-in with questions, but not much since my first wife got sick; that pretty well ended all of my activities. I have been writing and researching for more than 25 years, and, the more I learn, the more I find I have to learn, unlike some on here who, obviously, know it all. So, as I said, do not get on me, Christine, unless you have a similiar track record.
The Talmudic Khazar-Jew dream; Christians killing Muslims and Muslims killing Christians. What could be better than that? Well, Whites killing non-Whites and non-Whites killing Whites, of course.
You are absolutely correct in all that you have stated, and so was the judge.
The Talmudic Khazar-Jew dream; Christians killing Muslims and Muslims killing Christians. What could be better than that? Well, Whites killing non-Whites and non-Whites killing Whites, of course.
As a mason, should I be looking forward to new found powers and wealth when all this comes about or will I be a serf just like the rest of you poor slobs? If I do get the powers and wealth, I'll be sure to remember my friends here at 4um and I'll see to it that you all get double bread and water rations. hehehe
Do I hear a fat lady singing?
First off, I have been doing this for more years, probably, than most anyone on this list has been aware that there is even a problem. (Are you listing, Mr. Holdings?) Richard, Address your comments to yourself, and see if you are drawn to it? It's RUDE. You might be all you say you are.. but sir, you can't make people hear you beating their ears with insults. GET TO THE POINT.. and be nice.. Do you understand that, sure, there may be simple minds you have no time or tolerance for.. but when you add a crappy attitude to it, you can kiss your mission goodbye. People that are willing to TRUDGE through reams of your incomprehensible volumes of stuff, are putting efforts into, are trying, honestly trying to understand.. , you then SEEM not to return an ounce of respect? It's your way, or we are dumbasses. That's how I see it.. and the snarky comments are not appreciated by me. I'd say more.. but small bites, might be best to appeal to you. Got a point? Make it. And don't insult people. Just my 2 cents. And BTW.. I don't care how many years you've being doing it. Get to the point.
Super-Chicken lives! - jj
I think you are probably correct. And part of the problem is when someone says something about reading a lot, I think they mean a book. I read a normal post of 10 -20 paragraphs in about 30 seconds, normally read 1 or, depending on work load, 2 books a week (not all of them important!). So, yes, I think you may be right. But, what to do about it? This is a really new experience to me, because I have never been in a forum before. And it is beginning to dawn on me that learning is not what most of this is about; its social.... which is not something that I really grasped before. But thanks for the input: it is appreciated.
The Talmudic Khazar-Jew dream; Christians killing Muslims and Muslims killing Christians. What could be better than that? Well, Whites killing non-Whites and non-Whites killing Whites, of course.
Oh absolutely. Never happen, at least as long as nothing but attorneys are sent to Congress. But.... the states can propose amendments as well. Never been done, but it is legal.
The Talmudic Khazar-Jew dream; Christians killing Muslims and Muslims killing Christians. What could be better than that? Well, Whites killing non-Whites and non-Whites killing Whites, of course.
And how long exactly did you try to understand this forum.. or the posters here, before bombing the place with enclycopedias. What did you expect? You, having done years of homework, certainly would have some training choosing an audience that migh be receptive to all your information and appreciate the effort. You found that, but you don't understand people perhaps. If this is your first forum.. even at that... you've been lucky to get this far with your posts. Most I've seen respond to you, have tried very hard, to understand you. And you have not returned the favor. Frankly Richard.. I rarely say such things... but hasta la vista. I'm not too sure you are what you say you are.
Super-Chicken lives! - jj
I think you may be mistaken. I read tons of posts in order to learn. My actual comments may be social, a good part of the time, but there are literally thousands of articles I have read both here and other forums without leaving my two cents, while taking away a lot of new and vauable information. I think plenty of others are just like me, so if you have good and pertinent info to post, keep doing it. You may not see the results immediately, but you may be influencing more people than you know. Personally, I disagree with some of the stuff you post, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have value to me. I have learned quite a bit from your work.
Do I hear a fat lady singing?
first, i'm not getting on you, richard. i merely gave you my opinion. because you've already ex-patriated and i'm still here living under a quickly growing and strengthening police state where the rule of law by government tyrants gets little to no respect, our situations concerning the need for firearms is not the same. you say you've been there, done that. well, i'm still smack dab in the middle of it. my husband and i are activists in the centex patriot community and are doing now many of the things you say you've done in the past, so i'm not ignorant of much of what you've shared here. you are claiming that many of us on this forum think we're know it alls. well, no offense, but you're the only one i've seen come on here and act like a know it all even referring to us as children. it's that attitude of condescension and superiority that you've displayed that has caused you to get the reactions you've gotten. several have told you the same, but so far you've refused to take it to heart.
Easy to say, but you are basically an unknown commodity here. Got any proof of this? And what process, if any, are you using? The only place I hear anything like this is from ignorant busy bodies, or government agents. This rural area I live in now, not a soul has said a word about my private property tags. And it was pretty much the same back in the other place where I was living not far from here. The county cops knew about it and they didn't care. They figured as long as I wasn't bothering anyone there was no reason to mess with me. And that is the way it should be. Only the state creeps had an attitude. I thought you said you would never own another gun. So why would you even mention something like this? Prudence dictates that it is not wise to tell of being in possession of any such amount of arms and ammo as you have stated. We know about all this. You got a plan maybe?
“The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes, knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal.” James Fenimore Cooper
You must mean BAC. Well, he had to take a breather after myself and SKYDRIFTER worked him over way back when. Back to disinfo school for a refresher course. LOL
“The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes, knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal.” James Fenimore Cooper
I still need people to write articles for http://unlicense.org detailing how to legally get out of the system.
Do I hear a fat lady singing?
I daresay if you look at what you read, you'll find it broken down into chapters. Try breaking your posts about your project down into sections....follow a pattern that will logically lead your readers to gain the same conclusion as you desire. Perhaps on your home page, make an index or a table of contents, that matches to the titles of the sections you post. I can guarantee not everyone is a speed reader. Speaking only for myself, though I can't imagine I am the only one who does this........if a subject isn't 'hot' with me to begin with, OR it doesn't grab my attention right away, like in the first or second paragraph, I can guarantee my eyes will glaze over as I scroll past 500 paragraphs!!!
I, for one, most certainly don't want states calling for a con-con.......that's just as bad as having the congressbastards initiate it. Such a move was just beaten down a few years back when leavitt of Utah tried to get one going. The problem is they would NEVER stop at just your amendment......the sonsabitches would try to rewrite the whole damn Constitution! NEVER! They've not done a fuckin thing right yet, not even with the military! Certainly not the post office! At least the Founding Fathers were wise enough to realize they weren't perfect.......these arrogant bastards at all levels in todays' government(s) place themselves right next to God and Jesus. No thanks.......They aren't worthy of carrying the chamber pots of the Founders.
Lord, no on BAC.....I refused to read his recycled baffle em with bullshit cut and paste games!!! I was thinking of oibl (I think that was the initials)--he had a fetish regarding the federal reserve and couldn't seem to get beyond the fact that many of us knew/know about it and that there were other things to be dealt with besides that topic. Poor guy....he'd get so frustrated.
i knew that was who you meant. oibl=one if by land
I agree; that is not how it works. Each state or one state proposes an amendment, which is then submitted to all of the other states and to the Congress. It has never been done, but as the states are party to the Constitution, it is legal. And once the Amendment is on the table, nearly impossible to kill it; and the debate then begins, and, one would hope, the awakening. So, all that is neccessary is one state... can anyone say... Idaho?
The Talmudic Khazar-Jew dream; Christians killing Muslims and Muslims killing Christians. What could be better than that? Well, Whites killing non-Whites and non-Whites killing Whites, of course.
The statement was past tense, as in HAVE HAD. As to putting up with people, living in Missouri is far different from where I lived, and it was far different 20 years ago as well. And, the process that I and my friends used are hardly appropriate to today. I have looked at your paperwork, and I suspect that it does suffice, today. That does not mean that you can use THEIR system against them indefinately. They will adjust, as it is their system. As to having a plan, why, yes, I do, thank you for asking.
The Talmudic Khazar-Jew dream; Christians killing Muslims and Muslims killing Christians. What could be better than that? Well, Whites killing non-Whites and non-Whites killing Whites, of course.
This is the site used in More Blonde Jokes II; http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/FedSubjMtrJurisdiction.h tm Foreign government: "The government of the United States of America as distinguished from the government of the several states." [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition] Foreign laws: "The laws of a foreign country or sister state." [Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition] Foreign States: "Nations outside of the United States...Term may also refer to another state; i.e. a sister state. The term "foreign nations', ...should be construed to mean all nations and states other than that in which the action is brought; and hence, one state of the Union is foreign to another, in that sense." [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition] Unless expressly provided otherwise in the law itself, all laws passed by the U.S. Congress shall conclusively be presumed to apply only within the former, or first of the two jurisdictions, called the federal zone, above. "A canon of construction which teaches that of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222 (1949) All of this is confirmed by Thomas Jefferson, one of our founding fathers, who said at http://e text.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1050.htm: "With respect to our State and federal governments, I do not think their relations are correctly understood by foreigners. They generally suppose the former subordinate to the latter. But this is not the case. They are co- ordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. To the State governments are reserved all legislative and administration, in affairs which concern their own citizens only, and to the federal government is given whatever concerns foreigners, or the citizens of the other States; these functions alone being made federal. The one is domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government; neither having control over the other, but within its own department." -- Thomas Jefferson ["Writing of Thomas Jefferson" pub by Taylor & Maury, Washington DC, 1854, quote number VII 355-61, from correspondence to Major John Cartwright, June 5, 1824.] The important question then arises: "How can we know which laws apply to each jurisdiction?" Here are the ways: First, we examine the U.S. Constitution to determine the specific delegated power from which the authority to legislate derives. If Congress is exercising a delegated power authorized by the Constitution as applicable within the 50 states, then it applies there as well as in the federal zone. Next we look at the definition of the term "United States" used in the legislation or statutes themselves. If legislation refers to the District of Columbia as its meaning of the word "State", for instance, such as the Internal Revenue Code does in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9), then the legislation must be presumed to only apply within the federal zone. If the above are inconclusive, we examine court cases. Ibid; Yes, I understand; there is nobody, or as close to nobody as it does not matter, home in the Republic. Everyone has become 14th Amendment citizens resident in the one of the several states. I understand, and that does not change what Justice Harlan stated in his objection to the upholding the decision in [Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]. .... we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments ... And he added; ... We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism. ... Does that sound familiar? You know, sooner or later, everyone will have to come to grips with one simple fact; something is wrong. It does not do to make statements like; they are violating the Constitution! That will work until you realize that this means that EVERY one of the federal judges is a criminal upholding criminal actions everywhere. And I do not buy that; I think a lot of federal judges are honest and straight forward; it is not their responsibility to protect us from ourselves. It is a political question, and until you, and I, and a lot more Americans understand what the problem is, nothing, but nothing, can be fixed. And your route, saving a couple here and there, will guarentee not only that those few you save are not saved (becuase they will be amoung the first rounded up), but it will mean that the round-up WILL occur. Somewhere, there is a jurisdiction where the Constitution does not apply. That much is obvious, and every day you are told, by the politicians and the media that you live in the greatest Democracy that has ever existed. Perhaps you should listen to what they have to say. By the way, perhaps you should look at the post, Who Controls the United States, Part 2. I think you will enjoy the part about Social Security. I also think, and I have been waiting for you to do so, that you need to make a disclousure to everyone that you have a personal stake in the position that you advocate.
The Talmudic Khazar-Jew dream; Christians killing Muslims and Muslims killing Christians. What could be better than that? Well, Whites killing non-Whites and non-Whites killing Whites, of course.
Please permit me to think about this. However, I have stopped, 15 years ago when my first wife got sick, in keeping up with the theories and practical results of actions taken. I certainly do not have any faith that anything works if THEY decide not to permit it. I would be more inclined to write something about why no contracts and the meaning of contracts rather than how/why/when etc. If I fail to get back to you in a week about this, please ping me (I am forgetful).
The Talmudic Khazar-Jew dream; Christians killing Muslims and Muslims killing Christians. What could be better than that? Well, Whites killing non-Whites and non-Whites killing Whites, of course.
The judges are bound to uphold the code and if they change any of it, they run the risk of invalidating the entire scam. The commercial rules are set and to change them would cause great upheaval in the corporate sector. There would be a great many fascists upset with any changes. And besides, the few who are doing this is of little consequence. That is why we need more students and more to "do the deed."
“The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes, knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal.” James Fenimore Cooper
Does that sound familiar? You know, sooner or later, everyone will have to come to grips with one simple fact; something is wrong. It does not do to make statements like; they are violating the Constitution! That will work until you realize that this means that EVERY one of the federal judges is a criminal upholding criminal actions everywhere. And I do not buy that; I think a lot of federal judges are honest and straight forward; it is not their responsibility to protect us from ourselves. It is a political question, and until you, and I, and a lot more Americans understand what the problem is, nothing, but nothing, can be fixed. And your route, saving a couple here and there, will guarentee not only that those few you save are not saved (becuase they will be amoung the first rounded up), but it will mean that the round-up WILL occur. Somewhere, there is a jurisdiction where the Constitution does not apply. That much is obvious, and every day you are told, by the politicians and the media that you live in the greatest Democracy that has ever existed. Perhaps you should listen to what they have to say. They are doing it now, richard. The jurisdiction is their extra-constitutional, quasi-criminal, administrative law. So stop dancing around and see the real point. How do you expect the brainwashed sheeple to know enough to get out of the fraud? Most of them will not bother since they are too busy trying to live and make ends meet. If there is a round up coming, all I can say is, they can kill ya, but they can't eat ya. ;0)
“The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes, knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal.” James Fenimore Cooper
I can say Idaho easily......however, my copy of the Constitution does not call for your mode of amending. Article 5: The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid for all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate. The states can request a con- con to propose amendments. They do not have the same authority as Congress to propose and send out for ratification by the states any amendments. If you have something that differs, I'd like to see it/hear it.
I did have. I will have to see if I can find it. I lost a lot of paper when I moved, and may not have it. As I recall, the paper was based on states being a party to the Constitution, and the Congress could not refuse to entertain an amendment proposed by a state. I will see what I can find. And, the same holds true, if the process is started in one state, then the discussion spreads from there. The main issue is to force the discussion open for all to see. Aftr all, if a sufficient number of people are aware and talking about the problem, it only takes one Representative to propose the Amendment. In that case, can you say, Texas?
The Talmudic Khazar-Jew dream; Christians killing Muslims and Muslims killing Christians. What could be better than that? Well, Whites killing non-Whites and non-Whites killing Whites, of course.
Comments (169 - 194) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#129. To: rowdee (#127)
#130. To: rowdee (#126)
And if you called for a constititional convention, I, for one, would fight you every step of the way. The minute a concon is called, it is all over for sure. Positively. Overnight.
#131. To: christine (#129)
it them.
#132. To: HOUNDDAWG (#130)
Can you imagine Ted Kennedy and Diane Feinstein rewriting the constitution?
#133. To: noone222 (#132)
Nope ... but ignoring it looks easy enough for them !
#134. To: lodwick (#131)
#135. To: christine. (#134)
you don't miss a trick, do ya? ;)
I just try to be an honest, faithful reporter of the way it they are here.
#136. To: HOUNDDAWG (#128)
#137. To: christine (#129)
#138. To: christine, Neil McIver, BTP Holdings, Skydrifter, Jethro Tull, lodwick, aristeides (#121)
#139. To: HOUNDDAWG (#130)
#140. To: wbales (#138)
#141. To: AngelSpawn, Indrid Cold (#26)
That's why I qualified with "depends on the child". Some kids at 10 are more mature than some adults will ever hope to be.
#142. To: wbales (#138)
(Edited)
#143. To: rowdee (#139)
They would be poster children in my battle against a concon==right along side the liar in chief and cheney!
#144. To: richard9151, wbales, christine (#79)
Hogwash and balderdash.
"A canon of construction which teaches that of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222
The Court's opinion finds the phrase 'foreign country,' in that Act's restriction against 'claims arising in a foreign country,' to be as compelling in excluding the Newfoundland air base, under the kind of control that the United States exercises at these bases, as less than a year ago it found the term 'possessions' in the Fair Labor Standars Act to be compelling in including these bases. Vermilya-Brown Co. v. Connell, 335 U.S. 377 . To assume that terms like 'foreign country' and 'possessions' are self-defining, not at all involving a choice of judicial judgment, is mechanical jurisprudence at its best. These terms do not have fixed and inclusive meanings, as is true of mathematical and other scientific terms. Both 'possessions' an 'foreign country' have penumbral meanings, which is not true, for instance, of the verbal designations for weights and measures. It is this precision of content which differentiates scientific from most political, legislative and legal language.
THERE IS NO SHADOW GOVERNMENT!!!! ALL OF YOU ARE UNITED STATES CITIZENS!!!!! WHAT IS SO HIDDEN ABOUT THAT????????????
I GUESS I JUST DON´T GET IT!!!!!!!!!
#145. To: christine, Neil McIver, BTP Holdings, wbales, Tausero, christine, jessejane, max, Phant2000, lodwick, angel, AngelSpawn, RickyJ, all (#106)
not wise at all,
#146. To: HOUNDDAWG (#120)
It wasn't that many years ago that an ART.3 judge ruled that Art 1 sec 10 of the constitution was "superfluous".
#147. To: richard9151 (#84)
#148. To: richard9151 (#145)
(Edited)
Christine, please do not start on me. You do not know all of the story and, you are foegetting something as well.
#149. To: rowdee (#123)
you'd probably have a lot better luck
#150. To: rowdee (#126)
congresscowards to go along with that are about zippo
#151. To: richard9151 (#149)
And it is beginning to dawn on me that learning is not what most of this is about; its social...
#152. To: richard9151 (#149)
And it is beginning to dawn on me that learning is not what most of this is about; its social....
#153. To: richard9151 (#145)
#154. To: richard9151 (#145)
First off, I have been doing this for more years, probably, than most anyone on this list has been aware that there is even a problem. (Are you listing, Mr. Holdings?) I have not had a driver´s lic. in more than 25 years; have had private plates on my pick-up more than 20 years ago; have not had a bank account in my name in more than 20 years, and etc. etc.
And I have put up with the friends, family, neighbors and strangers as well; what´s the matter, you anti-American believing all that shit? Hey, why can´t you just use regular plates like everyone else... you special or something? Jesus! Anyone believes like you, man, they belong in jail!
And I have had the guns,
That means education, cause you ain´t got a TV station.
#155. To: rowdee (#123)
There was another fella at tos2 that had an obsession on one subject--that's all he ever was concerned about. He'd get really frustrated that others just didn't jump thru hoops to go thru his posts. I often wonder if he didn't bust a gasket or something.......
#156. To: BTP Holdings, richard9151 (#154)
#157. To: richard9151 (#149)
#158. To: richard9151 (#150)
#159. To: BTP Holdings (#155)
#160. To: rowdee (#159)
I was thinking of oibl
#161. To: rowdee (#158)
don't want states calling for a con-con.......
#162. To: BTP Holdings (#154)
I thought you said you would never own another gun.
#163. To: BTP Holdings (#144)
I guess you don't. Maybe this all will help, but I doubt it.
#164. To: Critter (#156)
I still need people to write articles
#165. To: richard9151 (#162)
That does not mean that you can use THEIR system against them indefinately. They will adjust, as it is their system.
#166. To: richard9151 (#163)
... We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism. ...
#167. To: richard9151 (#161)
Each state or one state proposes an amendment, which is then submitted to all of the other states and to the Congress. It has never been done, but as the states are party to the Constitution, it is legal. And once the Amendment is on the table, nearly impossible to kill it; and the debate then begins, and, one would hope, the awakening. So, all that is neccessary is one state... can anyone say... Idaho?
#168. To: rowdee (#167)
If you have something that differs,
.
.
.