Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 151 to 180 of 185

Thread: DOJ may grow a spine and arrest sanctuary city elected political hacks.

  1. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    I do not think we can afford to consider anarchy as foolish any longer .
    I always will, but in our current state there is much more room for error in that direction than in the direction of government.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    I absolutely addressed the subject of the thread- which is STATES RIGHTS.
    Your BS gets deeper as we go.


    STATES RIGHTS? I believe you may be referring to "powers reserved to the States" by the command of the Tenth Amendment. Aside from that you offered no intelligently presented Tenth Amendment argument justifying the actions of California's AG which is, threatening American citizens in California who may cooperate with federal law enforcement officers who may make an attempt to round up illegal entrants.

    You seem to be a very confused person, and can't even remember what you posted only a few hours ago.


    JWK



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #153
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    Your BS gets deeper as we go.


    STATES RIGHTS? I believe you may be referring to "powers reserved to the States" by the command of the Tenth Amendment. Aside from that you offered no intelligently presented Tenth Amendment argument justifying the actions of California's AG which is, threatening American citizens in California who may cooperate with federal law enforcement officers who may make an attempt to round up illegal entrants.

    You seem to be a very confused person, and can't even remember what you posted only a few hours ago.


    JWK
    Lookin' in the mirror Mr Name-Caller?

    I posted exactly from the 10th Amendment Center:

    It’s quite clear that the Tenth Amendment was written to emphasize the limited nature of the powers delegated to the federal government. In delegating just specific powers to the federal government, the states and the people, with some small exceptions, were free to continue exercising their sovereign powers.
    Got it now?
    There is no spoon.

  6. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Lookin' in the mirror Mr Name-Caller?

    I posted exactly from the 10th Amendment Center:



    Got it now?
    Name-caller? What name?

    You posted an opinion piece from the 10th Amendment Center, a piece which offers no argument justifying the actions of California's AG who is threatening American citizens in California who may cooperate with federal law enforcement officers who may make an attempt to round up illegal entrants.

    Got it? The subject of the thread is, ''DOJ may grow a spine and arrest sanctuary city elected political hacks".

    JWK
    Last edited by johnwk; 01-20-2018 at 07:08 PM.

  7. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    Name-caller? What name?

    You posted an opinion piece from the 10th Amendment Center, a piece which offers no argument justifying the actions of California's AG who is threatening American citizens in California who may cooperate with federal law enforcement officers who may make an attempt to round up illegal entrants.

    Got it? The subject of the thread is, ''DOJ may grow a spine and arrest sanctuary city elected political hacks".

    JWK
    YOU brought up the 10 Amendment.

    The 10th Amendment is to INSURE STATES RIGHTS.

    Under the 10th, the feds have no right to invade a state and tell them what they can or cannot do- especially when common law prevails. The "Civil" War took away the remaining rights of States and made the US into a corporate entity with elites who are only there for themselves. This is completely AGAINST the 10th Amendment that you brought up.
    There is no spoon.

  8. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    YOU brought up the 10 Amendment.

    The 10th Amendment is to INSURE STATES RIGHTS.

    Under the 10th, the feds have no right to invade a state and tell them what they can or cannot do- especially when common law prevails. The "Civil" War took away the remaining rights of States and made the US into a corporate entity with elites who are only there for themselves. This is completely AGAINST the 10th Amendment that you brought up.


    The subject of the thread is, ''DOJ may grow a spine and arrest sanctuary city elected political hacks".


    JWK

  9. #157
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post


    The subject of the thread is, ''DOJ may grow a spine and arrest sanctuary city elected political hacks".


    JWK
    So, you want more fed gov to take care of states rights that you don't approve of? Just what we need more gov control over everything.

    What we need is .gov out of everything- including entitlements, education, medicine, property, et al.

    Then, guess what?

    FREEDOM.
    There is no spoon.

  10. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    So, you want more fed gov to take care of states rights that you don't approve of? Just what we need more gov control over everything.

    What we need is .gov out of everything- including entitlements, education, medicine, property, et al.

    Then, guess what?

    FREEDOM.
    So you are saying FREEDOM has almost won already?

  11. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    So, you want more fed gov to take care of states rights that you don't approve of? Just what we need more gov control over everything.

    What we need is .gov out of everything- including entitlements, education, medicine, property, et al.

    Then, guess what?

    FREEDOM.

    There you go again switching the subject and posting an unsubstantiated assertion. The subject of the thread is, ''DOJ may grow a spine and arrest sanctuary city elected political hacks".

    Are you suggesting California's AG is not engaging in harboring, which is a criminal offense?


    JWK

  12. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Is there a law forcing local police to be deputized as immigration enforcement agents?
    Didn't you get the memorandum, you have been promoted from sock-puppet extraordinaire to exportation rehabilitation and reintegration specialist third-class.
    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius

    They’re not buying it. CNN, you dumb bastards!” — President Trump 2020

    Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    There you go again switching the subject and posting an unsubstantiated assertion. The subject of the thread is, ''DOJ may grow a spine and arrest sanctuary city elected political hacks".

    Are you suggesting California's AG is not engaging in harboring, which is a criminal offense?


    JWK
    I didn't switch the subject- YOU did.

    You want more fed gov to solve your hate problems- I don't.

    States rights are buried and you want a complete funeral- I don't.

    Welcome to The Matrix- you should be nice & comfy in your permanent embryo state.

    There is no spoon.

  15. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    I didn't switch the subject-


    The subject of the thread is, ''DOJ may grow a spine and arrest sanctuary city elected political hacks".

    Are you suggesting California's AG is not engaging in harboring, which is a criminal offense?


    JWK

    There was a time not too long ago in New York when the able-bodied were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now, New York City and many other major cities are infested with countless government cheese factions from $#@! hole countries, who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs, sex, and Lotto tickets.

  16. #163
    I actually don't have a problem with sanc. cities. Only the talk about letting any old joe vote in national elections crosses the line.

    In general, though, I think it is nice to have examples to point to and compare with so you can tell people, "see, I told you all this shiit wouldn't work."
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This is getting silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It started silly.
    T.S. Eliot's The Hollow Men

    "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato

    We Are Running Out of Time - Mini Me

    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm
    I part ways with "libertarianism" when it transitions from ideology grounded in logic into self-defeating autism for the sake of ideological purity.

  17. #164
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    The subject of the thread is, ''DOJ may grow a spine and arrest sanctuary city elected political hacks".

    Are you suggesting California's AG is not engaging in harboring, which is a criminal offense?


    JWK

    There was a time not too long ago in New York when the able-bodied were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now, New York City and many other major cities are infested with countless government cheese factions from $#@! hole countries, who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs, sex, and Lotto tickets.
    LOL

    You have no real rebuttal, so you repeat your self- still screaming.

    My answer to this thread:

    STATES RIGHTS!


    Got it?
    There is no spoon.

  18. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody's_hero View Post
    I actually don't have a problem with sanc. cities. Only the talk about letting any old joe vote in national elections crosses the line.

    In general, though, I think it is nice to have examples to point to and compare with so you can tell people, "see, I told you all this shiit wouldn't work."
    California is a really good example for that.

  19. #166
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    LOL

    You have no real rebuttal, so you repeat your self- still screaming.

    My answer to this thread:

    STATES RIGHTS!


    Got it?

    You surely don't.


    STATES RIGHTS? I believe you may be referring to "powers reserved to the States" by the command of the Tenth Amendment. Aside from that you offered no intelligently presented Tenth Amendment argument justifying the actions of California's AG which is, threatening American citizens in California who may cooperate with federal law enforcement officers who may make an attempt to round up illegal entrants.

    You seem to be a very confused person, and can't even remember what you posted only a few hours ago.



    JWK




    American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.


  20. #167
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    You surely don't.


    STATES RIGHTS? I believe you may be referring to "powers reserved to the States" by the command of the Tenth Amendment. Aside from that you offered no intelligently presented Tenth Amendment argument justifying the actions of California's AG which is, threatening American citizens in California who may cooperate with federal law enforcement officers who may make an attempt to round up illegal entrants.

    You seem to be a very confused person, and can't even remember what you posted only a few hours ago.



    JWK
    Ender is an open borders advocate.

  21. #168
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    You surely don't.


    STATES RIGHTS? I believe you may be referring to "powers reserved to the States" by the command of the Tenth Amendment. Aside from that you offered no intelligently presented Tenth Amendment argument justifying the actions of California's AG which is, threatening American citizens in California who may cooperate with federal law enforcement officers who may make an attempt to round up illegal entrants.

    You seem to be a very confused person, and can't even remember what you posted only a few hours ago.



    JWK




    American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

    I'm not confused- I'm for Liberty for All. And I remember exactly what I posted.

    YOU are for Big Gov taking care of you and what you are advocating is totally against State's Rights. If you are "sick and tired of being made into a tax-slave to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth", then start doing something to help get rid of Big Gov- and especially in entitlements, medicine, corporate capitalism, etc. THAT is the problem.

    The freedom of the states, and of all humans, does NOT come from the Constitution. Common Law is what the constitution is supposed to be based on.

    The Amendments were added because most of the colonists, including famous forefathers such as Patrick Henry, did not trust Hamilton OR the new law they wanted to put into place for a ruling central government.
    There is no spoon.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #169
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    Ender is an open borders advocate.
    Only with no entitlements.
    There is no spoon.

  24. #170
    Quote Originally Posted by Weston White View Post
    Didn't you get the memorandum, you have been promoted from sock-puppet extraordinaire to exportation rehabilitation and reintegration specialist third-class.
    Whose sock puppet am I?
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  25. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    I'm not confused- I'm for Liberty for All. And I remember exactly what I posted.

    YOU are for Big Gov taking care of you and what you are advocating is totally against State's Rights. If you are "sick and tired of being made into a tax-slave to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth", then start doing something to help get rid of Big Gov- and especially in entitlements, medicine, corporate capitalism, etc. THAT is the problem.

    The freedom of the states, and of all humans, does NOT come from the Constitution. Common Law is what the constitution is supposed to be based on.

    The Amendments were added because most of the colonists, including famous forefathers such as Patrick Henry, did not trust Hamilton OR the new law they wanted to put into place for a ruling central government.
    It is easier to blame the immigrants.

  26. #172
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    It is easier to blame the immigrants.
    Do you get paid overtime for weekend work?

  27. #173
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    Do you get paid overtime for weekend work?
    Thank you for your informative contribution to the thread.

  28. #174
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Thank you for your informative contribution to the thread.
    No words can express gratitude I have for your creative contributions.

  29. #175
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    Ender is an open borders advocate.
    And an anarchist, in my opinion.


    JWK

  30. #176
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    You surely don't.


    STATES RIGHTS? I believe you may be referring to "powers reserved to the States" by the command of the Tenth Amendment. Aside from that you offered no intelligently presented Tenth Amendment argument justifying the actions of California's AG which is, threatening American citizens in California who may cooperate with federal law enforcement officers who may make an attempt to round up illegal entrants.

    You seem to be a very confused person, and can't even remember what you posted only a few hours ago.



    JWK




    American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.




    I'm not confused- I'm for Liberty for All. And I remember exactly what I posted.

    YOU are for Big Gov taking care of you and what you are advocating is totally against State's Rights.
    You are not only confused, but very confused, at least when it comes to our Constitution.


    JWK



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #177
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Common Law is what the constitution is supposed to be based on.

    Absolutely wrong! What the Constitution recognizes is to apply the “rules of the common law”, as distinguished from common law. For example, one of the most fundamental rules of the common law is to adhere to “legislative intent”.


    In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could "cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."

    It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: "The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."

    And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent as a priority of the Court:

    But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

    "A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."


    The rules of the common law applies to procedure.


    JWK


    "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.

  33. #178
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    Absolutely wrong! What the Constitution recognizes is to apply the “rules of the common law”, as distinguished from common law. For example, one of the most fundamental rules of the common law is to adhere to “legislative intent”.


    In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could "cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."

    It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: "The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."

    And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent as a priority of the Court:

    But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

    "A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."


    The rules of the common law applies to procedure.


    JWK


    "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.

    Legislative intent lets judges redefine original intent.

    The issue of illegal immigration is a political minefield. There are many causes and therefore no one solution can resolve them. As Dr. Paul has said on multiple occasions, the first problem that has to be addressed is birthright citizenship. You can’t do that without replacing or amending the 14th amendment with something that repudiates Supreme Court decisions holding that rights are conferred by birthright citizenship.

    The 14th amendment is an abomination as was the legal opinion of the Supreme Court that incented its creation. It isn’t terrible because it presumes to tell states that their citizens have rights. It doesn’t do that at all. It is terrible because it legitimizes the milestone Supreme Court decision, Scott v. Sanford. Justice Taney in that decision "discovered" a legal loophole. You see, in spite of the plain words of the constitution, Taney argued that "people" and "persons" really meant "citizen." Since there was no legal decree making people citizens by birth, Dred Scott, who was born in the U.S., had no rights. What Taney meant to say, was that Dred Scot, a black man, was not human.

    In a better world, Congress would have impeached all of the Justices who supported that decision. Instead, they proposed an amendment legitimizing the decision though intending to remedy the injustice wrought by the decision. The Dred Scot decision has never been overturned. If you don’t believe me, read US v Verrdugo-Urquidez decided in 1990. The court claimed that "people" is a "term of art" meant to describe citizens. In other words, rights are conferred by citizenship.

    To work and to travel internationally, you must prove to authorities that you are a citizen. This renders you guilty until you can prove your innocence. Due to other abominable laws and decisions, you are also forced to pay to educate, feed and care for citizens who are such by consequence rather than allegiance.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/...-constitution/

    Judge Nap on the Constitution:

    Daily Bell: Some say the Constitution was a step backward from a less structured federation of states. Agree or disagree – and why?

    Judge Napolitano: I agree. I do agree. I think that we would be far happier today under the Articles of Confederation than under the current Constitution, but we would also be happier today under the Constitution were it interpreted as it was intended to be. Unfortunately, almost from the beginning, and certainly with Chief Justice John Marshall, we bear witness to the march away from state sovereignty, the march away from individual liberty and the march toward federal dominance. This march has accelerated and decelerated at various times in our history. Usually at wartime it becomes more accelerated. But from the end of the Civil War and certainly from and after the FDR era, the march has consistently been away from state sovereignty away, from individual liberty and toward federal dominance.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/06/...vernment-lies/
    Marshall was one of the worst Judges of all time.
    There is no spoon.

  34. #179
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Common Law is what the constitution is supposed to be based on.
    Actually, our Constitution is based upon natural law, and common law (i.e., case law) is based upon our Constitution.
    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius

    They’re not buying it. CNN, you dumb bastards!” — President Trump 2020

    Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber

  35. #180
    Quote Originally Posted by Weston White View Post
    Actually, our Constitution is based upon natural law, and common law (i.e., case law) is based upon our Constitution.
    I was actually going by Aristotle.

    Natural Law – The History
    The Greeks -- Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle emphasized the distinction between "nature" (physis, φъσις) and "law," "custom," or "convention" (nomos, νуμος). What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was "by nature" should be the same everywhere. Aristotle (BC 384—322) is considered by many to be the father of “natural law.” In Rhetoric, he argues that aside from “particular” laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a “common law” or “higher law” that is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2–8).
    There is no spoon.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. DHS Is Planning To Arrest Sanctuary City Leaders
    By Swordsmyth in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 01-30-2018, 08:17 PM
  2. Amash Votes Against Sanctuary City Law
    By AuH20 in forum Justin Amash Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-01-2017, 06:01 PM
  3. Anon Hacks UK in Response to David Miranda Arrest
    By presence in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-22-2013, 07:01 AM
  4. Robert Gibbs can't answer 'sanctuary city' question
    By Deborah K in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-08-2010, 11:13 AM
  5. Will this filth grow under Paul if elected?
    By Steve Hunt in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: 10-06-2007, 11:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •