Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A US code may not override the basic rights of the Constitution, or else it shouldn't be recognized. Destruction of property is agreeable because the people should not destroy what is not theirs. But, simply speaking hypothetically about what would happen is perfectly legal under the Constitution and a US code buried in some encyclopedia doesn't change that.
Well, Summers, before continuing down your line of reasoning, I would strongly suggest that you consider how long you will enjoy being passed around the cell block as the latest boy toy while your case winds its way through the appeals process.
As for TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2385 of the US Code being hidden away in an encyclopedia, I would further suggest that its availability to even a rookie U.S. Attorney is more than readily accessible.
Quote:
A US code is little different than King George III and his predecessors overriding rights under the Magna Carta. You can be a redcoat if you wish, or you may be a patriot. Choose carefully.
Oh, for your sake, I hope your attorney is a tad bit wiser and learned about the law and realizes that the Magna Carta, has absolutely no bearing upon the Constitution or US Code both of which, by the way, are the only pertinent laws of this land. As for being a redcoat or a patriot, besides being a totally absurd comment, is well, an absurd comment. Please read the decision in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S. Ct. 857, 95 L. Ed. 1137 (1951) before making yourself look any more foolish (if that is possible).
I don't believe the advocacy part of 2385 would withstand a first amendment challenge. I'm sure prosecutors know this, which is why advocacy cases are never brought. There are many unconstittional laws on the books that remain there until the government tries to use them and are rebuffed by the courts.
A US code may not override the basic rights of the Constitution, or else it shouldn't be recognized. Destruction of property is agreeable because the people should not destroy what is not theirs. But, simply speaking hypothetically about what would happen is perfectly legal under the Constitution and a US code buried in some encyclopedia doesn't change that.
A US code is little different than King George III and his predecessors overriding rights under the Magna Carta. You can be a redcoat if you wish, or you may be a patriot. Choose carefully.
Edit: I do find it rather amusing concerning the clause about being prohibited from working in the federal government after being "guilty" of such a "crime" to speak out against the perversion of the Constitution as implemented in DC.
So, you believe that each of us have the right to ignore whatever laws we don't happen to like, that the law is only for those who wish to live in subjegation?
I can't think of a better recipe for anarchy, can you?
I don't believe the advocacy part of 2385 would withstand a first amendment challenge. I'm sure prosecutors know this, which is why advocacy cases are never brought. There are many unconstittional laws on the books that remain there until the government tries to use them and are rebuffed by the courts.
That maybe Cav, but like I stated before, are you willing to sit in, let's say Marion or Atlanta while the waiting for the Supreme Court to agree with you?
I suppose that if you are a like minded jurist as Black and Douglas that you would be right, however, that would have put you in the minority when deciding Dennis.
Of course if you are defending the airheads on this site, I would argue that the arm chair revolutionaries haven't demonstrated a credible "grave and probable danger" and should be free to continue posting these tracts to their hearts content.
That's easy. The articles of confederation (preferred by Jefferson over the Constitution) or another version of the US Constitution that called for immediate expulsion of leaders who betrayed it, term limits to offset gerrymandering of districts, loose policies for getting on State ballots to permit openness of many parties.
The Articles of Confederation? Do you even know WHY the Articles were abandoned and the Constitution crafted to replace them? Because they weren't working! There was no unity in the United States and every state recognized its shortcomings. That's why every state sent delegates to the Constituitonal Convention and why they all ratified it. The change over was hardly done against the will of The People.
If you'd like to see a good example of what might happen if we re-adopted some form of the Articles of Confederation, look to the government of the Confederacy for your answer. When they drew up their Constitution, they deliberately modeled it on the Articles and it was the powers of the individual states which started the war and lost it. The government in Richmond was powerless to prevent the war and powerless to fight it successfully.
If that's what you'd like to see repeated, have at it. As for me, I think I'll stand with the Constitution.
Well, Summers, before continuing down your line of reasoning, I would strongly suggest that you consider how long you will enjoy being passed around the cell block as the latest boy toy while your case winds its way through the appeals process.
As for TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2385 of the US Code being hidden away in an encyclopedia, I would further suggest that its availability to even a rookie U.S. Attorney is more than readily accessible.
The fact that it is accessible means nothing. If it violates the Constitution, it shouldn't be recognized. The only alternative is to go underground with one's ideals, and to amass support for your cause outside of the watchful eye of our benevolent federal government.
Quote:
Oh, for your sake, I hope your attorney is a tad bit wiser and learned about the law and realizes that the Magna Carta, has absolutely no bearing upon the Constitution or US Code both of which, by the way, are the only pertinent laws of this land. As for being a redcoat or a patriot, besides being a totally absurd comment, is well, an absurd comment. Please read the decision in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S. Ct. 857, 95 L. Ed. 1137 (1951) before making yourself look any more foolish (if that is possible).
Whatever some kangaroo court does or does not do bears little resemblence. The analogy of what KG3 did versus the rights guaranteed under the MC is completely applicable. Governments are the enemy of the proclamations which preceded and allowed for their tenure. Jefferson knew this, and that is where his "blood of tyrants" quote is completely applicable throughout history. Will the federal government and its supporters fall under the same fate of King Louis? Turn the page to find out.
But, the question still stands. Will you be a redcoat or a patriot?
If you'd like to see a good example of what might happen if we re-adopted some form of the Articles of Confederation, look to the government of the Confederacy for your answer. When they drew up their Constitution, they deliberately modeled it on the Articles and it was the powers of the individual states which started the war and lost it. The government in Richmond was powerless to prevent the war and powerless to fight it successfully.
You know this is a really excellent point that these folks utterly fail to understand or grasp. Both the Articles of Confederation and the Confederate constitution were unmitigated failures. And I might add, their isn't anything more ironic than the fact that it was Shay's Rebellion that did more to bring about the scrapping of the Articles of Confederation than any other single issue.
This directly states that the FIRST duty of an American soldier is to achieve the mission dictated by military leadership, NOT the defense of the US Constitution. Brain-washing soldiers to place the mission first, that is, “just follow orders” given by der Fuehrer (“the leader” in German) rather than being responsible for obeying the Constitution and laws of war dramatizes the US shift into fascism"
So, you believe that each of us have the right to ignore whatever laws we don't happen to like, that the law is only for those who wish to live in subjegation?
I can't think of a better recipe for anarchy, can you?
If a law like this should exist, it should be declared as an amendment to the Constitution similar to prohibition was. Of course, this would make the issue more public and transparent, thus it would never pass. This is why the federal government, an enemy of the United States, decides to tuck these laws away in a "US Code" library. Any restrictions not presented in the Constitution do not and should not exist. Progressives like to believe it's just a building block for a literal encyclopedia of US codes. But it isn't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
