- Thread starter
- #161
Blah, blah, blah. We are a nation of laws. Without laws, there is no government. Without government, there is anarchist. Which makes you another QAnut anarchist.Who said otherwise? Not me. The Peoples Rights are separate from and above government whims AKA "the force of law".well, the Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal. If the Declaration has the force of law, why was slavery around for another 89 tears?The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are at odds only if you presume that laws (made by government) were intended to trump Rights (of the People) when they clearly were not.So the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are at odds with each. The difference is that the Declaration has no legal authority. It is a DECLARATION of principles. as is the Gettysburg Address.Predates the Constitution:Where does the Constitution say that. It’s filled with provisions giving sole authority to Congress, The Judicaty, and other pats of government. see Article 1, section 3 clause 6 where SOLE POWER to try an impeachment is granted to the Senate, not to the “people”So my questions to you are. Why is it that you hold on to this claim of "stolen elections" when it's been rejected by that entity?No it doesn't, you are right. The way you prove that they were dis(honest) is by putting your case to the test in the only venue that has the constitutional power to grant relief if you dispute the election result. That power lays with the judiciary.Claiming you won an honest election doesn't make it so either.Calling an election you lost fraudulent doesn’t make it so. As is evident by the claims being rejected by the judiciary, the DOJ, the lawyers representing the plaintiff for election disputes (even Powell retracted her case) and now hard-line Conservative "news" outlets like American thinker and OAAN. The only places people insist it happened is the dark reccesses of the internet. If your friends and enemies allnsay the same thing you probably should take notice.You mean by commiting a military coup he would have saved the country? What country are you referring to? Zimbabwe?Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.
Your thoughts?
.
Well, and even though I am on Trump's side here, seems like once someone has served as POTUS he's sort of considered a President for life. I don't agree with it, but the bad guys are gonna take this one to the limits and beyond. I'll even go so far myself as to say Trump brought this on himself in the sense that he could have declared martial law, called up the regular Army, and wiped our government clean of ALL traitors. In the process he might have even avoided a second impeachment trial. Instead he handed our government and all of us right over to the most evil incarnation of US Government in America's history. I won't shed one tear for any demise Trump might meet at the hands of the democrats and traitor republicans. He had the chance to possibly save our civilization and he walked away. Better to die a hero than be drawn and quartered as some kind of half-assed martyr.
The coup attempt was the fraudulent election. Your Zimbabwe was engineered by the democrats and their republican turncoat allies. Our nation was founded in rebellion. To deny that is to deny your own history and national identity.
By the way for someone who doesn't believe in a POTUS for life you seem perfectly content with trying to install one.
The judiciary has ruled overwhelmingly that the election results where valid. Those rulings where done by judges nominated by ALL presidents up until Reagan.
So my questions to you are. Why is it that you hold on to this claim of "stolen elections" when it's been rejected by that entity? Why is it that you hold on to it it when even the AG, hardly a Democrat rejects it? Why is it that you hold on to it even when Trumps own lawyers are hesitant or even unwilling to assert it in court?
That question has been answered repeatedly and the answer remains the same. The judiciary is a branch of government and governments (including the judiciary) are well known to become tyrannical and corrupt. The Founders made it quite clear by word and deed that the people were to be the final judge and that it their Right and duty to alter or replace government if and when needed. Also refusing to hear the evidence is not the same as rejecting. "..of the People, for People, by the People..." The People are speaking. You best listen.
In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
These were the people who made this Country at the risk of their lives through revolt and insurrection against their legitimate government. If that weren't example enough they gave us a Constitution of checks and balances with the people as the ultimate check to balance the government.
the Constitution grants power through a representative form of government. The people’s power is Exercised through voting and through Representation in Congress. When congress acts, they are doing so because they were elected to do just that.
the Declaration does not have the force of law.
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Simple. When if there is no consent there is no just power to the government. That is a founding principle; not a mere law of a government with no just power. Oh the government may still have some physical power with which to intimidate and oppress the people and might even succeed even in suppressing them for a time but a house divided against itself cannot stand indefinitely (also not a law).
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
"...Right of the People..." Right; not law. Laws are whatever a government wants to claim they are. Rights are so very much more and not subject to government approval.
as a people, we adopted and accept the constitution. your rights are defined by the Constitution not an essay in a declaration.
That's not true, seen the 9th amendment.
.