Is it a settled question whether the right to armed revolution against a constitutionally elected government is present in the constitution?

[S K]

Scalia seems to have opened the door to say "yes", but congressman Jamie Raskin begs to differ:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEJmo0PcGVY

[John Levine]

According to S K <skpf...@gmail.com>:

>Scalia seems to have opened the door to say "yes", but congressman Jamie Raskin begs to differ:

Anyone with an elementary school level of reading comprehension knows
that it isn't but unfortunately we have six justices who see all sorts
of things in the Constitution that no judge saw there before.

--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

[RichD]

On July 21, John Levine wrote:
>>Scalia seems to have opened the door to say "yes", but congressman Jamie Raskin begs to differ:
>
> Anyone with an elementary school level of reading comprehension knows
> that it isn't

Let me call on my elementary school literacy -
"...being necessary to the security of a Free state"

"Free state", hmmmmm.... synonymous with sovereign state, yes/no? And
should the federal gubmit prove oppressive, that would derogate the "free"
bit, would it not? Hence the "free state" should have the means to preserve
its freedom, by effecting its sovereignty, via its militia, should it not?

Or did the framers intend that phrase to be ignored, as inconvenient and enigmatic?


--
Rich

[Stuart O. Bronstein]

And it's up to each of us individually to determine of the State is
"free" and attack it with deadly weapons if we don't think it's free
enough? So you're saying that I can kill politicians I don't like,
with impunity because I think they're making the state less free than
I would want? Wow.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[RichD]

On July 24, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
>> "...being necessary to the security of a Free state"
>> "Free state", hmmmmm.... synonymous with sovereign state, yes/no?
>> And should the federal gubmit prove oppressive, that would
>> derogate the "free" bit, would it not? Hence the "free state"
>> should have the means to preserve its freedom, by effecting its
>> sovereignty, via its militia, should it not?
>> Or did the framers intend that phrase to be ignored, as
>> inconvenient and enigmatic?
>
> And it's up to each of us individually to determine of the State is
> "free" and attack it with deadly weapons if we don't think it's free
> enough? So you're saying that I can kill politicians I don't like,
> with impunity because I think they're making the state less free than
> I would want? Wow.

"He won the battle over himself. He loved Big Brother."
- G. Orwell: "1984"

--
Rich