Watch out for Trojan Horse II

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by partdeux, Dec 3, 2017.

  1. kfox75

    kfox75 Well-Known Member Supporter

    7,484
    587
    113
    Agreed.

    gentlemen. As this game has lost it's allure, and frankly, the forum and sub forum are getting there as well, I fold.

    i will now go hold a debate with one of my walls, as it would have a better chance of listening, and I would have better odds of making my own points heard.
     
    Dallas53 likes this.
  2. SRK97

    SRK97 Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,951
    727
    113
    The only change I want is to change "We The People" to "Fellas,"
     
    JimRau and kfox75 like this.

  3. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,111
    186
    63
    LOL, So if you have a corrupt umpire who is paid to throw the game that is ok with you. Come back to the real world and smell the crap!!! Or just do as you are told and follow the piper!:(
     
    sigman84 and Ghost1958 like this.
  4. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    509
    400
    63


    I'm clearly not a constitutional lawyer either. However being extremely interested in keeping our rights I have a couple of attorney friends I have talked to several times this very thing.
    Judicial review, simply was not a power even hinted at in the cotus. It's not mentioned at 'all in the document.

    Here is a link to some very good reading on the history of judicial review , and the fact that SCOTUS for a long time has changed the very meanings of Amendments in the BOR, to accomplish political ends.

    And openly simply ignores other articles in the document.

    SCOTUS can rule a law unconstitutional or not.
    By putting that law up beside the applicable amendment .

    What it does not now nor ever has had even by ruling itself judicial review is the authority to change the wording or clearly spelled out intent of any of the BOR by adding to or taking away from them as written.

    There are 2 constitutional ways and only 2 that an Amendment to the COTUS may be made.

    SCOTUS is not included in either.


    https://www.britannica.com/topic/constitutional-law/Judicial-review-in-the-United-States
     
  5. jigs-n-fixture

    jigs-n-fixture Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    1,522
    708
    113
    Since the federal government has owned land since its inception, I think your contention that it can’t is just simply asinine.
     
    Dallas53 likes this.
  6. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    509
    400
    63

    The Fed is allowed to own land in territories. It can and did make land grants to private citizens from those territories to encourage settlers. All legal.
    Once a state is formed and accepted the land it encompasses that is not private owned becomes state property.

    Agreements of the Fed holding land in a state in order to accept that state are blackmail and worthless.

    The cotus gives the Fed total control of land it can constitutionally own.

    It also spells out what specific uses the Fed can BUY with the states agreement, land for.

    None of those include parks, monuments, grazing, wildlife refuges etc etc.

    Alot of the constitution is asinine to many.

    It is still the law of the land. And most Americans like it that way.
    And that is why Federal prosecutors are getting their butts handed to them in jury trial after jury trial of the Bundys and others over the years.

    They have no basis for a case.

    Once that issue is taken out of a Fed judges hands and placed in jury of citizens they lose.
    After repeated attempts at the same people.

    Even with corrupt judges trying to fix the trial.


    One might research the actions of the BLM over it's history concerning this issue. If there are criminal acts involved, BLM are the criminals.
     
  7. kfox75

    kfox75 Well-Known Member Supporter

    7,484
    587
    113
    I think now would be.a.good time to point out that when onw hires a lawyer, one is paying them for their opinion of what the law means. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Yes, it may be based on past cases, but it can just as easily be based in their desire to take your money, leading them to agree with you, even though you are guilty as hell or have no chance.of beating tge rap.
     
    locutus and Dallas53 like this.
  8. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    509
    400
    63

    Little confused as to how this pointing out lawyers are money grubbers which I mostly agree with, ties in?
     
  9. Balota

    Balota ... but I used to play keyboards. Staff Member

    8,516
    918
    113
    Could be. But the point is that they do seem to be authorized to decide such questions.
     
    locutus likes this.
  10. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,111
    186
    63
    True, but it is OUR RIGHT AND RESPONSIBILITY AS CITIZENS to not just follow blindly when corruption is evident, but to stand against this corruption and miss use of authority/power especially when this abuse directly affects our RIGHTS that is why this country was formed many years ago! ;)
     
    Ghost1958 and sigman84 like this.
  11. sigman84

    sigman84 Well-Known Member

    1,344
    26
    48
    I don't think it's necessarily their opinion, it's really more along the lines of your paying them to convince the judge of your view and opinion of the issue.
     
    Ghost1958 likes this.
  12. Cutlass327

    Cutlass327 Member

    73
    5
    8
    Haven't read all of the discussion, but i think the easiest way to prove that you cannot trust this new bill is Feinstein is involved and supporting it. That's all of the warning you need to see.
     
    kfox75, Balota, primer1 and 2 others like this.
  13. primer1

    primer1 Well-Known Member Supporter

    9,822
    351
    83
    "The national guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the second ammendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the state or themselves"
    -- Dianne Fienstein

    "If I could have banned them all... I would have."
    -- Dianne Fienstein
     
    Ghost1958 and Cutlass327 like this.
  14. Chip1369

    Chip1369 Member

    97
    4
    8
    I feel like you are a traitor to our Constitution....so please, go find some gun-grabber forum where you can hang with peeps more like you!
     
  15. Chip1369

    Chip1369 Member

    97
    4
    8
    Ah, so you didn't leave, as promised. If you need a law degree to understand your unalienable human rights and how they relate to our Constitution, you probably also need a college degree to read Hop on Pop.
     
    Ghost1958 and sigman84 like this.
  16. Chip1369

    Chip1369 Member

    97
    4
    8
    There it is. Free men don't need government permission to exercise their unalienable human rights in whatever fashion they choose. This bill is just another attempt to normalize the unacceptable.
     
    Ghost1958 and sigman84 like this.
  17. sigman84

    sigman84 Well-Known Member

    1,344
    26
    48
    Ya, she's a loon too. And no the national guard does not fulfill the role of the local militia as mentioned in the 2ND. National Guard is still a government entity, whether it be at the state or national level.
     
    Balota and Ghost1958 like this.