We must restore constitutional government

[CrusaderFrank]

The people tasked with enforcing our laws are the same people violating our most important laws....

Beyond the controversial ways stingray technology works, the secrecy and deception law enforcement agencies use to cloak their use of the devices is also troubling. Law enforcement agencies around the country have routinely used the devices without obtaining a warrant from judges. In cases where they did obtain a warrant, they often deceived judges about the nature of the technology they planned to use. Instead of telling judges that they intended to use a stingray or cell site simulator, they have often mischaracterized the technology, describing it as a pen register device instead.

Hacker Lexicon: Stingrays, the Spy Tool the Government Tried, and Failed, to Hide

Comey walks. Welcome to America 2.0

 

[dudmuck]

Article I, Section 8, which states that “Congress shall have Power to…establish Post Offices and Post Roads.”

Oh snowflake....a subway doesn't even remotely resemble a "post road". Would you like to try again?

There was a 1907 supreme court case Wilson v. Shaw with roots from the commerce clause. This then allowed the 1916 federal road aid act. Then in 1956 was amended for highways.

 

[P@triot]

Oh, and, BTW, the Federal government probably looks unfavorably upon citizens calling for the forcible overthrow of State governments.

Oh...and BTW...that's only the case for federal employees who are ignorant of history and the Declaration of Independence. You know...people like you!

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Think of the irony of an "American" (which you can't really call a leftist an American any more) complaining about American citizens doing exactly what was done to build America and what was called for by American founders.

There could be nothing more American than the American people forcefully removing the governor and state legislature of Oregon considering both parties have egregiously violated the U.S. Constitution and in doing so, "reduced" Oregonians "under absolute despotism".

 

[regent]

FDR believed having a job and working was one of the most one of the most parts in combatting the Great Depression.

FDR also believed in abusing power, violating the U.S. Constitution, lying to the American people, and that there was absolutely no place in government for unions.

Yep, that's why the American people elected him four times in a row, and historians have named FDR America's greatest president. Unions took hold during the New Deal.

 

[Kondor3]

Oh, and, BTW, the Federal government probably looks unfavorably upon citizens calling for the forcible overthrow of State governments.

Oh...and BTW...that's only the case for federal employees who are ignorant of history and the Declaration of Independence. You know...people like you!

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Think of the irony of an "American" (which you can't really call a leftist an American any more) complaining about American citizens doing exactly what was done to build America and what was called for by American founders.

There could be nothing more American than the American people forcefully removing the governor and state legislature of Oregon considering both parties have egregiously violated the U.S. Constitution and in doing so, "reduced" Oregonians "under absolute despotism".

References to 'throwing off' such Government refers to the national government, not an individual State government within an otherwise functioning Federal system.

But you go right ahead and keep clamoring for the violent overthrow of a State government and its elected officials and see where that gets you, lightweight.

 

[whitehall]

Who the hell is Kim Zetter? First we have to tackle the easy stuff like the attempted political coup of a President by high ranking FBI agents (and possibly the CIA) and then we can address Ms (or MR.) Zetter's breathless concern about the "Stingray Spy Tool".

 

[P@triot]

There was a 1907 supreme court case Wilson v. Shaw with roots from the commerce clause.

That's great. Doesn't change a thing. The U.S. Supreme Court has absolutely no power to alter the U.S. Constitution and "Wilson vs. Shaw" isn't a clause in the U.S. Constitution.

Next?

 

[P@triot]

References to 'throwing off' such Government refers to the national government, not an individual State government within an otherwise functioning Federal system

It does no such thing, snowflake. Please don't pretend to know about the Declaration of Independence (or any of the founding documents). You clearly don't. It says plain as day "government". It does not say "national government". You lose. As always.

 

[P@triot]

Yep, that's why the American people elected him four times in a row...

Wow...what an "achievement". George Washington would have been re-elected 40 times in a row. Here, allow us to enlighten you yet again:

“Reason and experience tell us that the first magistrate will always be reelected if he may be reelected. He is then an officer for life". –Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Madison in 1787

But Washington wasn't a power-hungry asshole. That's what Democrats are. Washington stepped down on his own - despite the nation begging him to stay - stating "I didn't not fight to replace one king with another".

 

[P@triot]

 

[Kondor3]

References to 'throwing off' such Government refers to the national government, not an individual State government within an otherwise functioning Federal system

It does no such thing, snowflake. Please don't pretend to know about the Declaration of Independence (or any of the founding documents). You clearly don't. It says plain as day "government". It does not say "national government". You lose. As always.

It's implicit, given that the various States are part of a single, indissoluable union, lightweight. The trouble with you binary-choice types is that you can't make-out the fine print.

 

[dudmuck]

There was a 1907 supreme court case Wilson v. Shaw with roots from the commerce clause.

That's great. Doesn't change a thing. The U.S. Supreme Court has absolutely no power to alter the U.S. Constitution and "Wilson vs. Shaw" isn't a clause in the U.S. Constitution.

Next?

The supreme court interprets the constitution, and they said that the commerce clause allows congress to construct federal highways.

The result was the 1916 Federal Road Aid Act.

 

[P@triot]

It's implicit, given that the various States are part of a single, indissoluable union, lightweight. The trouble with you binary-choice types is that you can't make-out the fine print.

Man alive, where do I even being with this one?

"Indissoluable"? Seriously? That's not even a word, genius.

Furthermore, each state is an independent state, united in 18 specific issues only. You would know that if you hadn't chosen to be willfully ignorant (as is the way with the left). Trying studying some original documents some time. Try reading about the founders. Good grief. It's painful having to educate you a dozen times per day.

 

[P@triot]

The supreme court interprets the constitution, and they said that the commerce clause allows congress to construct federal highways.

Really? Please cite the article and section of the U.S. Constitution that grants the U.S. Supreme Court the power to interpret the U.S. Constitution itself.

Don't worry. I'll wait.

 

[P@triot]

Another huge win for the U.S. Constitution and personal liberty!!!

Ruling in Minnesota Wedding Videographers’ Case Favors First Amendment

 

[Kondor3]

...Furthermore, each state is an independent state, united in 18 specific issues only. You would know that if you hadn't chosen to be willfully ignorant (as is the way with the left). Trying studying some original documents some time. Try reading about the founders. Good grief. It's painful having to educate you a dozen times per day.

You tell 'em, Sparky.

If you really and truly believe that each state is independent in actual practice, I've got this bridge in Brooklyn that you need to take look at...

The relationship between the Union and its constituent States was settled in 1865...

Consequently, a forcible attack upon on State is an attack upon all fifty States...

But we can forgive impractical, blinkered Binary Choices types such as yourself for not understanding the subtleties and practicalities at work here... that's above your pay-grade.

Having trouble selling your Confederation of States preliminaries to folks outside your own political sphere, are ya?

The Federal model is extant and will remain so, at the pleasure and will of The People.

Mess with that, forcibly, and the rest of us are gonna buy tickets and popcorn while the Federales burn your ass down to the ground.

-------------

Time to let this thread die-out...

 

[danielpalos]

Another huge win for the U.S. Constitution and personal liberty!!!

Ruling in Minnesota Wedding Videographers’ Case Favors First Amendment

it would mean so much more, if right wingers were more Tolerant.

 

[Rigby5]

There was a 1907 supreme court case Wilson v. Shaw with roots from the commerce clause.

That's great. Doesn't change a thing. The U.S. Supreme Court has absolutely no power to alter the U.S. Constitution and "Wilson vs. Shaw" isn't a clause in the U.S. Constitution.

Next?

The supreme court interprets the constitution, and they said that the commerce clause allows congress to construct federal highways.

The result was the 1916 Federal Road Aid Act.

But the commerce clause should never be interpreted as allowing federal jurisdiction to supersede state jurisdiction on matters clearly to be up to state control.
For example, while you can build federal interstate highways, the regulations and enforcement of them must always remain with the states.
Which is why the 55 mph speed limit was only a suggestion, and could not be universal. So states like Nevada ignored the 55 mph standard on the interstates, and allow 75 mph.

 

[Rigby5]

...Furthermore, each state is an independent state, united in 18 specific issues only. You would know that if you hadn't chosen to be willfully ignorant (as is the way with the left). Trying studying some original documents some time. Try reading about the founders. Good grief. It's painful having to educate you a dozen times per day.

You tell 'em, Sparky.

If you really and truly believe that each state is independent in actual practice, I've got this bridge in Brooklyn that you need to take look at...

The relationship between the Union and its constituent States was settled in 1865...

Consequently, a forcible attack upon on State is an attack upon all fifty States...

But we can forgive impractical, blinkered Binary Choices types such as yourself for not understanding the subtleties and practicalities at work here... that's above your pay-grade.

Having trouble selling your Confederation of States preliminaries to folks outside your own political sphere, are ya?

The Federal model is extant and will remain so, at the pleasure and will of The People.

Mess with that, forcibly, and the rest of us are gonna buy tickets and popcorn while the Federales burn your ass down to the ground.

-------------

Time to let this thread die-out...

Whether or not states can legally secede is not that important.
But what is important is that the federal government has exceeded its mandate.
Things like the War on Drugs, 3 Strikes, gun control, etc., are simply illegal abuses by the federal government.
It is strictly against the 9th and 10th amendments, which give states, municipalities, and individuals jurisdiction whenever the federal government is not specifically authorized to have jurisdiction.

 

[dudmuck]

There was a 1907 supreme court case Wilson v. Shaw with roots from the commerce clause.

That's great. Doesn't change a thing. The U.S. Supreme Court has absolutely no power to alter the U.S. Constitution and "Wilson vs. Shaw" isn't a clause in the U.S. Constitution.

Next?

The supreme court interprets the constitution, and they said that the commerce clause allows congress to construct federal highways.

The result was the 1916 Federal Road Aid Act.

But the commerce clause should never be interpreted as allowing federal jurisdiction to supersede state jurisdiction on matters clearly to be up to state control.
For example, while you can build federal interstate highways, the regulations and enforcement of them must always remain with the states.
Which is why the 55 mph speed limit was only a suggestion, and could not be universal. So states like Nevada ignored the 55 mph standard on the interstates, and allow 75 mph.

The commerce clause says regulation of commerce among the several states.