Pilgrim Posted October 12, 2018 17 minutes ago, ilumairen said: What constitutes breach of the peace? And would calls to violence be punishable according to the constitution? Mad Max and her recent rants come to mind..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 12, 2018 3 hours ago, Pilgrim said: One of my coworkers got held up in a convenience store this week, only one with a gun was the asshole holding people up... So much for law protecting people. I try to not put too much blame on the enforcers of the law in cases like this. They can't be everywhere and watching everyone. But it is for the same reason that I support the right to bare arms. However, I am even a supporter of open carry. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted October 13, 2018 (edited) Quote The “blue wave” — allegedly including illegal aliens — refers to the voters that Democratic candidates across the country are hoping will carry them to victory in the 2018 midterm elections. Abrams’ comments are not entirely unfounded though, considering that earlier this week, an internal audit revealed that the California Department of Motor Vehicles had illegally registered roughly 1,500 individuals to vote, included non-citizens. https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/10/12/democratic-candidate-stacey-abrams-undocumented-immigrants-are-part-of-the-blue-wave/ Was thinking about posting this in the Trump thread...but felt it would be more illustrative here of whats really at stake. Also to the many who call others Trump "what ever" its not about him, never was...It is about losing something that made the US a very different place now under attack by those "in gov" using the freedoms granted by the system they are attacking... this is the problem....Trump was, and is a reaction to this.... Edited October 13, 2018 by windwalker 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pilgrim Posted October 13, 2018 Trump reminds me of Godzilla. He is a natural incarnation an avatar to the utter bullshit of mankind. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pilgrim Posted October 13, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, Marblehead said: I try to not put too much blame on the enforcers of the law in cases like this. They can't be everywhere and watching everyone. But it is for the same reason that I support the right to bare arms. However, I am even a supporter of open carry. Not my intent to include the enforcers of the law. A good friend of mine, a cop was asked by me a certain question. Around 2008, 2009 during the height of the putrid Islamic Obama administratiin. I said how do you feel about people carrying guns? I mean hey you have to deal with this shit every day as a police officer for the city. I said inlight of the home breakins occuring what do you think? I have not carried a weapon since I was in the army. He said my job is not to protect you! It is your job to protect you and the ones you love until I can get there. I then went and purchased several guns. Nuff said. Obamas America a nightmare! Edited October 13, 2018 by Pilgrim 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 13, 2018 6 hours ago, Pilgrim said: Not my intent to include the enforcers of the law. So many things I could add to or comment to in that post. But I have already said most of them in various threads. Therefore I will simply agree with you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aetherous Posted October 13, 2018 21 hours ago, ilumairen said: And would calls to violence be punishable according to the constitution? As far as I know, current law regarding that is from these Supreme Court rulings which clarify details about the First Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohiohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hess_v._Indiana Basically, the person calling for violence has to be very specific about when it'll occur. Broad strokes, like saying, "when they go low, we kick them" or "you must follow them, get up in their faces, let them know they aren't welcome here" fail to meet the Brandenburg test, because they're not "imminent" or there isn't a specific time frame. For instance, if they said "on the 20th, you must all go and kick every one of them", that would be inciting violence...but saying "you must all go and kick every one of them" is still free speech. This result was the Supreme Court attempting to uphold freedom of speech in the First Amendment. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ilumairen Posted October 13, 2018 11 minutes ago, Aetherous said: As far as I know, current law regarding that is from these Supreme Court rulings which clarify details about the First Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohiohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hess_v._Indiana Basically, the person calling for violence has to be very specific about when it'll occur. Broad strokes, like saying, "when they go low, we kick them" or "you must follow them, get up in their faces, let them know they aren't welcome here" fail to meet the Brandenburg test, because they're not "imminent" or there isn't a specific time frame. For instance, if they said "on the 20th, you must all go and kick every one of them", that would be inciting violence...but saying "you must all go and kick every one of them" is still free speech. This result was the Supreme Court attempting to uphold freedom of speech in the First Amendment. Thank you very much for this information Aetherous. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 13, 2018 On 10/12/2018 at 10:33 AM, ilumairen said: What constitutes breach of the peace? Very good question. I don't know the answer to this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 13, 2018 (edited) 14 hours ago, Pilgrim said: He said my job is not to protect you! This is good to remember. In all ways a person is responsible for himself. There are others who will help you, but help is not the same as doing it for you. People used to be taught this when they were young. Now it seems the opposite is being taught. It does not bode well for future generations. I hope the pendulum is swinging back the other way. Edited October 13, 2018 by Lost in Translation 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 13, 2018 (edited) Article 2, section 1 Quote The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows: Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector. The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President. The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States. No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them. Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section1 Note: The 12th and 25th Amendments have changed some of the items above (in italic). This is, of course, the text as originally written. I would like to point out the following: Quote Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress. Quote The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States. Notice that the Constitution explicitly states that the President shall be chosen by electors from each state, and lists how each state shall determine the number of electors. The Constitution also states that each elector shall cast their vote on the same day. No where in the Constitution does it say that the President shall be decided by popular vote. This is important to understand. The framers of the US were creating a democratic republic, not a pure democracy. If you want to watch a short video about the electoral college then see the spoiler below. Spoiler Edited October 13, 2018 by Lost in Translation 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 14, 2018 (edited) Article 2, section 2 Quote The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section2 The basic powers of the President: Commander in Chief of armed forces: Make treaties with foreign nations; Appoint officers and judges of the Unites States; Appoint Senators that vacate their terms during recess of the Senate. Edited October 14, 2018 by Lost in Translation 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 14, 2018 (edited) Article 2, section 3 Quote He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section3 The president is required to brief Congress on the state of the union and to give Congress other advise as he feels necessary. If the $%*# hits the fan he can convene congress or adjourn them (if they are already adjourning but can't agree on the exact time). He can receive foreign dignitaries (party time!) and is responsible for executing the laws of the country. He also shall commission all officers of the US - military and civilian. All executive authority, be it Generals, Colonels, Admirals, Captains, of the lowest Private flows from the President. Cool, huh? Edited October 14, 2018 by Lost in Translation 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 14, 2018 Article 2, Section 4 Quote The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section4 This is it for the powers of the President. Article 3 describes the Judiciary. We'll get to that in a day or two. As before, feel free to comment on anything you read here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted October 14, 2018 On 10/14/2018 at 2:20 AM, Lost in Translation said: Constitution also states that each elector shall cast their vote on the same day. No where in the Constitution does it say that the President shall be decided by popular vote. Good commentary. it may seem obvious, was wondering if you care to share some thoughts on why some in the Democratic Party are calling for an end to the electoral process. The "dims" an app's name for dim-witted. Always amaze me as they seem to suggest things without thinking long-term, and why they were implemented in the first place. 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pilgrim Posted October 14, 2018 On 10/13/2018 at 2:20 PM, Lost in Translation said: the US were creating a democratic republic, not a pure democracy. I must have missed the democratic republic part, where is it? From everything I have read it is a Representative Republic they created and did their best to avoid the mistakes of Democracy. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 14, 2018 2 minutes ago, windwalker said: it may seem obvious, was wondering if you care to share some thoughts on why some in the Democratic Party are calling for an end to the electoral process. The modern Democratic Party is no longer a liberal party; it is a leftist party. It does not care about the Constitution and wants to ignore it. It wants the people to regard the founding fathers as old, rich, slave-owning, white men and to dismiss them as unworthy of respect, and by extension to dismiss their ideas as unworthy of respect. 2 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 14, 2018 1 minute ago, Pilgrim said: I must have missed the democratic republic part, where is it? From everything I have read it is a Representative Republic they created and did their best to avoid the mistakes of Democracy. It's democratic in that the Congress holds elections and each vote counts the same. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted October 14, 2018 The open borders and pardons for all those here illegally play directly into the number of Representatives allotted to each state. a very Insidious cancer. I don't think the founders ever envisioned one-party trying to destroy the very processes which allow it to be. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 14, 2018 6 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said: The modern Democratic Party is no longer a liberal party; it is a leftist party. It does not care about the Constitution and wants to ignore it. It wants the people to regard the founding fathers as old, rich, slave-owning, white men and to dismiss them as unworthy of respect, and by extension to dismiss their ideas as unworthy of respect. Yes, that's the working of the New World Order. Destroy all national governments and rule the world by the UN. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pilgrim Posted October 15, 2018 33 minutes ago, windwalker said: The open borders and pardons for all those here illegally play directly into the number of Representatives allotted to each state. a very Insidious cancer. I don't think the founders ever envisioned one-party trying to destroy the very processes which allow it to be. I am certain no one ever could. After all who invisions members of the same family all fighting for the sake of fighting and not pulling together? Lets say hypotheticaly that these people get their way. Then What? It is sad to me the most broken part of our government operates by a democray based methodolgy. Scary really. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted October 15, 2018 1 hour ago, Pilgrim said: Lets say hypotheticaly that these people get their way. Then What? lots of examples of the "what" around the world.... the same examples that most escape from ironically voting for those who will make it just like the places they left...once they get in the US.. They vote for the same reasons that enslaved them in the fist place they like the free stuff... 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 15, 2018 7 hours ago, windwalker said: they like the free stuff... And they will never realize how wrong they are until they have destroyed the system that gives them free stuff and there is no more free stuff. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pilgrim Posted October 15, 2018 In a way I can understand these infestations from foreign natiins. What I can’t understand are the home grown idiots in favor of this. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
