----
yes
How about some factual evidence?
---
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/86467-1
start listening at 6:50
On Jun 6, 5:17 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> Reasonable to assume? How about some factual evidence?
>
> John made a claim which he has as yet been unable to back up with
> evidence. (This happens regularly, I might add.)
>
> Choose sides carefully.<g>
>
> On 06/06/2011 02:53 PM, plainolamerican wrote:
>
>
>
> > you contention
> > that Secret Service agents shall be bound by Article VI to support
> > the
> > Constitution is incorrect.
> > ----
> > a naturalized citizen is required to swear an oath to protect and
> > defend the constitution ... thus, it is reasonable to assume that a SS
> > applicant, who is required to be a citizen, would be bound to support
> > and defend the constitution
>
> > On Jun 6, 2:34 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> >> John,
>
> >> It is obvious you want to fight the good fight. It is also obvious you
> >> are not equipped to do so. You continually infer that which does not exist.
>
> >> Secret Service agents are not "executive or judicial officers" of either
> >> "the United States or of the several states." Therefore, you contention
> >> that Secret Service agents shall be bound by Article VI to support the
> >> Constitution is incorrect.
>
> >> By the way, Article VI, paragraph three (properly quoted) states, "The
> >> Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the
> >> several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers,
> >> both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by
> >> Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test
> >> shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust
> >> under the United States."
>
> >> On 06/06/2011 11:32 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>> Dear J. Ashley: I don't have the "existing Constitution" committed to
> >>> memory. So, I had to scan such to locate Article VI. "... all
> >>> executive and judicial officers, both of the USA and the several
> >>> states shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this
> >>> constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a
> >>> qualification for any office or public trust under the United
> >>> States." That OATH requires supporting that the USA is a REPUBLIC.
> >>> As soon as Barack Obama started appointing czars and making executive
> >>> orders pushing the USA toward socialism and communism, all officers,
> >>> such as the Secret Service, are bound by the Constitution to ARREST
> >>> his skinny ass for treason! Tens of thousands in our military have
> >>> died fighting socialist and communist nations. So, why won't any one
> >>> fight the grave enemy bastard who is in our midst? It's because
> >>> people in government value their identity with... power. Doing WRONG
> >>> makes one seem more powerful than doing right, "because the glory in
> >>> doing right must always be shared with its unspoken moral
> >>> imperative."
> >>> Jonathan, for a shallow anarchist like you, you seem incapable of
> >>> understanding that the spirit of the overall Constitution has
> >>> deference over any "authorization". The Founding Fathers erred, big
> >>> time, when they just assumed the laws and procedures passed and
> >>> approved wouldn't run counter to this most simple premise: "Fair play
> >>> and democracy shall have supremacy in the USA!� Think about the
> >>> simple premise, guy. So far, you can't see the forest for the trees!
> >>> � J. A. Armistead � Patriot
> >>> On Jun 4, 7:49 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> John,
> >>>> You have certainly lived up to your moniker this time.
> >>>> Article III, Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall
> >>>> be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the
> >>>> Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
> >>>> How can something specifically enumerated in the Constitution be
> >>>> unconstitutional?
> >>>> On 06/04/2011 03:37 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>> > Dear plainol...: The Federal Government, especially the court system,
> >>>>> has been disregarding the Constitution for over a century. If there
> >>>>> is a disagreement, the only thing the Supreme Court is authorized to
> >>>>> do is to send things back to CONGRESS to be resolved. Nothing in the
> >>>>> Constitution grants one justice more total power than Congress!
> >>>>> Therefore the Supreme Court is Unconstitutional... by RITUAL. � J. A.
> >>>>> Armistead � Patriot
> >>>>> On Jun 3, 3:11 pm, plainolamerican<plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Does the federal government's
> >>>>>> authority to regulate interstate commerce rule, or does the powers
> >>>>>> granted to the states clause rule?
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> what states rights?
> >>>>>> that was resolved in 1865 ... sorta
> >>>>>> it's time for another showdown since it's obvious that the feds pick
> >>>>>> and choose their responsibilities and powers
> >>>>>> On Jun 2, 3:11 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> No, MJ! Every day, the US Supreme Court is finding interpretations
> >>>>>>> that will allow this, but not "that". Does the federal government's
> >>>>>>> authority to regulate interstate commerce rule, or does the powers
> >>>>>>> granted to the states clause rule? That, supposedly, will determine
> >>>>>>> the constitutionality of Obama Care. As I've explained: The Senate
> >>>>>>> was included ONLY because of the small states' extortion (blackmail).
> >>>>>>> A Representative Republic is PURE; an oligarchy, such as the US
> >>>>>>> Senate, is unfair, undemocratic and thus UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Like our
> >>>>>>> Manchurian Candidate... "President" (gag!), Obama�s being in the White
> >>>>>>> House makes him no less a TREASONOUS bastard! If you want 100 senile,
> >>>>>>> career politicians to run things, then why not propose a constitution
> >>>>>>> without a House of Representatives? For running a government, I'll
> >>>>>>> take the fair and democracy-like House, over our drag-on-government US
> >>>>>>> Senate every time! Harry Reid should be out of a job! � J. A.
> >>>>>>> Armistead � Patriot
> >>>>>>> On Jun 2, 9:25 am, MJ<micha...@america.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Perhaps we have highlighted (again) yet another of your difficulties. When you ignore common definitions of words, it is difficult to convey your message in any meaningful way.
> >>>>>>>> Constitutional, as noted previously is of or by the Constitution. The Senate is constitutional -- by definition.
> >>>>>>>> Regard$,
> >>>>>>>> --MJ
> >>>>>>>> "[Democracy] is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive" -- Westbrook Pegler, popular columnist of the 1930s and '40s.At 08:38 PM 5/26/2011, you wrote:MJ: What "definition" is that? That an anti-democracy and anti-
> >>>>>>>> Republic oligarchy has more power than the former two? The US senate
> >>>>>>>> is THE most corrupt band of career politicians on planet Earth! We
> >>>>>>>> could do better by just giving the vote to the first 100 people to
> >>>>>>>> cross Main Street! � J. A. Armistead � Patriot
> >>>>>>>> On May 26, 1:32 pm, MJ<micha...@america.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Again, Constitutional is of or by the Constitution.
> >>>>>>>>> The Senate is constitutional -- by definition.
> >>>>>>>>> Until the removal of the check with Amendment 17 (not properly ratified per Article V), the Senate was the 'representative' of the States -- those entities forming the United States (plural).
> >>>>>>>>> Contrary to your insistence, the Constitution does not create this idea of mob rule to which you are so enamored and believe will *magically* correct ills.
> >>>>>>>>> Regard$,
> >>>>>>>>> --MJ
> >>>>>>>>> Democracy: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic ... Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based on deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, or impulse, without restraint or regard to the consequences. Result is demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
> >>>>>>>>> -- U.S. Army training manual No. 2000-25 (1928-1932)Dear MJ: The Founding Fathers were BLACKMAILED into including a
> >>>>>>>>> senate, because small states feared being exploited by larger states.
> >>>>>>>>> The senate is an oligarchy that slaps-in-the-face our Representative
> >>>>>>>>> Republic. Since principles of FAIRNESS are so evident throughout the
> >>>>>>>>> main body of the Constitution, then, the VICTOR in disputes has to be
> >>>>>>>>> the side favoring fair play and democracy! The mere fact that the
> >>>>>>>>> senate was included in the Constitution doesn't make that
> >>>>>>>>> constitutional! Just because 'laws' are passed doesn't make those
> >>>>>>>>> constitutional, either. The US Senate has been a drag of fair play
> >>>>>>>>> and democracy from day one! For the record, the US Supreme Court,
> >>>>>>>>> wherein one justice has a power greater than Congress, or the People,
> >>>>>>>>> is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! Learn, if you can, MJ. So far you seem
> >>>>>>>>> committed to a lifetime of taking-over your flunked courses in how to
> >>>>>>>>> think. � J. A. A. �
> >>>>>>>>> On May 25, 9:43 am, MJ<micha...@america.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> The US Senate, which was originally selected by the legislatures of
> >>>>>>>>>> the several states, was an ill conceived OLIGARCHY. Since there has
> >>>>>>>>>> never been a parity of the population served by each senator, that
> >>>>>>>>>> means the USA has two conflicting political systems, and the oligarchy
> >>>>>>>>>> is the one which isn't FAIR. Giving undue power to smaller population
> >>>>>>>>>> states slaps REPUBLIC ideas in the face. So, the US Senate is and
> >>>>>>>>>> always has been, unconstitutional.The Senate -- by definition -- cannot be unconstitutional.
> >>>>>>>>>> What you (continue) fail to grasp is that the Constitution is/was an agreement
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment