The Constitution and related legal issues

[Brian]

I was going to "Thank You" for that post but when I saw it was you I decided to just agree with you.

 

If we go back, only property owning White Men could vote.  Do you think Clinton would have stood even a snowballs chance in hell at winning the election?

The Constitution has been legally amended 27 times. Some were good choices and some were not so good but they were done according to rule of law. Our biggest crises have arisen because of failure to adhere to rule of law. Eventually, perhaps thousands of years from now, it would be nice if we get to the point of education and awareness and kindness as a species where laws are no longer necessary (not simply where society breaks down and laws are abruptly interrupted) but, for now, rule of law is important.

[blackstar212]

Jim Jordan is horrifying IMO. I looked up Jim Jordan on the issues. He is anti-freedom.

[Marblehead]

Jim Jordan is horrifying IMO. I looked up Jim Jordan on the issues. He is anti-freedom.

 

Well, if it is true what you say about him being anti-freedom I would have no use for anything he says.

[Brian]

Jim Jordan is horrifying IMO. I looked up Jim Jordan on the issues. He is anti-freedom.

Be specific.

[blackstar212]

http://www.ontheissues.org/OH/Jim_Jordan.htm

 

 

He is for the patriot act. That makes you utterly worthless IMO. Get him out of office. Voted NO for investigation into Bush about lying about Iraq.

 

Typical right wing authoritarian. AWFUL!

[blackstar212]

Marcy Kaptur appears to be worse.

 

wow how awful our politicians are.

[Brian]

The Patriot Act is an unconstitutional, jingoistic mistake which levered an emotional crisis for the purpose of a power-grab by statists. Nothing even vaguely conservative about it.

 

That Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was clear (most of them were trucked into Syria during the build-up of troops) and his willingness to use them was self-evident. Neither of those justified the spilling of US blood or treasure in Iraq, though, and Congress should not have authorized it. I protested against until the point of no return was crossed; after that, I argued for the use of overwhelming force to effect a swift, complete & decisive conclusion. The military should be used very rarely and then with the objective of unambiguous victory. War is not healthy for children and other living things. When the occasion for war cannot be avoided (as it could have been with the overthrow of Saddam), it should be as unfair a fight as possible -- if you follow me.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Brian

[Stosh]

I dont know if I agree or not Brian, but I do like the freedom of sentiment your wording suggests, very nice.

[Apech]

The Patriot Act is an unconstitutional, jingoistic mistake which levered an emotional crisis for the purpose of a power-grab by statists. Nothing even vaguely conservative about it.

 

That Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was clear (most of them were trucked into Syria during the build-up of troops) and his willingness to use them was self-evident. Neither of those justified the spilling of US blood or treasure in Iraq, though, and Congress should not have authorized it. I protested against until the point of no return was crossed; after that, I argued for the use of overwhelming force to effect a swift, complete & decisive conclusion. The military should be used very rarely and then with the objective of unambiguous victory. War is not healthy for children and other living things. When the occasion for war cannot be avoided (as it could have been with the overthrow of Saddam), it should be as unfair a fight as possible -- if you follow me.

 

 

 

War is the continuation of policy by other means.  But its outcome is always uncertain.  Because violence is used the results are erratic and chaotic so it is very difficult to use it to secure a desired aim.  Thus it is as you say only to be used where it cannot be avoided.  Unfortunately you have to factor in the need of the military industrial complex to test its methods and equipment - they need regular wars to keep making technological progress.  Hence regular wars happen.

[Brian]

War is the continuation of policy by other means.  But its outcome is always uncertain.  Because violence is used the results are erratic and chaotic so it is very difficult to use it to secure a desired aim.  Thus it is as you say only to be used where it cannot be avoided.  Unfortunately you have to factor in the need of the military industrial complex to test its methods and equipment - they need regular wars to keep making technological progress.  Hence regular wars happen.

Indeed. The military-industrial complex and the rise of war as a corporatist business mechanism was something Eisenhower warned about. Orwell a few years earlier wrote of the role continuous war plays in the totalitarian state's power over the populace -- in fact, this is a central theme in 1984, threaded throughout the story as well as being one of the bedrock doublethink slogans ("War is Peace") and the focus (and title) of the third chapter in The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism. Nearly 200 years earlier, the US "Founding Fathers" were very concerned about the corruptive and corrosive effects of the standing army and the dangers inherent in allowing the government, particularly the unchecked Executive, to wield a sword for political gain. James Madison, for instance, wrote:

In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

(Bolding is mine.)

 

He also wrote (again, my bolding):

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Brian

[blackstar212]

http://www.alternet.org/right-wing/milo-and-moral-corruption-conservative-movement

 

 

Checkmate on Milo.

 

He is created by the conservative movement. It is something people should steer clear of.

 

This should have went into Defining right and left I arrived here through the like button though

Edited February 23, 2017 by blackstar212

[dawei]

http://www.alternet.org/right-wing/milo-and-moral-corruption-conservative-movement

 

 

Checkmate on Milo.

 

He is created by the conservative movement. It is something people should steer clear of.

 

This should have went into Defining right and left I arrived here through the like button though

 

And it seems the liberal side has created it's own form of hate and violence... seems more a stalemate

[Brian]

http://www.alternet.org/right-wing/milo-and-moral-corruption-conservative-movement

 

 

Checkmate on Milo.

 

He is created by the conservative movement. It is something people should steer clear of.

 

This should have went into Defining right and left I arrived here through the like button though

You really ought to stop reading that unadulterated crap from AlterNet. This line right here says enough:

"...conservatism never was fueled by ideology: it was fueled by contempt for everyone other than non-Jewish white men."

 

That you find this not only a reasonable statement but actually perfectly aligned with your repeatedly asserted ideology is quite disturbing.

 

Thought you were gonna try reading the US Constitution and the Ohio Constitution? If you claim you have, perhaps you'll try Bastiat:

https://admin.fee.org/files/doclib/20121116_thelaw.pdf

[dawei]

Our biggest crises have arisen because of failure to adhere to rule of law. 

 

A big current topic is the sanctuary cities and states stating they are not going to perform federal enforcement of immigration laws as that is not their state level responsibility.... their thinking is:  The feds need to enforce federal laws, not the states.

 

I have generally been sympathetic to this basic thinking and the reason for the illegal levels is largely (so I think) to the complexity of enforcing this at a federal level.

 

But it dawns on me that there are lots of federal laws and now it makes me think there must be some that states enthusiastically support and help with but it seems the illegal immigration one has become their selectively refusing a federal law now.

 

Thoughts?  

[Miffymog]

Trump's election has brought to the fore many issues and the re-evaluation of them is a good thing. He wanted to 'shake things up', although I feel it is going well beyond what he initially imagined.

[Brian]

A big current topic is the sanctuary cities and states stating they are not going to perform federal enforcement of immigration laws as that is not their state level responsibility.... their thinking is:  The feds need to enforce federal laws, not the states.

 

I have generally been sympathetic to this basic thinking and the reason for the illegal levels is largely (so I think) to the complexity of enforcing this at a federal level.

 

But it dawns on me that there are lots of federal laws and now it makes me think there must be some that states enthusiastically support and help with but it seems the illegal immigration one has become their selectively refusing a federal law now.

 

Thoughts?

This is an interesting topic.

 

Essentially, the sanctuary cities and states are trying to use "nullification" to say that they don't believe in some aspect of Federal law and therefore will not comply. What they are really doing is creating what they think is a win-win for them but it is a game of "chicken." They think it is win-win because illegal aliens represent a cheap source of labor which bypasses a whole slew of Federal statutes and regulations (notice that minimum wage laws really don't apply to illegal aliens, either, because they have to be "off the books" unless they are using stolen identities) AND because this defiance can really only be addressed by heavy-handed action by the Federal government which will be spun by a hostile media into something akin to a lawless & tyrannical act.

 

The law is crystal-clear here -- the States unambiguously give Congress full authority over immigration and naturalization laws, Congress delegated operationalization to the Executive Branch, and SCOTUS recently declared (when Arizona sought to enforce Federal immigration laws which the previous Administration was ignoring) that the President has plenary powers in this regard. Additionally, SCOTUS had issued several rulings which leave no question that Federal law supersedes State laws or municipal ordinances (see Prigg v. Pennsylvania and Ableman v. Booth for more info on that, if you wish).

 

So the question then becomes, "what can the Feds do about it?" and the answer is, again, unambiguous.

 

Cities and States are forbidden from passing laws or regulations contrary to Federal law and Governors are responsible for ensuring that State and subordinate agencies are not acting contrary to them. This means that a city or State which passes a law or resolution directing employees to violate Federal law are themselves in violation of Federal law AND it means that an informal ignoring of Federal law doesn't fly, either. The President is authorized to take whatever action is necessary, including the use of the Army, to bring the State into compliance.

 

For instance, when several Democrat Governors and Democrat-controlled States defied the SCOTUS Brown v. Education ruling, the US Marshals were deployed to enforce Federal law. When the Democrat Governor of Arkansas (a racist by the name of Orval Faubus who had an interesting relationship with Bill Clinton) ordered the Arkansas National Guard to prevent the desegregation of Central High School in the state capitol, President Eisenhower took control of the Guard and sent in the 101^st Airborne for good measure. This is one of the few explicit exceptions to Posse Comitatus.

 

If push comes to shove, the sanctuaries lose. The President could have the US Marshals arrest Governors and could deploy the military to enforce Federal law. This seems unlikely, though, so I would expect to see less drastic or invasive measures instead -- such as withholding some Federal funding. This also has precedence in many Administrations, including under Obama (some of the most famous have been the withholding of funds to force compliance with Federal speed limit and drinking age laws).

Edited February 24, 2017 by Brian

[dawei]

nice

 

It raises two thoughts:

 

1. My original thought was, are states being selective in what they choose to enforce and I think you're showing the authority of the fed govt to enforce recalcitrant states and it is generally in the state's best interest to row the federal boat of laws, else the US Marshals may come knocking at the door... I never would of guessed that it is the US Marshals would be the 'enforcer'.  Can you share more on their role and/or why that is a part of their role?

 

2. Another related issue might be the marijuana issue whereby the govt is turning away and allowing state allowance (ergo, allowing states to reject a federal law).    BTW:  I think the feds should stay out of that altogether but its is on the books for now.

[Brian]

"The Marshals Service also executes all lawful writs, processes, and orders issued under the authority of the United States, and shall command all necessary assistance to execute its duties."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marshals_Service#Duties

 

The cleanest approach would be for the Department of Justice to have a writ issued by a Federal Court and then have the Marshals execute it. Alternatively, the FBI could launch an investigation and then request a warrant but the former is probably less messy.

 

The Executive Branch has limited resources and may choose to not dedicate them to strict enforcement unless required to do so by Court order or act of Congress. That's the case with the marijuana laws being passed at the State level and I suspect it is just a matter of time (possibly even this Congress or the next) before marijuana is moved off the Schedule I list of controlled substances at the Federal level. The legal history in the US is curious but there's some complication recently with the hybridization and modification of the plant.

[dawei]

Something I didn't realize...  that overstaying a visa is not a violation of federal criminal law but civil law handled by immigration courts... so they are technically not 'illegal' but just out of visa status ? 

[Brian]

Not all crimes are created equal.

 

Visa overstays are illegal but the penalties are not prison sentences.

 

http://www.temple.edu/isss/immigration/overstay.html

[dawei]

Not all crimes are created equal.

 

Visa overstays are illegal but the penalties are not prison sentences.

 

http://www.temple.edu/isss/immigration/overstay.html

 

And that makes sense as we would want them out of the country instead of being in a prison.

[dawei]

A hot topic going to the SCOTUS is the Transgender issue.   This seems fraught with complications and implications.   Will the court fall to biology or gender association?

 

If they expand out the scenario and see the domino effect it could have on any business, sports stadium, houses of worship, every small business, etc... not to mention spas or schools where showers exist... I can't see them going with gender association.   Its a case where I can't see the one outnumbering the many.

[Apech]

A hot topic going to the SCOTUS is the Transgender issue.   This seems fraught with complications and implications.   Will the court fall to biology or gender association?

 

If they expand out the scenario and see the domino effect it could have on any business, sports stadium, houses of worship, every small business, etc... not to mention spas or schools where showers exist... I can't see them going with gender association.   Its a case where I can't see the one outnumbering the many.

 

 

 

This is key to world safety - which bathrooms people use.  Jesus help us.

[joeblast]

www.itsnotthelaw.com

 

...we don't live in a country anymore, but have a company. A corporation.  It has been this way for 150+ years.

 

...Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history, the US Government.

 

...It is an an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat 1, Public Law 89-719, declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent, H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress in session June 5, 1933 - Joint resolution to Suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of the United States Government Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.  (You can go verify that the emergency banking act of 1933 was never repealed, sunsetted, etc.)

 

...The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via  the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officers, and Departments are now operating within a defacto status in name only under Emergency War Powers. With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers
of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part: 'The US
Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States...

 

...In effect, the Virginia Company; the corporation headed by the United States and other related "colonies" simply changed its name to the United States and other related pseudonyms. These include, today, the United States, US, USA, United States of America, Washington DC, District of Columbia, Federal Government and "Feds". The United States Corporation is based in the District of Columbia (Queen Semiramis) and the current president of the corporation is a man called George W. Bush. He is not the president of the people or the country as they are led to believe, that's just the smokescreen. This means that Bush launched a "war on terrorism" on behalf of a private corporation to further the goals of that Corporation. It had nothing to do with "America' and "Americans" because these are very different legal entities. It is the United States Corporation that owns the US military and everything else that comes under the term "federal". This includes the Federal Reserve, the "central bank" of the United States, which is, in reality, a private bank owned by controlling stockholders (and controllers of the US Corporation) that are not even American. This is the bank from which the United States Corporation borrow "money" that is repaid with interest by the unknowing American taxpayers. The Federal Reserve was manipulated into being in 1913 and dictates the US interest rate that has a massive knock-on effect on the rest of the world.

 

...The bankers, led by the Rothschilds in Europe and the Rockefellers in America, by way of the U.S. Federal Reserve bankers literally had the bankrupt nations by the throat.

 

...In reality, our legal and judicial system of “Corporate America” is an illegal system imposed on the taxpayers to force them to pay off the bankruptcy debt in 1930 – a debt that will never be paid off.

 

...Who represents the illegal “Corporate United States?”

 

...All of its public agencies and institutions, including the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the U.S. Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, Parks, Post Office, EPA, etc.

 

...The federal government freely gives the land, its personnel and the money it collects from taxpayers via the IRS and its “State Corporations” to the United Nations and the International Bankers as payment for the federal 1930 bankruptcy debt.

 

...The United Nations and the International Bankers use the money and services for various worldwide projects including war. War is an extremely lucrative business for the bankers.

 

 

 

 

Read up on the Acts of 1871 and the civil war.  No, not "the fictional civil war that was fought over slavery, and Lincoln freed all the slaves and then we were one big happy family."  Martial law was declared by the constitution trashing bastard Lincoln, "forcing" the southern representation back to congress - but go and look, how many of them actually returned - no, the North simply appointed new representation and declared it to be legal. 

 

This doesnt really matter, because when the south seceded, Congress adjourned "sine die" or "without day," there was never a date set to reconvene -  so with the old representation being unlawfully declared null and void, what we have here is that there has never been a lawful quorum of states by which to lawfully amend The Constitution For These United States of America since the civil war.  Declaring martial law and appointing new unelected representation is not legitimate. 

 

Unless one thinks that time confirms a void act?

 

People dont seem to get that this means the new "congress" merely posed as "the government of the united states."

 

Hell, the US bankruptcy that occurred in 1871 had placed the country under emergency war powers, its never been repealed, just like the emergency banking act of 1933.

 

 

The civil war was all about the subversion of law in the United States, and it saw the lawful The Constitution of These United States of America document get shuffled into some trash bin and the new corporate document called The Constitution of the United States get put in its place.

 

So anyone asserting we have some form of constitutional republic...lols....has quite the lot of reading to do....

Edited February 4, 2018 by joeblast

[joeblast]

...just in case anyone under 50 thinks they'll be getting their social security (*cough* not that SS is constitutional in the least, but we'll leave that particular divergence from lawfulness aside for this post)...or any public employees with a pension, especially those overinflated ones....so its not just SS but local and state pensions, too...

 

here's what happens when the chips are down:

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-05/tiny-corner-rhode-island-shows-us-future-social-security

 

facing critical budget shortfalls over the last several years that the Rhode Island government called “fiscal peril,” the state legislature voted to unilaterally reduce public employees’ pension benefits.

 

Even more, these cuts were retroactive, i.e. they didn’t just apply to new employees.

 

The changes were applied across the board; workers who had spent their entire careers being promised certain retirement benefits ended up having their pensions cut as well.

 

Even the court acknowledged that these changes “substantially reduced the value of public employee pensions provided by the Rhode Island system.”

 

So, naturally, a number of municipal employee unions sued.

 

And the case of Cranston’s police and fire fighter unions made it all the way to federal court.

 

The unions’ argument was that the government of Rhode Island was contractually bound to pay benefits– these benefits had been enshrined in long-standing state legislation, and they should be enforced just like any other contract.

 

The state government disagreed.

 

In their view, the legislature should be able to change laws, even retroactively, whenever it suits them.

 

Last week the First Circuit Court issued a final ruling and sided with the state of Rhode Island: the government has no obligation to honor its promises.