Real, or illusion?
RichD
Frisbieinstein
I hoped that a Democratic government would restore the rule of law in
the USA but have been sadly disappointed. Washington doesn't give a
shit about the law.
So now that they are out of power the Republicans are talking law?
What a surprise.
studio
> I hoped that a Democratic government would restore the rule of law in
> the USA but have been sadly disappointed. Washington doesn't give a
> shit about the law.
>
> So now that they are out of power the Republicans are talking law?
> What a surprise.
They also like to become fair-weather Libertarians when out of power,
but could care less about Libertarians when in power.
Fox News just recently hired John Stossel to give the Libertarian
slant highlighting some flaws in the system.
Where was Fox News the previous 8 years?
Rest assured, if a Republican got elected next election, John Stossel
would suddenly be out of a job.
RichD
> >http://tinyurl.com/wsj-legal-chall
>
> > Is there any hope?
>
> of law in the USA but have been sadly disappointed.
You're kidding, right?
> Washington doesn't give a shit about the law.
But they all take the Constitutional oath... it's almost
a joke, but too nauseating.
I've asked a few law forums when was the
last time the 9th or 10th amendment was
referenced in any court decision, but no answer.
> So now that they are out of power the Republicans are
> talking law? What a surprise.
We live in a one party state... the Republicrats.
--
Rich
studio
> I've asked a few law forums when was the
> last time the 9th or 10th amendment was
> referenced in any court decision, but no answer.
I'm still trying to figure out how they get around the 13th amendment
when it comes to the draft.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involutary servitude, except as
punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject
to thier jusidiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
Oh, I answered my own question, there it is in section 2. They simply
don't enforce it.
Deadrat
48c14d...@15g2000vbg.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 13, Frisbieinstein <patmpow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >http://tinyurl.com/wsj-legal-chall
>>
>> > Is there any hope?
>>
>> I hoped that a Democratic government would restore the rule
>> of law in the USA but have been sadly disappointed. �
>
> You're kidding, right?
>
>> Washington doesn't give a shit about the law.
>
>
> But they all take the Constitutional oath... it's almost
> a joke, but too nauseating.
>
> I've asked a few law forums when was the
> last time the 9th or 10th amendment was
> referenced in any court decision, but no answer.
The Supreme Court recognized the claims of civil service employees against
the Hatch Act as originating in the 9th and the 10th Amendments. (United
Public Workers v. Mitchell 330US75 (1947)). The Court found that
Congress' power to regulate its employees overrode the right for them to
engage in political activities.
Justices Douglas and Goldberg cited the 9th in support of the right to
privacty in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381US479 (1965), which stopped the
states from banning contraceptives.
The 9th came up in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448US555 (1980),
which reversed the closing of a trial to the public. The basis for the
decision was the 1st and 6th Amendments (through the 14th, of course), but
Virginia's claim that the right to a public trial isn't specifically
mentioned in the Constitution was rejected with reference to the 9th.
As for the 10th, the Supreme Court famously noted that it "added nothing to
the [Constitution] as originally ratified." United States v. Sprague,
282US716 (1931). Thus the 10th isn't cited much, except to prohibit
"commandeering," i.e., requiring the states to enforce federal law (e.g.,
New York v. United States, 505US144 (1992). Which is why the feds use
bribery (or extortion, depending on your point of view).
That do it for ya?
<snip/>
> Rich
>
Deadrat
d3471b...@s19g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
Well, that's the problem with answering your own questions when you're an
ignoramus.
The answer may be found in court rulings, e.g., from the Supreme Court in
United States v O�Brien, 391US367, 377 (1968) and from the 7th District in
United States v Holmes, 387F.2d781, 784 (1968). It turns out that the
explicit grant of power to Congress for raising armies precludes
classifying conscription as an illegal act, namely slavery as outlawed by
the 13th Amendment.
Of course, this doesn't make a draft any more voluntary or more palatable
to you perhaps, but it isn't legally slavery.
I guess it's a good thing that we don't have a draft, eh?
studio
> studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:c2c4da6d-b183-429a-8ae1-
>
>
>
> > On Jan 18, 9:51 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I've asked a few law forums when was the
> >> last time the 9th or 10th amendment was
> >> referenced in any court decision, but no answer.
>
> > I'm still trying to figure out how they get around the 13th amendment
> > when it comes to the draft.
>
> > Section 1. Neither slavery nor involutary servitude, except as
> > punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly
> > convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject
> > to thier jusidiction.
> > Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by
> > appropriate legislation.
>
> > Oh, I answered my own question, there it is in section 2. They simply
> > don't enforce it.
>
> Well, that's the problem with answering your own questions when you're an
> ignoramus.
>
> The answer may be found in court rulings, e.g., from the Supreme Court in
> United States v O’Brien, 391US367, 377 (1968) and from the 7th District in
> United States v Holmes, 387F.2d781, 784 (1968). It turns out that the
> explicit grant of power to Congress for raising armies precludes
> classifying conscription as an illegal act, namely slavery as outlawed by
> the 13th Amendment.
I forgot how the Congress primary functions are above any
Constitutional amendments.
Of course I'm sure you're in full agreement with all laws passed by
the Supreme Court.
Maybe one day after you're conscripted, they'll uphold a law saying
it's alright that you shoot your parents-friends-colleagues who
disagree and protest against such laws.
> Of course, this doesn't make a draft any more voluntary or more palatable
> to you perhaps, but it isn't legally slavery.
Involuntary servitude by any other name stinks just the same.
> I guess it's a good thing that we don't have a draft, eh?
For now. Don't worry though, that will change at some point.
Deadrat
news:148e40b2-8a55-4762...@t12g2000vbk.googlegroups.com:
Oh, c'mon. You didn't forget. You never knew.
> Of course I'm sure you're in full agreement with all laws passed by
> the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court doesn't pass laws. Did you miss the day they covered
that in civics class? Or were you just not paying attention?
Of course I'm not in "full agreement" with every Supreme Court decision.
But they didn't ask me, for some reason. And I'm just reporting what the
law actually is.
> Maybe one day after you're conscripted, they'll uphold a law saying
> it's alright that you shoot your parents-friends-colleagues who
> disagree and protest against such laws.
Maybe one day they'll uphold a law saying that "all right" is a single
word with one 'l' in it. Who knows? But if whiners like you can protest
freely that the President of the United States is the new Kenyan Hitler,
then I'm not gonna worry about your scenario.
>> Of course, this doesn't make a draft any more voluntary or more
>> palatable to you perhaps, but it isn't legally slavery.
>
> Involuntary servitude by any other name stinks just the same.
From the point of view of the law, conscription isn't involuntary
servitude as the term is used in the 13th Amendment. It may smell no
differently to you, but then I guess it just sucks to have your olfactory
sense. Take your complaints to misc.libertarian.whining.
>> I guess it's a good thing that we don't have a draft, eh?
>
> For now. Don't worry though, that will change at some point.
That point would have to be a war that required cannon fodder. Always
possible, of course -- maybe on the Korean Penninsula -- but the US
military relies too much on high-tech weaponry to draft wholesale from
the general population of ignoramuses.
In any case, I'm not worried. I'm too old. But maybe they'll classify
you as 2-W, for "too whiny."
studio
> > I forgot how the Congress primary functions are above any
> > Constitutional amendments.
>
> Oh, c'mon. You didn't forget. You never knew.
Well then why have any Amendments? They don't mean anything.
Also seems that the Supreme Court decided that Congress was entitled,
in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to focus on the question
of military need, rather than 'equity.'
Meaning; women are exempt, and that Congress can make exceptions to
the rule...like their own family members or as favors to other
powerful people to circumvent their own system.
Amendment 15:
The right of citizens of the US to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the US or any state on account of race, color or previous
condition of servitude.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
Amendment 19:
The right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
US or any state on account of sex.
Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.
I guess they don't have to do those either.
Amendments are as useless as the Constitution itself apparently.
Imagine, a black, yellow, red...(or even white at some point)
Congressman being voted down by the majority of Congress as not having
the right to vote!
This is what is left open to happen.
> The Supreme Court doesn't pass laws. Did you miss the day they covered
> that in civics class? Or were you just not paying attention?
Didn't mean to confuse you. They either uphold laws or strike them
down from lower court rulings that in many cases are old, obscure or
obsolete. Of course when their friends are in those high places of
office, the scales of 'justice' also leans in that direction.
> Maybe one day they'll uphold a law saying that "all right" is a single
> word with one 'l' in it. Who knows? But if whiners like you can protest
> freely that the President of the United States is the new Kenyan Hitler,
> then I'm not gonna worry about your scenario.
wtf is a Kenyan Hitler and when did I say that? Never mind, I don't
want to get involved in a argument with your imagination.
> > Involuntary servitude by any other name stinks just the same.
>
> From the point of view of the law, conscription isn't involuntary
> servitude as the term is used in the 13th Amendment.
Yeah, as it's used in the 13th Amendment, it's only for everyone else
who isn't a Congressman. Congressmen aren't people, they're special
super people.
> >> I guess it's a good thing that we don't have a draft, eh?
>
> > For now. Don't worry though, that will change at some point.
>
> That point would have to be a war that required cannon fodder. Always
> possible, of course -- maybe on the Korean Penninsula -- but the US
> military relies too much on high-tech weaponry to draft wholesale from
> the general population of ignoramuses.
And we all know how well all that high tech weaponry has worked. The
only war high tech weapons ever won was WW2, and then only against
half the enemy.
> In any case, I'm not worried. I'm too old.
You're never too old to be conscripted. It only takes one day for the
law to be updated to include you.