SEE POST # 820. Its all there for you and you are ignoring it because it destroys you utterly and completely.
I just provided you in 820 many examples including the right to vote for African Americans, women, 18, 19 and 20 year olds, and Sixth Amendment rights.
Is it fair to assume you have a copy of the Constitution and can read those sections?
Go back and read.
Go back and learn.
Go back and stop pretending that you are clever looking for your next insult.
Purposely trying to break up the union is indeed treason.secession is not inherently treason nor does it inherently mean war...that's merely your opinion and it ignores seceding by means other than how it was attempted in the past.
those whom would secede would only take that part of the nation that they already exercise an amount of sovereignty over....and I did not say their plans are illegal, I said the argument against secession has the legal high ground.. that high ground consists solely of a single SCOTUS decision.
Does the word "compatriots" ring a bell? You seem to think that anyone who makes an argument against your claim is doing so as a group. I am a individualist I belong to no group so to me you just seem paranoid. Everyone isnt ganging up on you, you argument just sucks.who did i lump you in with ?
no, it's not.Purposely trying to break up the union is indeed treason.
so you would make war on those whom decided to secede?.. all based on your misunderstanding of the word treason?If the government is so corrupted the US Constitution has lost its power as the law of the land then it wouldnt be seceding. And if the goal at that point is not to reinstate the US government then it is something that I would fight against.
I didn't say anyone was ganging up on me.. nor was any group named for you to be lumped in with <shrug>.... go easy on the projection, manDoes the word "compatriots" ring a bell? You seem to think that anyone who makes an argument against your claim is doing so as a group. I am a individualist I belong to no group so to me you just seem paranoid. Everyone isn't ganging up on you, you argument just sucks.
will you please provide proof of what you say, ..instead of just telling me this.
i have asked you several times already where rights are granted by government, and you have refuse to show me.
since rights are only recognized by the constitution, and not granted by government, congress has no power over them.
you don't have power over what you don't control.
the constitution is federalism, the separation of powers between state governments and the federal government with the federal government having few powers, and the bill of rights are restrictions on the federal government to make no laws concerning the recognized rights
is it natural to pray, ..meaning it is something the body can do such as speech?
no, it's not.
the US Constitution defines Treason as "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."... so yeah.. you're wrong... no doubt about it.
so you would make war on those whom decided to secede?.. all based on your misunderstanding of the word treason?
that's not very nice.
yes making noises is natural
Using spoken words to intimidate, threaten or harm in anyway is not natural. The freedom of speech that we all enjoy and want doesnt come without some limits. One cannot go into a crowded theater and yell fire without breaking a law and the Constitutional right to freedom of speech isnt a valid defense.
sorry man " go look it up" is not acceptable evidence for your claim.
please provide proof of your claim.... provide the text of the US Constitution that applies directly to the people and is not a limitation of govt.
yes making noises is natural
any legal rights you have
Yes I did. And you FAILED TO ANSWER IT. Failed completely and utterly and completely. Here it is again: The judicial branch - the US Supreme Court - has the power to interpret the Constitution and tell us what it means stepping in disputes about the document and its meaning. Can you point to the Supreme Court decision which states that the Constitution does not apply to citizen?
Now lets see you again fail to answer it.
federal law applies to the people, the US Constitution does not.
you did not even know what he was saying.........again lets look at your error...
he stated this
so he talking about LAW..acts passed by congress, and saying their are no constitutional powers which apply to citizens..........and that is 100% correct.
citizens cannot violate constitutional law......only federal law can they violate.
Thrilla's statement had nothing to do with the judicial branch of government, but he was talking about the legislative branch.
a legal right...is a "privilege" under constitutional law.
the constitution has natural rights and privileges, and nothing else
Not one thing you just said defending Thrilla supports the idea that powers contained in the Constitution do not apply to citizens. I already provided real life examples where they do.
My statement and question about the judicial branch was directed to you anybody else who takes the absurd position that the Constitution does not apply to citizens. Again - Can you cite one single Supreme Court decision which says this over the last 225 years?
Except the Constitution says you are wrong. It refers to THE RIGHT TO VOTE or a variation on that language at least five different times in five different places. Nothing about the privilege of voting - but the RIGHT TO VOTE.
as he stated and i will now......show me any article /section/clause of the constitution that applies to the people and that they can violate.
all i ask is you give me the article/ section/ and clause numbers.
are you saying the constitution created the right to vote?
Where did this nonsense about AND THEY CAN VIOLATE come from?
the constitutional law does not apply to Citizens......federal law does.
constitutional law does not apply to Citizens....only federal law does....please show in constitutional law, where it can be used on a Citizen.
The judicial branch - the US Supreme Court - has the power to interpret the Constitution and tell us what it means stepping in disputes about the document and its meaning. Can you point to the Supreme Court decision which states that the Constitution does not apply to citizen?
did you seriously just ask this question?..hollyyyyyyy ****.... wow.
the entire document.. all of it.. every single word of it.... pertains to government and government only.
he's entirely correct... federal law applies to the people, the US Constitution does not.
i stated plainly, that constitutional law does not apply to people, only federal law does, and Thrilla stated i was correct...and he and i are correct...."Citizens cannot violate constitutional law".....they can only violate federal law.
Citizens are subject to the decisions of the federal courts, but if a citizen is a defendant in court........he has violated federal LAW........."NO CITIZEN .....VIOLATES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW"
federal law applies to the people, the US Constitution does not.
the entire document.. all of it.. every single word of it.... pertains to government and government only.
While unlikely anytime too soon, it's not unthinkable that one day, Texas might vote to secede from the United States and re-establish itself as an independent nation.
If done in a peaceful and democratic manner...that is, if the people of Texas overwhelmingly voted to withdraw from the U.S. In a referendum similar to the one recently held in Scotland, would you support the right of Texas to go her own way?
Various Constitutional Amendments effectively created the right to vote for certain groups of Americans including African Americans, females and persons from age 18 to 20 years old.
Why are you restricting the application and effect of the Constitution to simple violations of what it says?
people adhere to federal courts decisions...but that is not the constitution, just like federal law is not the constitution....people cannot in any way violate constitutional law....its impossible.
because constitutional law apples to government only.
here was the statement from Thrilla that you also defended
he is restating what i have said......constitutional law does not apply to the people...
example:...here is what the constitution says on counterfeiting.
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
can the federal government use this clause of the constitution to prosecute people?..............NO!
the federal government, is granted the power to create federal law for the crime of counterfeiting, and federal law is used on people
it would be impossible to use the clause of the constitution on a Citizen....because the clause does not define what counterfeiting is.
Clearly that is incorrect. The Constitution very very much applies to the people and I gave many examples of that.
In addition you have asked many times what rights the Constitution provides people and I provided proof on that also via the Sixth Amendment complete with its language.
the 6th amendment is a restriction on the federal government.....saying the government CANNOT keep people from getting a public speedy trial.
it does not grant any right.
another statement from Thrilla that you are on the side with
I clearly showed that is incorrect also and provided many examples where it applies perfectly to citizens.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?