The domestic terrorists taking the country back from the government terrorists.
No Shadow. These domestic terrorists want to destroy the USA as it now stands and rebuild it with THEIR version of the US Constitution.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The accusations you have made Box is not really what some of those groups want to do. I don't know about all the groups you mention but some just want the government to follow the Constitution as written instead of trying to circumvent the laws we already have.
The Militia movement in the USA, the Oath keepers, the Constitutionalists... The Sovereign Citizens... And other domestic terrorists, are ready to overthrow America for the 'good of the country'.
You forget to mention your beloved Occupiers violently attacking state authority.
The accusations you have made Box is not really what some of those groups want to do. I don't know about all the groups you mention but some just want the government to follow the Constitution as written instead of trying to circumvent the laws we already have.
Just how would the US Constitution AS WRITTEN, apply to issues that weren't covered in the Constitution? Our Constitution is relatively short and never intended to apply to all situations for all time. There are those who consider that any law not covered in the Original US Constitution "AS WRITTEN" to be void.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Just how would the US Constitution AS WRITTEN, apply to issues that weren't covered in the Constitution? Our Constitution is relatively short and never intended to apply to all situations for all time. There are those who consider that any law not covered in the Original US Constitution "AS WRITTEN" to be void.
They are all written into the Constitution. That's because of the 10th Amendment. Anything that the issue isn't written into the Constitution isn't to be handled by the federal government, that right is reserved for the states.
You're right, it was never intended for all situations, and Cicero was right, that the founders left a way for corrections to be made, if necessary.
Just how would the US Constitution AS WRITTEN, apply to issues that weren't covered in the Constitution? Our Constitution is relatively short and never intended to apply to all situations for all time. There are those who consider that any law not covered in the Original US Constitution "AS WRITTEN" to be void.
the constitution is the backbone of America and meant to stave off government interference in the liberty afforded each man/woman individually and keeping 'the state' as a second class 'citizen'... our government uses the constitution to keep the masses fighting amongst themselves so much that the masses have failed to see what 'the state' has made of itself..... OWS is fighting with corporations because under law a corporation has a 'personhood' so that the company that is owned by a person/people has the same rights as anyone...just like your home is just as important as my home and part of our individual hardwork and sweat....
OWS is fighting with it's neighbor....because the leaders have allowed the government to 'float' above everyone, looking down as though they are untouchable.....
the token NYS millionaires tax is to quell the plebs because we have seen up their skirts.....the battle IS NOT with corporations/wallstreet.....wallstreet is a machine.....the federal reserve is a bully and the elected/legislative rulers are their muscle......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
The Oath Keepers for example: Oath Keepers is an American nonprofit organization that advocates that its members (current and former U.S. military and law enforcement) uphold the Constitution of the United States should they be ordered to violate it. (THEY DECIDE IF IT'S A VIOLATION, not the Supreme Court) From their website: The Oath Keepers feel that their sworn oath to the American Constitution, grants them not only the right, but the duty to refuse unconstitutional orders. The Oath Keepers organization has published a list of orders that they claim they will not obey, the list is as follows: " We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people. "
They decide, as private citizens weather disarming a criminal, a terrorist, a lunatic or even one of their own Oath Keeper is Constitutional.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
No Shadow. These domestic terrorists want to destroy the USA as it now stands and rebuild it with THEIR version of the US Constitution.
YEAH!! These domestic terrorists are MORE dangerous than those fascist in Europe in the 1940's, the communist Asians during the 50's 60's, those pesky communist Russians in the 70's and 80's, and those islamic terrorist from 1991 until now.
If the state can no longer convince the America citizens of a common enemy of the state, those citizens that begin questioning the legitimacy of the states claim of this common enemy, will most certainly become the states NEW enemy.
text size AAA October 24, 2011 Melissa Block interviews John Witt, professor of law and history at Yale Law School, about the history of corporate rights as people. He says the case of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific helped define the personhood of corporations in terms of the Fourteenth Amendment.
MELISSA BLOCK, host: Among the demands of Occupy Wall Street protestors is this, an end to corporate personhood. That demand has been spelled out on protestors signs, like one that reads: I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one. Corporate personhood has underpinnings in legal doctrine.
And to find out more about that, we've turned to Professor John Witt, who teaches law and history at Yale Law School. Professor Witt, welcome to the program.
JOHN WITT: Thanks so much for having me.
BLOCK: And when we talk about corporate personhood or corporate personality in the law, what do we mean? How are corporations treated as people or persons?
WITT: Well, the law has treated corporations as what some lawyers call metaphysical persons. That is, they're persons for some purposes and they're not persons for others.
BLOCK: What sorts of purposes then would apply here?
WITT: Well, for example, a corporation can be prosecuted for a crime, which is something that usually only persons can be prosecuted for. But on the other hand, corporations get rights. They get rights to contract. They can't marry or run for office or vote, but they can speak. Things like that.
BLOCK: The legal doctrine, as I understand, it goes back to a Supreme Court case. It's in the late 19th century, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. What was that case about essentially?
WITT: So, this is a case where the Occupy Wall Street protestors have distorted the details, but they really have it right in spirit. That was a case in which the Southern Pacific Railroad was protesting taxes that had been placed on it by California and by counties in California. And in that case, the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, Morrison Waite, stood up in January of 1886 and said what pretty much everybody in the courthouse thought, which was that corporations were persons for the purposes of the 14th Amendment.
BLOCK: The 14th Amendment dating from right after the Civil War, the Equal Protection Clause is what we're talking about.
WITT: Yeah, the Equal Protection Clause applies to all persons. It provides that all persons have a right to equal protection under the laws. And that question wasn't controversial at the time. What mattered, really, was what happened later.
BLOCK: Meaning, what exactly?
WITT: What the court started to do around the turn of the 20th century and into the 20th century was to begin to force legislatures at the state level and the federal Congress to treat metaphysical persons, that is to say corporations, the same as natural persons for purposes of contracting and rights to property.
BLOCK: And more recently in this century, we do see the term corporate personhood also applied to the landmark Citizens United case, the Supreme Court lifting restrictions on corporate spending for political campaigns. Was that case also argued on these same grounds of corporate personhood?
WITT: Well, for the Citizens United case, corporate personhood wasn't required for purposes of the majority's decision to strike down the regulations on campaign spending. Corporate personhood was invoked by the four dissenters in Citizens United. What the dissenters said was that the differences, which are very real, of course, between natural persons and metaphysical persons or corporations might be a good reason to distinguish between natural persons and corporations for purposes of regulating speech.
BLOCK: Well, Professor Witt, I wonder what you think when protestors in Occupy Wall Street talk about ending corporate personhood. What would that mean from a legal point of view?
WITT: I don't think we'd want to end corporate personhood in the sense that ordinary people, including people in the Occupy Wall Street movement, may want to get together and form groups, which should have respect of the legal process. What we might want to do, and this is what the Occupy Wall Street folks have right, is recognize the different characteristic features of large groups invested with powerful amounts of capital in our political process.
What Waite was attentive to in 1886 in the Santa Clara County case was that corporations didn't have to be treated the same as natural persons. They were metaphysical persons. And that fact was something that the law could take into account.
BLOCK: I've been talking with Professor John Witt. He teaches law and history at Yale Law School. Professor Witt, thanks so much.
The Oath Keepers for example: Oath Keepers is an American nonprofit organization that advocates that its members (current and former U.S. military and law enforcement) uphold the Constitution of the United States should they be ordered to violate it. (THEY DECIDE IF IT'S A VIOLATION, not the Supreme Court) From their website: The Oath Keepers feel that their sworn oath to the American Constitution, grants them not only the right, but the duty to refuse unconstitutional orders. The Oath Keepers organization has published a list of orders that they claim they will not obey, the list is as follows: " We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people. "
They decide, as private citizens weather disarming a criminal, a terrorist, a lunatic or even one of their own Oath Keeper is Constitutional.
Gee, I'll bet the Jewish community in Germany during Nazi rule wishes they had Oath Keepers. If they had, maybe there would have been people that wouldn't have OBEYED orders to execute their own citizens. But of course, during the time of Nazi Germany, you would have been siding with the government against those Oath Keepers that DARE DISOBEY the LEGAL orders given by the state, regardless how immoral.
As the country changes corrections must be made to keep up with the times. Where the government gets into trouble is by appointing activist judges to the Supreme court to write law from the bench instead of interpreting the law as stated by the Constitution. Congress writes law not judges. In the 200 years that our country has been in existence the whole system of our laws has been perverted by the government to suit their needs. I think that people are to the point that they are sick and tired of what both parties have done to the greatest country in the world and want to correct some of the problems the government has created.
As the country changes corrections must be made to keep up with the times. Where the government gets into trouble is by appointing activist judges to the Supreme court to write law from the bench instead of interpreting the law as stated by the Constitution. Congress writes law not judges. In the 200 years that our country has been in existence the whole system of our laws has been perverted by the government to suit their needs. I think that people are to the point that they are sick and tired of what both parties have done to the greatest country in the world and want to correct some of the problems the government has created.
YUP, the terrorists want to "CORRECT" the laws they don't like and institute their own... Just like Fascist Nazi Germany.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
YUP, the terrorists want to "CORRECT" the laws they don't like and institute their own... Just like Fascist Nazi Germany.
What are you talking about? Your last post stated that the Oath Keepers would NOT disarm citizens based on state order if they deemed it was an unconstitutional demand. Fascist Nazi Germany was the ruling government, they made the laws, they were considered just, they had no constitution that guaranteed German rights. Atrocities were committed under the guise to state laws and executive power.(Kinda like killing U.S. Citizen with drone attacks without due process that is now looked at as completely legal and unquestioned)
Of all the Republican candidates -- Romney is the one that I would be 2nd LEAST likely to consider voting for.
Michelle Bachman and Ron Paul are tied for the LEAST likely of the candidates to receive my vote IMHO.
I would strongly consider voting for Governor Perry, Ambassador Huntsman (MOST LIKELY on my list) and former Senator Santorum.
George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]
"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson
Logged
