Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
We've established that you will swallow every lie your masters order you to, no matter how many are exposed.
You, in accordance with the requirement for being a Democrat, remain lying scum, an existential danger to America and Americans.
at least 2 more hearings will be held this month. including the video & testimony from the documentarian embedded with the trumps et al from sept 2020, thru the election, jan 6 & beyond until yer chosen one was evicted from the white house.
No, it doesn't.Wow.... That was a lot of typing you did for something that I can refute with one sentence:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
It doesn't say it's forbidden.Where in the enumerated power of Congress to call out the militia (above in bold) does it say they can be sent to fight foreign battles?
The clause actually confers two distinct powers: the power to secure for limited times to authors the exclusive right to their writings is the basis for U.S. copyright law, and the power to secure for limited times to inventors the exclusive rights to their discoveries is the basis for U.S. patent law.Now let's talk about that whole prerequisite thing. As Political Chic already stated, is it required that patents and copyright only apply to science and useful arts?
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
WTF?Plus, the prefatory clause doesn't at all say that the right to keep and bear arms only applies to the militia.
Sure......................If that were their intent, the amendment would say something like "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
YES, it is.By the way, that's another thing. If the National Guard were the militia,
NOT true, if the militia provided you with a weapon, you didn't get to keep the weapon, to take home with you when your obligation was over, the was government property and was surrendered back to the militia.which it clearly is not, and if the Amendment only secured, but does secure, the right to KEEP and BEAR arms to the militia members, then all National Guard members must be permitted to keep the National Guard arms with them.
WTF?But it doesn't say that at all, so don't worry.
What the prefatory clause actually says, is that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. What that says is that the government cannot get rid of the militia; it's constitutionally required to exist.
Another WTF?And trying to merge the militia into a standing army is not the militia; it's a standing army. And we all know how the Founders felt about standing armies. So, no, no honest person could ever pretend that the dual enlistment into the Guard and the standing army is at all constitutional.
NOT exclusively.The National Guard is the Army Reserve, run, managed, trained, by the Federal Government.
Everything is forbidden to the Federal Government except for that which is explicitly granted it in the Constitution, idiot. If not from the Constitution, how does the Government get any power at all? Are they born with it? Is it run by people with blue blood?No, it doesn't.
It doesn't say it's forbidden.
Everything is forbidden to the Federal Government except for that which is explicitly granted it in the Constitution, idiot. If not from the Constitution, how does the Government get any power at all? Are they born with it? Is it run by people with blue blood?
Are they our masters or are we theirs?
Very nice googling there. Good quote about the copyright and patents clauses (not laws) in the Constitution. Of course it is completely unresponsive to my question. Your google-fu is much better than your reading comprehension.The clause actually confers two distinct powers: the power to secure for limited times to authors the exclusive right to their writings is the basis for U.S. copyright law, and the power to secure for limited times to inventors the exclusive rights to their discoveries is the basis for U.S. patent law.
Because the clause contains no language under which Congress may protect trademarks, those are instead protected under the Commerce Clause.
Some terms in the clause are used in archaic meanings, potentially confusing modern readers. For example, "useful Arts" does not refer to artistic endeavors, but rather to the work of artisans, people skilled in a manufacturing craft; "Sciences" refers not only to fields of modern scientific inquiry but rather to all knowledge.
Everyone was/is the militia - from 16 to 60, 18 to 45, in general that means everyone. Even the law creating the National Guard admits there is what they call the unorganized militia. It is not the National Guard or organized militia that would, in any case, be the first responders to a foreign invasion; it would be every man sitting in his house, hearing the gunfire, looking out his window and seeing a bunch of Chinese soldiers. He's going to die, most likely, but not before taking more of them than they do of him. One him. Get at least two, preferably more, of them. The Chinese have a huge army but they can't win against 100 million unorganized militia in the United States.Some people WERE militia.
Which means their right to keep and bear arms can't be denied.
You're wrong. Do you want to know how I know? Because you were typing.NOT true, if the militia provided you with a weapon, you didn't get to keep the weapon, to take home with you when your obligation was over, the was government property and was surrendered back to the militia.
That the Federal Government allows the State to promote officers and to call out the National Guard is simply part of the lie of the National Guard. By allowing that, it supports the lie so it was an easy thing for the Army to give up.NOT exclusively.
Why is it the state governor can call up the national guard, without the federal government's permission?
Yes, I get it. There's no joy in proving them wrong; the whole intent is for other readers who might come with similar ideas to have the truth provided. In the post I was writing while you posted this, I did remind him that one of the ways I know he was wrong is that I read books.I hope this doesn't deflate your sense of having defeated an equal: that moron bragged about his lack of education:
“I don't need a book to tell me how to think, retards do.”
A Win For Originalism…And America post 29
I always appreciate when the most ignorant admit....or, in his case, brag about how ignorant they are.
All of his posts are to be viewed through the prism of that confession.
The other way was because he was typing and he's always wrong.
Yes, I get it. There's no joy in proving them wrong; the whole intent is for other readers who might come with similar ideas to have the truth provided. In the post I was writing while you posted this, I did remind him that one of the ways I know he was wrong is that I read books.
If he, and the rest of those like him, would actually read books, we wouldn't need these discussions.
I read books from those with whom I mostly agree and I read books from those with whom I don't expect to agree at all. In both cases, sometimes I agree and sometimes I disagree, but that's not the value; the value is that it elevates my own understanding and reasoning and I can make my own conclusions and defend them with my own logic as well as with references from others.
I know; you know all this. I only write it for others reading the thread who might actually be open to increasing their knowledge and understanding. It's rare but I keep hoping.
I'm a self-taught, very successful, IT expert. I have shared how I got to where I am with dozens of people who have wanted to build their own careers and didn't have time or money for college. Of all those I have tried to help, only two that I know of actually took it to heart and did the work requjired to build very successful careers of their own.
I'd tell my story a hundred times if it only helped one or two and it would be very well worth it. Same thing here. Maybe just one, maybe not today, maybe not completely, but still, maybe just one gets a little smarter.
And I have had more than one person tell me that I've increased their understanding and changed their views - not completely, not as much as I might have hoped for, but some. I suspect I've influenced even more but most wouldn't admit it openly; it's a hard thing for some to admit they're wrong.
Really?Everything is forbidden to the Federal Government except for that which is explicitly granted it in the Constitution, idiot. If not from the Constitution, how does the Government get any power at all? Are they born with it? Is it run by people with blue blood?
Are they our masters or are we theirs?
Really?
The National Guard is under dual command, numbnuts.
The federal government and state government.
NO, he can't.yep.
Can the president order the National Guard?
The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a United States federal law that empowers the President of the United States to deploy U.S. military and federalized National Guard troops within the United States in particular circumstances, such as to suppress civil disorder, insurrection, or rebellion. ~ wiki
the buck stopped with trump. he never called them in to protect the congress critters from his flying monkeys.
mike pence had to do it.
The Militia can only be called up by Congress; it can't be permanently called up. The reasons for the Congress to call up the militia are very limited and explicit in the Constitution, no-nuts.Really?
The National Guard is under dual command, numbnuts.
The federal government and state government.
Who , or which states ?Who said zero exceptions?
NO, he can't.
See, once again you do what the left always does. Answering the question I posed to you is impossible so you change the subject." Sanctimonious Anthropocentric Zealots "
" Authoritarians With Uniform Fetish *
Who , or which states ?
Interactive Map: US Abortion Policies and Access After Roe
The abortion landscape is fragmented and increasingly polarized. Many states have abortion restrictions or bans in place that make it difficult, if not impossible, for people to get care. Other states have taken steps to protect abortion rights and access. To help people understand this complex...states.guttmacher.org
Interactive Map: US Abortion Policies and Access After Roe
The abortion landscape is fragmented and increasingly polarized. Many states have abortion restrictions or bans in place that make it difficult, if not impossible, for people to get care. Other states have taken steps to protect abortion rights and access. To help people understand this complex...Interactive Map: US Abortion Policies and Access After Roe
The abortion landscape is fragmented and increasingly polarized. Many states have abortion restrictions or bans in place that make it difficult, if not impossible, for people to get care. Other states have taken steps to protect abortion rights and access. To help people understand this complex...Interactive Map: US Abortion Policies and Access After Roe
The abortion landscape is fragmented and increasingly polarized. Many states have abortion restrictions or bans in place that make it difficult, if not impossible, for people to get care. Other states have taken steps to protect abortion rights and access. To help people understand this complex...Interactive Map: US Abortion Policies and Access After Roe
The abortion landscape is fragmented and increasingly polarized. Many states have abortion restrictions or bans in place that make it difficult, if not impossible, for people to get care. Other states have taken steps to protect abortion rights and access. To help people understand this complex...
The law is unconstitutional. There's no "in danger of" text in the Constitution.according to this, he can:
10 U.S. Code § 12406 - National Guard in Federal service: call
prev | next
Whenever—
(1)
the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;
(2)
there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or
(3)
the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;
the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.
10 U.S. Code § 12406 - National Guard in Federal service: call
See, once again you do what the left always does. Answering the question I posed to you is impossible so you change the subject.
You made the claim that there were people claiming there were zero exceptions to the rule and I simply asked who said that. Who said there are zero exceptions? Not a single one of those states you linked to have a zero exception policy.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/5BZOIZM7GNOIXHYH4LTWPLPCUY.jpg)
www.reuters.com
Garland needs to be impeached. The DOJ is supposed to follow and enforce the law, not make the law. That he is going against the rule of the Supreme Court is literally the scariest thing government of the United States has ever done - short of Secretary of Defense Esper's refusal to follow an order of the President, ending 237 years of civilian rule over the military with the President as Commander-in-Chief." Disingenuous Clown Shoes On Conception "
* States Enact Sedition Against Citizens *
U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland appeared to express support for that position in a statement on the Supreme Court's June 24 ruling, saying that states "may not ban mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA's expert judgment about its safety and efficacy."Explainer: Can abortion pills overcome U.S. state bans?
Following the U.S. Supreme Court's June 24 ruling eliminating the nationwide right to abortion that it had recognized nearly 50 years ago in its landmark Roe v. Wade decision, demand for abortion pills, which can be prescribed through online telemedicine visits, will likely rise. However...
Mississippi has argued that FDA approval cannot overcome the Supreme Court's rulings granting states authority to regulate abortions.
Let us guess , doctor prescription for mifepristone is a license loss and conviction -
SB 612 prohibits the performance of an abortion or attempt to perform an abortion except to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency. Any person convicted of performing or attempting to perform an abortion is guilty of a felony punishable by a fine not to exceed $100,000.00 or a maximum sentence of imprisonment of 10 years, or both.
The measure provides exceptions for prosecution. The provisions of this measure do not authorize the charging or conviction of a woman with any criminal offense in the death of her own unborn child or prohibit the sale, use, prescription or administration of contraceptives. The measure specifies that it is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this act if a physician provides medical treatment to a pregnant woman which results in the accidental or unintentional injury or death to the unborn child.
Supreme court justices need to be arrested for sedition - Equal Protection Of Citizenship Is In A State Of Sedition Because Of Supreme Court Ruling On Abortion .Garland needs to be impeached. The DOJ is supposed to follow and enforce the law, not make the law. That he is going against the rule of the Supreme Court is literally the scariest thing government of the United States has ever done - short of Secretary of Defense Esper's refusal to follow an order of the President, ending 237 years of civilian rule over the military with the President as Commander-in-Chief.
