CDZ Liberty

[Porter Rockwell]

So you're advocating censorship for the unorganized militia? Take away their First Amendment Rights?

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when it is about the security of our free States or the Union.

This is not about the Bill of Rights, danielpalos. This isn't even about the Constitution per se. It is about Liberty. Focus.

You have the liberty to not be a bigot. Why does anyone do it?

Are you a bigot? Does that explain your repetitive posts?

lol. Only if i resort to fallacy to claim i am right.

I wonder if there's anybody on this board that can tell me what you just said.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The right wing struggles with understanding the Constitution, the left - as you have proven - hates, loathes, and despises the Constitution. You showed us that by bitching about the unorganized militia having those First Amendment Rights you're so intolerant of.

lol. Anybody talk or type. You need valid arguments to make sense.

Our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job at the Convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. There is nothing ambiguous about it.

You are the only ambiguity here. Do you have anything to add to the topic of Liberty? If not, I may have to start ignoring your feeble attempts to derail the thread.

You confuse seeking clarification for trolling.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. Is that liberty?

If there is no appeal, then why do you spend your life doing it? Are you admitting that you're ignorant? WTF that does that even mean?

Why do you despise Liberty?

You claim i do it with nothing but fallacy. Do you despise sublime Truth (value) discoverable through argumentation?

So you have a monopoly on "sublimeTruth" and only by arguing with you will I discover the great wisdom you possess over mankind? Sounds like a mind fuck to me.

 

[Gdjjr]

Wow- 530 views and only 81 replies- SMH

 

[CWayne]

I would never consider myself to have Liberty when the government is trying to run my life by taking my money and giving it away to other people and then trying to control everything I do like owning firearms or or having free speech.

For instance, I think it is robbing me of my Liberty by having the 1964 Civil Rights law. Why can't I hire, fire or sell my house to whoever I want? Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government put restrictions on me to not be able to discriminate to my heart's content?

Is it a 'Right' for you to hire, fire, or sell your house to whoever you want?

Certainly it isn't a right spelled out in the Constitution. This is where the concept of inherent rights gets wobbly- because you and I may disagree on what is an inherent right.

Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government tell me I have to stop for a red light? Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government tell me I can't dump toxic pesticides in the river that runs through my property? Why does the filthy friggin oppressive government tell me I can't bribe foreign officials for my business's benefit?

Or perhaps onto more hotly debated issues: why does the filthy friggin oppressive government tell me that I can't buy contraceptives(which was the case until the Supreme Court ended that)? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell a woman she can't have an abortion? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell me that I can't own and use explosives in my home in a city? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell someone that they can't burn the American flag?

The government can "tell" you a lot of things. They may have the power to pass unconstitutional laws, but even the United States Supreme Court has opined that you do not have to obey unconstitutional laws:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Interesting.

So, some 350+ million people get to decide what is a valid law and what is not?

I find these kinds of circular arguments a bit tiring, but let me ask you directly.

Who decides which law in unconstitutional and invalid?

According to the founders / framers, the final decision lies with the people. If the courts become tyrannical and opposed to the concept of Liberty, do you think we're required to submit to a yoke of slavery?

So who will make the determination if 100 million believe it is constitutional, 100 million don't, and the rest don't care?

 

[Gdjjr]

So who will make the determination if 100 million believe it is constitutional, 100 million don't, and the rest don't care?

It makes all the difference in the world for the preservation of it.

 

[Flash]

[

So who will make the determination if 100 million believe it is constitutional, 100 million don't, and the rest don't care?

You mean like if 100 million yahoos says it is OK to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms then we should just ignore the Bill of Rights?

The Bill of Rights suppose to be an ironclad protection for individual rights that the majority can't vote away.

 

[Gdjjr]

[

So who will make the determination if 100 million believe it is constitutional, 100 million don't, and the rest don't care?

You mean like if 100 million yahoos says it is OK to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms then we should just ignore the Bill of Rights?

The Bill of Rights suppose to be an ironclad protection for individual rights that the majority can't vote away.

He means it's ok to oppose free speech and refuses any analogy.

 

[CWayne]

I would never consider myself to have Liberty when the government is trying to run my life by taking my money and giving it away to other people and then trying to control everything I do like owning firearms or or having free speech.

For instance, I think it is robbing me of my Liberty by having the 1964 Civil Rights law. Why can't I hire, fire or sell my house to whoever I want? Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government put restrictions on me to not be able to discriminate to my heart's content?

Is it a 'Right' for you to hire, fire, or sell your house to whoever you want?

Certainly it isn't a right spelled out in the Constitution. This is where the concept of inherent rights gets wobbly- because you and I may disagree on what is an inherent right.

Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government tell me I have to stop for a red light? Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government tell me I can't dump toxic pesticides in the river that runs through my property? Why does the filthy friggin oppressive government tell me I can't bribe foreign officials for my business's benefit?

Or perhaps onto more hotly debated issues: why does the filthy friggin oppressive government tell me that I can't buy contraceptives(which was the case until the Supreme Court ended that)? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell a woman she can't have an abortion? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell me that I can't own and use explosives in my home in a city? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell someone that they can't burn the American flag?

The government can "tell" you a lot of things. They may have the power to pass unconstitutional laws, but even the United States Supreme Court has opined that you do not have to obey unconstitutional laws:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Interesting.

So, some 350+ million people get to decide what is a valid law and what is not?

I find these kinds of circular arguments a bit tiring, but let me ask you directly.

Who decides which law in unconstitutional and invalid?

According to the founders / framers, the final decision lies with the people. If the courts become tyrannical and opposed to the concept of Liberty, do you think we're required to submit to a yoke of slavery?

So, you go right to the final solution. Revolution.

After all, it is the duty of every citizen to overthrow their government when the government becomes tyrannical.

That works if you can get enough followers.

In the absence of having enough people to agree with you, and in the absence of a government ruling that the law they clearly want is Constitutional (regardless of your own personal beliefs), what recourse do you or does anyone have?

The bottome line, why is it that you are correct while millions disagree?

 

[CWayne]

So who will make the determination if 100 million believe it is constitutional, 100 million don't, and the rest don't care?

It makes all the difference in the world for the preservation of it.

What does? if there is no clear consensus to a law's constitutionality, who determines if you can or cannot obey this law?

Consider that if they rule against you, you WILL answer for violating the law regardless if you believe it is Constitutional or not.

 

[Gdjjr]

what recourse do you or does anyone have?

The bottome line, why is it that you are correct while millions disagree?

Come and take it- might doesn't make right.

 

[sparky]

Today I found myself locked out of a thread here after a poster made a false accusation about me

Unfortunate so many threads end with some rabid radical complaining to the mods about someone they feel is disagreeable to them

so what this board needs is a thread about Liberty.

grand....

If I have your attention and if this generates any interest, I'd like to explore this since both the left and right; conservative and liberal; Democrat and Republican appear to be after one group or another's Rights.

well it shouldn't be a partisan issue, albeit many will move it towards their own bias

The Bill of Rights does not create Rights; it guarantees existing ones

So....granted from the Almighty?

When our forefathers came to these shores, they are what is known as immigrants.

My family included....

So, did Liberty apply to all men?

Nope, sorry but, not even at it's inception....
~S~

 

[CWayne]

[

So who will make the determination if 100 million believe it is constitutional, 100 million don't, and the rest don't care?

You mean like if 100 million yahoos says it is OK to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms then we should just ignore the Bill of Rights?

The Bill of Rights suppose to be an ironclad protection for individual rights that the majority can't vote away.

How is it ironclad when those who hold power think that the right to bear arms is a privilege granted by the government?

 

[Gdjjr]

What does? if there is no clear consensus to a law's constitutionality, who determines if you can or cannot obey this law?

Consider that if they rule against you, you WILL answer for violating the law regardless if you believe it is Constitutional or not

Can or cannot doesn't apply. Will or won't is the correct wording.
There used to be a saying in Texas- you may beat the rap but you're gonna take the ride- I'd rather die defending rights than living under an idiot controlled society which is what you obviously prefer.

 

[CWayne]

what recourse do you or does anyone have?

The bottome line, why is it that you are correct while millions disagree?

Come and take it- might doesn't make right.

Of course, but might ALWAYS make right. Or, if you prefer, the winners always right the history.

The question isn't really who is right or wrong. The question of liberty, as has always been the case throughout history, is determined by courage and willingness of the oppressed to fight back; to the extent of their very lives and sacred honor.

I have problems with this kind of argument because it inevitably revolves around people like the OP who think that their interpretation of Liberty and freedom is the ONLY correct one.

I can assure you, and him, that it is not.

 

[Gdjjr]

So....granted from the Almighty?

No, they are inherent.

Nope, sorry but, not even at it's inception....

Yep- all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights, among these are the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats or boundaries- though, arguably, this Country was founded to protect those rights here-

 

[CWayne]

What does? if there is no clear consensus to a law's constitutionality, who determines if you can or cannot obey this law?

Consider that if they rule against you, you WILL answer for violating the law regardless if you believe it is Constitutional or not

Can or cannot doesn't apply. Will or won't is the correct wording.
There used to be a saying in Texas- you may beat the rap but you're gonna take the ride- I'd rather die defending rights than living under an idiot controlled society which is what you obviously prefer.

This reply is a prime example of what I am talking about.

I too would rather die than submit. But you have determined that My playing devil's advocate and forcing you to acknowledge that yours may not be the correct interpretation means you have the right to pigeon-hole me into a slot that I am willing to accept government tyranny over liberty.

This is why I question people like you and the OP. YOURS is NOT the only interpretation, nor is it ALWAYS the correct one.

 

[sparky]

what recourse do you or does anyone have?

The bottome line, why is it that you are correct while millions disagree?

Come and take it- might doesn't make right.

First they came for the partisans, people who base all their faith in what , for all appearances is, a democratic republic. But each and every election has shown us only two choices, which out of 1/3 billion citizens is not only much of a choice to begin with, but choices that are lobbyied so relentlessly by concentrated wealth that they are essentially, after the rethoric is stripped off, the same choice.


Yet the general populance historically venting their discontent via huge party swings, has been repeatedly subjected of late to a stymied efficy mired in broken campaign promises of change equating to a new spin on old problems with the same undertones of collusion.


But we did not speak, because our superficial political mentality crippled us from delving into the magnitude of detail following the $$$$


Next they came for clarity and transparency, obfuscating every law, parlaying every bill into extraneous legalese , much to the benefit of special interest inclusions , to be presented to a legislature for 11th hour votes, with little to no time for detailed reflection . One of our shining examples are our tax codes, which has evolved into a specialty service for the upper echelon with more hidey holes than dones has pills, while the servant class continues it's generic H&R block fare


Despite the growing disparity, the tax nazi's came for the little guy next, fueled by neighbor v. lifeboat neighbor's discontent that a small crumb from the ruling class might go undetected , while the simple fact that wall street socialism for the rich / capitilism for the rest of us would result in spending the next generation into debt flew right over their heads

But we did not speak, because we idolized greed, and worshiped mammon


Next they came for our freedoms, all with Orwellian twists like free speech zone, patriot act, employee free choice act, literally changing the meaning of words by degree....all goaded on by jingoists who were more than willing to have their fellow lifeboaters walk the gangplank , for a pat on the head & a little security

But we did not speak , and gave up innocence until proven guilty , despite those freedoms being paid for in blood


Next they came for Lady Justice, polluting our system of liberty for one and all equally by introducing celebrity justice's deeper pockets , media mayhem, and further appointing judicals for the sake of ideology than integrity. But we did not speak , because we accepted hollywoods moral bankruptcy, and thus became as blind as lady justice herself to our own fundamentals


Next they came for our jobs, claiming the trickle down effect of outsourcing would eventually benefit the collective, which reduced a healthy producer nation to a consumer nation. The result of prostituting a third world working force's view of America and Americans creating a wot backlash inversely proportional to the torch of freedom our fathers and grandfathers presented them with. And now our nation's dollar may fall from being a benchmark in the global fiat's monetary consortium via the IMF's SDR. But we did not speak because as this occurred they focused our attentions on the immigrants stealing our jobs


Next they came for our homes, yet despite predatory lending practices of our fiscal institutions, they threw us to the sharks claiming our inability to keep up due to living lavish wanton lifestyles beyond our means. But we did not speak because keeping up with the Jones's was what we were social engineered to do


Next they came for our kids, moving the educational goal posts making them less competitive in a market with less opportunity, subjecting them to a war on drugs with extreme police state implementations that no sane country has. But we did not speak, because we were perfect children raised without such strife


Next they came for our seniors, who after being subjected to our pharmacabal's consistent influence, would systematically be drained of all their assets and packed off into their own tidy scuttle to meet their ends. But we did not speak, because walton mountain is merely the nuclear families deferred entertainment now


Next they changed the labels, radicalizing terms like conservative, liberal, christian and jew or muslim so that each would view the other with contempt. But we did not speak because it was simply easier to turn one's back on a brother, than to address the institutionalizing of misathropic mannerism where a patriot can love his country and hate half the people in it


And so it seems we are really at war with ourselves now, a balkanized homogonized citizenry adrift in what was once a country that could achieve a collective direction. So when they come for those of us left in this raft of straw, who will be left to speak for us?


~S~

 

[sparky]

No, they are inherent.

I'm born with them?

~S~

 

[CWayne]

No, they are inherent.

I'm born with them?

~S~

Yes. However, it is up to you to keep them.

 

[Gdjjr]

what recourse do you or does anyone have?

The bottome line, why is it that you are correct while millions disagree?

Come and take it- might doesn't make right.

First they came for the partisans, people who base all their faith in what , for all appearances is, a democratic republic. But each and every election has shown us only two choices, which out of 1/3 billion citizens is not only much of a choice to begin with, but choices that are lobbyied so relentlessly by concentrated wealth that they are essentially, after the rethoric is stripped off, the same choice.


Yet the general populance historically venting their discontent via huge party swings, has been repeatedly subjected of late to a stymied efficy mired in broken campaign promises of change equating to a new spin on old problems with the same undertones of collusion.


But we did not speak, because our superficial political mentality crippled us from delving into the magnitude of detail following the $$$$


Next they came for clarity and transparency, obfuscating every law, parlaying every bill into extraneous legalese , much to the benefit of special interest inclusions , to be presented to a legislature for 11th hour votes, with little to no time for detailed reflection . One of our shining examples are our tax codes, which has evolved into a specialty service for the upper echelon with more hidey holes than dones has pills, while the servant class continues it's generic H&R block fare


Despite the growing disparity, the tax nazi's came for the little guy next, fueled by neighbor v. lifeboat neighbor's discontent that a small crumb from the ruling class might go undetected , while the simple fact that wall street socialism for the rich / capitilism for the rest of us would result in spending the next generation into debt flew right over their heads

But we did not speak, because we idolized greed, and worshiped mammon


Next they came for our freedoms, all with Orwellian twists like free speech zone, patriot act, employee free choice act, literally changing the meaning of words by degree....all goaded on by jingoists who were more than willing to have their fellow lifeboaters walk the gangplank , for a pat on the head & a little security

But we did not speak , and gave up innocence until proven guilty , despite those freedoms being paid for in blood


Next they came for Lady Justice, polluting our system of liberty for one and all equally by introducing celebrity justice's deeper pockets , media mayhem, and further appointing judicals for the sake of ideology than integrity. But we did not speak , because we accepted hollywoods moral bankruptcy, and thus became as blind as lady justice herself to our own fundamentals


Next they came for our jobs, claiming the trickle down effect of outsourcing would eventually benefit the collective, which reduced a healthy producer nation to a consumer nation. The result of prostituting a third world working force's view of America and Americans creating a wot backlash inversely proportional to the torch of freedom our fathers and grandfathers presented them with. And now our nation's dollar may fall from being a benchmark in the global fiat's monetary consortium via the IMF's SDR. But we did not speak because as this occurred they focused our attentions on the immigrants stealing our jobs


Next they came for our homes, yet despite predatory lending practices of our fiscal institutions, they threw us to the sharks claiming our inability to keep up due to living lavish wanton lifestyles beyond our means. But we did not speak because keeping up with the Jones's was what we were social engineered to do


Next they came for our kids, moving the educational goal posts making them less competitive in a market with less opportunity, subjecting them to a war on drugs with extreme police state implementations that no sane country has. But we did not speak, because we were perfect children raised without such strife


Next they came for our seniors, who after being subjected to our pharmacabal's consistent influence, would systematically be drained of all their assets and packed off into their own tidy scuttle to meet their ends. But we did not speak, because walton mountain is merely the nuclear families deferred entertainment now


Next they changed the labels, radicalizing terms like conservative, liberal, christian and jew or muslim so that each would view the other with contempt. But we did not speak because it was simply easier to turn one's back on a brother, than to address the institutionalizing of misathropic mannerism where a patriot can love his country and hate half the people in it


And so it seems we are really at war with ourselves now, a balkanized homogonized citizenry adrift in what was once a country that could achieve a collective direction. So when they come for those of us left in this raft of straw, who will be left to speak for us?


~S~

You put some thought into that- it deserves applause!