Is This Unconstitutional?

[RKMBrown]

I believe our issues spring from a disagreement over the most basic principles of government.
I personally believe that because any government draws power from the consent and good-will of the people, that the people's direct will supersedes federal law. And this belief is found at the very heart of my proposal.
You no doubt believe governments have the natural right to exist and to have power, so they then supersede the individuals or the masses.

So under my logic and interpretation of government, my proposal is very much legal, whereas your philosophy disregards it completely as crazy.

Once again the PEOPLE surrendered certain things when they agreed to the Constitution. One of them is that Federal law supersedes State and local laws and authority. Acts of Congress and acts of the Executive that are legal under the Constitution are the law of the land. And the Constitution, which the people agreed to, stipulates HOW one challenges Federal law and statute. That is either through another act of Congress or through the Courts.

Your logic is wrong, the people already surrendered the power you are questioning.

So you believe one surrender of power in the belief of a just and somewhat fair government warrants the theft of our rights and freedoms now?

So you believe the myth that we have immutable rights and freedoms?

 

[nodoginnafight]

If a city were to pass a law stating that the federal government loses the ability to monitor its citizens phone calls, records, etc. without a legally signed warrant from a judge, would it be unconstitutional? Or pass laws affecting Freedom of Speech or the 2nd Amendment? IS it unconstitutional for an area lesser than the federal gov't to say, "**** off! We will defend the constitution that gives you power, since you won't. Any agent that appears on our doorstep breaking this law shall be treated as a criminal and charged with corruption, as will any official guilty of obtaining illegal records of our citizens. We will demand anybody guilty be extradited immediately to us for prosecution. Have a nice day and go **** OFF!"

God I hope my city would be ballsy enough to do that. Maybe I should run for City Council in a few years and propose it myself...

Local "time, place, and manner" restrictions have been declared constitutional.

I do like the idea of local restrictions on spying on U.S. citizens.

 

[MaxGrit]

However you try to contrive it, your ‘proposal’ is still un-Constitutional.

Article VI makes it abundantly clear that the Federal Constitution, acts of Congress pursuant to the Constitution, and the rulings by Federal courts are indeed supreme to the states and local jurisdictions.

As has been explained to you correctly several times, if a state or local government believes a Federal law is un-Constitutional, or a resident of a given state or local jurisdiction believes a Federal law is un-Constitutional, they are at liberty to file suit in Federal court to challenge the constitutionality of that law, with the understanding they must abide by the ruling of that Federal court, up to and including the Supreme Court.

I believe our issues spring from a disagreement over the most basic principles of government.
I personally believe that because any government draws power from the consent and good-will of the people, that the people's direct will supersedes federal law. And this belief is found at the very heart of my proposal.
You no doubt believe governments have the natural right to exist and to have power, so they then supersede the individuals or the masses.

So under my logic and interpretation of government, my proposal is very much legal, whereas your philosophy disregards it completely as crazy.

Once again the PEOPLE surrendered certain things when they agreed to the Constitution. One of them is that Federal law supersedes State and local laws and authority. Acts of Congress and acts of the Executive that are legal under the Constitution are the law of the land. And the Constitution, which the people agreed to, stipulates HOW one challenges Federal law and statute. That is either through another act of Congress or through the Courts.

Your logic is wrong, the people already surrendered the power you are questioning.

The people didn't surrender their power to rule. They delegated that power to government, ran by elected representatives that are sworn to faithfully defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

"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"

Oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."


When the nation underwent horrendous bloodshed and violence, a wise man justified,

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

 

[CorvusRexus]

I believe our issues spring from a disagreement over the most basic principles of government.
I personally believe that because any government draws power from the consent and good-will of the people, that the people's direct will supersedes federal law. And this belief is found at the very heart of my proposal.
You no doubt believe governments have the natural right to exist and to have power, so they then supersede the individuals or the masses.

So under my logic and interpretation of government, my proposal is very much legal, whereas your philosophy disregards it completely as crazy.

Once again the PEOPLE surrendered certain things when they agreed to the Constitution. One of them is that Federal law supersedes State and local laws and authority. Acts of Congress and acts of the Executive that are legal under the Constitution are the law of the land. And the Constitution, which the people agreed to, stipulates HOW one challenges Federal law and statute. That is either through another act of Congress or through the Courts.

Your logic is wrong, the people already surrendered the power you are questioning.

The people didn't surrender their power to rule. They delegated that power to government, ran by elected representatives that are sworn to faithfully defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

"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"

Oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."


When the nation underwent horrendous bloodshed and violence, a wise man justified,

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

And the issue comes full circle. The government swears to uphold the Constitution. And if they break it? I believe some have lost sight of the real purpose of this discussion. This is not arbitrarily taking power from the federal government, but defending freedoms with legislation and exercising our right as American citizens to vote.

 

[CorvusRexus]

That won't happen as long as the Government can print/borrow money to appease the peasants with, and that won't end until the almighty dollar crashes and burns, which is coming, BTW. There's no fork in the road ahead, no turning back, anyone shouting a warning, (Glenn Beck) is ridiculed, falsely accused, attacked and destroyed by you Left Wing Progressive, Liberal, Democrats, yeah you, on this site.

Democrats are so much like shit eating dogs, they're not even ashamed of eating shit anymore, just like the dogs they are.
Oh before I leave, I apologize to the Canines of the World, the ones that walk on four legs.

I assume the bolded "you" has nothing to do with me, so...
You are aware the feds only have money to appease the masses with if everyone pays taxes. If such outrage became nation-wide and prevalent in enough areas, the government would have to watch as the people slowly secede, for all intents and purposes.
That is how I predict this will all end up. At first it will be isolated. Towns and small cities here and there refusing to bow. Then other areas taking up the torch and refusing to bow. And it will simply spread until the US government is left with one city v. a country of people who are fed (no pun intended) up with the feds and simply leave. Or kick them out.

Oh brother...I certainly hope the third part of you guys tiresome threesome of revolutionaries is the "smart" one. You and Flake have sat the bar pretty low.

What are you talking about?

 

[CorvusRexus]

Once again the PEOPLE surrendered certain things when they agreed to the Constitution. One of them is that Federal law supersedes State and local laws and authority. Acts of Congress and acts of the Executive that are legal under the Constitution are the law of the land. And the Constitution, which the people agreed to, stipulates HOW one challenges Federal law and statute. That is either through another act of Congress or through the Courts.

Your logic is wrong, the people already surrendered the power you are questioning.

So you believe one surrender of power in the belief of a just and somewhat fair government warrants the theft of our rights and freedoms now?

So you believe the myth that we have immutable rights and freedoms?

I believe it shouldn't be a myth.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I believe our issues spring from a disagreement over the most basic principles of government.
I personally believe that because any government draws power from the consent and good-will of the people, that the people's direct will supersedes federal law. And this belief is found at the very heart of my proposal.
You no doubt believe governments have the natural right to exist and to have power, so they then supersede the individuals or the masses.

So under my logic and interpretation of government, my proposal is very much legal, whereas your philosophy disregards it completely as crazy.

Once again the PEOPLE surrendered certain things when they agreed to the Constitution. One of them is that Federal law supersedes State and local laws and authority. Acts of Congress and acts of the Executive that are legal under the Constitution are the law of the land. And the Constitution, which the people agreed to, stipulates HOW one challenges Federal law and statute. That is either through another act of Congress or through the Courts.

Your logic is wrong, the people already surrendered the power you are questioning.

So you believe one surrender of power in the belief of a just and somewhat fair government warrants the theft of our rights and freedoms now?

“Surrender of power’ is an inaccurate phrase.

Our civil rights are inalienable, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man; but those rights are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by the government (see, e.g., Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984)).

When government seeks to restrict our rights it must meet a very heavy burden – the restriction must be rationally based, it must be supported by objective, documented evidence, it must seek a compelling governmental interest, and it must pursue a propre legislative end. Absent these elements the state will have failed to meet its burden.

It’s the responsibility of the judicial branch of government to determine the constitutionality of laws as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review. When citizens perceive a law to be detrimental to their civil liberties, they may file suit to seek relief in Federal court. The rulings of the Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, are binding upon the states and local jurisdictions.

This is the essence and genius of our Constitutional Republic, where citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly.

 

[CorvusRexus]

Once again the PEOPLE surrendered certain things when they agreed to the Constitution. One of them is that Federal law supersedes State and local laws and authority. Acts of Congress and acts of the Executive that are legal under the Constitution are the law of the land. And the Constitution, which the people agreed to, stipulates HOW one challenges Federal law and statute. That is either through another act of Congress or through the Courts.

Your logic is wrong, the people already surrendered the power you are questioning.

So you believe one surrender of power in the belief of a just and somewhat fair government warrants the theft of our rights and freedoms now?

“Surrender of power’ is an inaccurate phrase.

Our civil rights are inalienable, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man; but those rights are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by the government (see, e.g., Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984)).

When government seeks to restrict our rights it must meet a very heavy burden – the restriction must be rationally based, it must be supported by objective, documented evidence, it must seek a compelling governmental interest, and it must pursue a propre legislative end. Absent these elements the state will have failed to meet its burden.

It’s the responsibility of the judicial branch of government to determine the constitutionality of laws as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review. When citizens perceive a law to be detrimental to their civil liberties, they may file suit to seek relief in Federal court. The rulings of the Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, are binding upon the states and local jurisdictions.

This is the essence and genius of our Constitutional Republic, where citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly.

Yet this infallible law states that men must carry it out. Opportunistic, conniving, greedy, rich, selfish, out-of-touch men. Just because a law is infallible does not mean what is done under it is.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If a city were to pass a law stating that the federal government loses the ability to monitor its citizens phone calls, records, etc. without a legally signed warrant from a judge, would it be unconstitutional? Or pass laws affecting Freedom of Speech or the 2nd Amendment? IS it unconstitutional for an area lesser than the federal gov't to say, "**** off! We will defend the constitution that gives you power, since you won't. Any agent that appears on our doorstep breaking this law shall be treated as a criminal and charged with corruption, as will any official guilty of obtaining illegal records of our citizens. We will demand anybody guilty be extradited immediately to us for prosecution. Have a nice day and go **** OFF!"

God I hope my city would be ballsy enough to do that. Maybe I should run for City Council in a few years and propose it myself...

Local authorities have no arrest power over federal authorities. They can arrest Federal employees of any bureau or section but they can not legally arrest Law enforcement or Government officials exercising what is a Federal law or statute. In other words Federal law trumps State and local law.

The recourse would be to take it to court and have a Federal Court agree the Local or State law was legal and that the federal law was not.

Now hang on a minute.\The Supremacy Clause applies only when there exists a federal law...
For example. The federal law banning wagering on sports contests.
4 states, Nevada, Delaware, Oregon and Montana are exempt. Because those states had existing legislation permitting wagering on sports contests( pari mutuel wagering is excluded) those states are grandfathered in...
In this case existing state law could not be trumped by federal law.
Now, one might ask about the age at which one may take alcoholic beverages. The federal government made it very clear it wanted booze out of the High Schools.
While "21" is not a federal law, the reason why all 50 states raised the legal age from either 18 or 19 is due to threats of the loss of federal highway dollars.
That is how Washington was able to bring all 50 states in line
One more. When Nixon Issued an executive order mandating a 55 mph limit it was seen as a fuel consumption issue. Later, Congress made the law permanent. Congress was able to do this because while some states had a "state speed limit" many of their limited access roads had speed limits higher than the "official state limit"...The federal government used its power granted to it under the Supremacy Clause to mandate the limit.
It was only until 1995 when Congress repealed the limit that states could once again set their own speed limits.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I'm sorry... Are you asking if a state can make an already illegal activity illegal?

No he is asking if a State or local authority can supersede Federal laws.

I think municipalities may exceed federal law. In other words, abide by the existing federal law, but take it one or more steps further.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm sorry... Are you asking if a state can make an already illegal activity illegal?

No he is asking if a State or local authority can supersede Federal laws.

I think municipalities may exceed federal law. In other words, abide by the existing federal law, but take it one or more steps further.

Of course a State or local authority can be more stringent then a Federal law depending on what is meant by that. That means they are still enforcing the federal law and not attempting to supersede it.

 

[longly]

No, cities are not even sovereign governments; they are municipal corporations chartered
by the states.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No, cities are not even sovereign governments; they are municipal corporations chartered
by the states.

They can and do pass ordinances that have the effect of law.

 

[MaxGrit]

So you believe one surrender of power in the belief of a just and somewhat fair government warrants the theft of our rights and freedoms now?

“Surrender of power’ is an inaccurate phrase.

Our civil rights are inalienable, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man; but those rights are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by the government (see, e.g., Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984)).

When government seeks to restrict our rights it must meet a very heavy burden – the restriction must be rationally based, it must be supported by objective, documented evidence, it must seek a compelling governmental interest, and it must pursue a propre legislative end. Absent these elements the state will have failed to meet its burden.

It’s the responsibility of the judicial branch of government to determine the constitutionality of laws as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review. When citizens perceive a law to be detrimental to their civil liberties, they may file suit to seek relief in Federal court. The rulings of the Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, are binding upon the states and local jurisdictions.

This is the essence and genius of our Constitutional Republic, where citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly.

Yet this infallible law states that men must carry it out. Opportunistic, conniving, greedy, rich, selfish, out-of-touch men. Just because a law is infallible does not mean what is done under it is.

As citizens of the USA, we hold with highest regards the US Constitution as the Supreme law of the Land.

Unconstitutional laws, by their very nature, are not legal laws. In effect, they are automatically voided. Citizens have no civic duty to obey unconstitutional laws. Additionally, if we truly believe that a law is in violation with the US Constitution, it is our civic duty to not obey that illegal law.

Citizens have many non-exclusive options when this happens. Some examples of options:

1) Sue in Federal Courts
2) Civil disobedience
3) Jury nullification
4) Organized Protests
5) Push for New Federal Legislation
6) Push for New State Legislation
7) Push for New Local Legislation

 

[RKMBrown]

“Surrender of power’ is an inaccurate phrase.

Our civil rights are inalienable, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man; but those rights are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by the government (see, e.g., Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984)).

When government seeks to restrict our rights it must meet a very heavy burden – the restriction must be rationally based, it must be supported by objective, documented evidence, it must seek a compelling governmental interest, and it must pursue a propre legislative end. Absent these elements the state will have failed to meet its burden.

It’s the responsibility of the judicial branch of government to determine the constitutionality of laws as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review. When citizens perceive a law to be detrimental to their civil liberties, they may file suit to seek relief in Federal court. The rulings of the Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, are binding upon the states and local jurisdictions.

This is the essence and genius of our Constitutional Republic, where citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly.

Yet this infallible law states that men must carry it out. Opportunistic, conniving, greedy, rich, selfish, out-of-touch men. Just because a law is infallible does not mean what is done under it is.

As citizens of the USA, we hold with highest regards the US Constitution as the Supreme law of the Land.

Unconstitutional laws, by their very nature, are not legal laws. In effect, they are automatically voided. Citizens have no civic duty to obey unconstitutional laws. Additionally, if we truly believe that a law is in violation with the US Constitution, it is our civic duty to not obey that illegal law.

Citizens have many non-exclusive options when this happens. Some examples of options:

1) Sue in Federal Courts
2) Civil disobedience
3) Jury nullification
4) Organized Protests
5) Push for New Federal Legislation
6) Push for New State Legislation
7) Push for New Local Legislation

All moot. We already live in a police state, see unpatriot act.

The post civil war amendments amounted to a slow but complete nullification of all civil rights at the whim of duly elected federal government officials. They can tax 100% of our income, they can take 100% of our assets, they can take our life and liberty for any damn reason they feel like as long as it passes both houses and the president signs it. First amendment... not if the FCC says no, not if it's in a publicly owned facility, which your home will soon be. Second amendment, yeah you have to pay for that right and no one but the very rich and powerful will have it as time unfolds (see how much it costs for auto fire already this is being expanded even to ammo). Third amendment... yeah pick your national emergency excuse. Fourth Amendment, gone. Fifth Amendment, gone. Sixth Amendment, gone. Seventh Amendment, gone. Eighth Amendment, gone. Ninth Amendment, gone and forgotten. Tenth Amendment, made a toothless joke.

 

[candycorn]

I assume the bolded "you" has nothing to do with me, so...
You are aware the feds only have money to appease the masses with if everyone pays taxes. If such outrage became nation-wide and prevalent in enough areas, the government would have to watch as the people slowly secede, for all intents and purposes.
That is how I predict this will all end up. At first it will be isolated. Towns and small cities here and there refusing to bow. Then other areas taking up the torch and refusing to bow. And it will simply spread until the US government is left with one city v. a country of people who are fed (no pun intended) up with the feds and simply leave. Or kick them out.

Oh brother...I certainly hope the third part of you guys tiresome threesome of revolutionaries is the "smart" one. You and Flake have sat the bar pretty low.

What are you talking about?

That "other guy" Drake_Roberts you were inquiring about often boasted that there were actually 3 people using the same handle. Both of your pitiful attempts at logic and silly "what if" strategies leads me to believe you're either Flake or the 2nd part of the trio...thus my post that I sincerely hope the 3rd loser is the "brains" of the outfit.

 

[CorvusRexus]

“Surrender of power’ is an inaccurate phrase.

Our civil rights are inalienable, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man; but those rights are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by the government (see, e.g., Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984)).

When government seeks to restrict our rights it must meet a very heavy burden – the restriction must be rationally based, it must be supported by objective, documented evidence, it must seek a compelling governmental interest, and it must pursue a propre legislative end. Absent these elements the state will have failed to meet its burden.

It’s the responsibility of the judicial branch of government to determine the constitutionality of laws as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review. When citizens perceive a law to be detrimental to their civil liberties, they may file suit to seek relief in Federal court. The rulings of the Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, are binding upon the states and local jurisdictions.

This is the essence and genius of our Constitutional Republic, where citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly.

Yet this infallible law states that men must carry it out. Opportunistic, conniving, greedy, rich, selfish, out-of-touch men. Just because a law is infallible does not mean what is done under it is.

As citizens of the USA, we hold with highest regards the US Constitution as the Supreme law of the Land.

Unconstitutional laws, by their very nature, are not legal laws. In effect, they are automatically voided. Citizens have no civic duty to obey unconstitutional laws. Additionally, if we truly believe that a law is in violation with the US Constitution, it is our civic duty to not obey that illegal law.

Citizens have many non-exclusive options when this happens. Some examples of options:

1) Sue in Federal Courts
2) Civil disobedience
3) Jury nullification
4) Organized Protests
5) Push for New Federal Legislation
6) Push for New State Legislation
7) Push for New Local Legislation

Notice, I am advocating 2, 4, 6, and 7.

 

[CorvusRexus]

Oh brother...I certainly hope the third part of you guys tiresome threesome of revolutionaries is the "smart" one. You and Flake have sat the bar pretty low.

What are you talking about?

That "other guy" Drake_Roberts you were inquiring about often boasted that there were actually 3 people using the same handle. Both of your pitiful attempts at logic and silly "what if" strategies leads me to believe you're either Flake or the 2nd part of the trio...thus my post that I sincerely hope the 3rd loser is the "brains" of the outfit.

Ohhhhh. Drake-Flake. I get it now. I think I should draw your attention to one major difference between myself and Drake_Roberts. I am advocating voting and peaceful change, not outright irrational and doomed attempts at beating the US through violence while causing the potential death of millions.

 

[Votto]

If a city were to pass a law stating that the federal government loses the ability to monitor its citizens phone calls, records, etc. without a legally signed warrant from a judge, would it be unconstitutional? Or pass laws affecting Freedom of Speech or the 2nd Amendment? IS it unconstitutional for an area lesser than the federal gov't to say, "**** off! We will defend the constitution that gives you power, since you won't. Any agent that appears on our doorstep breaking this law shall be treated as a criminal and charged with corruption, as will any official guilty of obtaining illegal records of our citizens. We will demand anybody guilty be extradited immediately to us for prosecution. Have a nice day and go **** OFF!"

God I hope my city would be ballsy enough to do that. Maybe I should run for City Council in a few years and propose it myself...

It is Unconstitutional ONLY until Judge Roberts declares it a tax, then it's all good.

 

[candycorn]

What are you talking about?

That "other guy" Drake_Roberts you were inquiring about often boasted that there were actually 3 people using the same handle. Both of your pitiful attempts at logic and silly "what if" strategies leads me to believe you're either Flake or the 2nd part of the trio...thus my post that I sincerely hope the 3rd loser is the "brains" of the outfit.

Ohhhhh. Drake-Flake. I get it now. I think I should draw your attention to one major difference between myself and Drake_Roberts. I am advocating voting and peaceful change, not outright irrational and doomed attempts at beating the US through violence while causing the potential death of millions.

You two are the same person, no?