Urgent: your help is needed to keep an innocent mother out of jail

The donation site lets you enter a "name" for your donation that it posts on the site. I used my username. If I was smarter (just occured to me) I would have put "RonPaulForums" or "RandPaul2016" or something.
 
If anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together has forgotten: the concept of the rule of law is that it is applied EQUALLY.
 
Root said:
-rep
I don't ever remember voting on, or agreeing to this law.
Click to expand...
Wow fail. I guess the constitution doesn't apply either because you didn't "vote" on it? Nice try, but your arguments are getting worse and worse.
limequat said:
If anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together has forgotten: the concept of the rule of law is that it is applied EQUALLY.
Click to expand...
Who says it isn't?
 
56ktarget said:
Wow fail. I guess the constitution doesn't apply either because you didn't "vote" on it? Nice try, but your arguments are getting worse and worse.

Who says it isn't?
Click to expand...

Shaneen Allen? It's perfectly legal to for her to carry in Pennsylvania. It's illegal for people in NJ to carry. The very fact that she was arrested by men with guns ... for having a gun ... shows that there is no rule of law.
 
56ktarget said:
Wow fail. I guess the constitution doesn't apply either because you didn't "vote" on it? Nice try, but your arguments are getting worse and worse.
Click to expand...

Actually, no it doesn't. Please read "No Treason: The Constitution Of No Authority" by Lysander Spooner.
 
56ktarget said:
Wow fail. I guess the constitution doesn't apply either because you didn't "vote" on it? Nice try, but your arguments are getting worse and worse.

Who says it isn't?
Click to expand...
The con-stitution is a list of rules for the government, which they don't abide to anyway. No, I didn't agree to it either and see no reason why I should be bound (slave) to people's bad decisions made 100's of years before I was born.
 
56ktarget said:
Wow fail. I guess the constitution doesn't apply either because you didn't "vote" on it? Nice try, but your arguments are getting worse and worse.

Who says it isn't?
Click to expand...

Well, both correct and incorrect.

The US was defined as a Republic with Traces of Democracy. We dont get to vote on everything. We are supposed to have Representatives that do said voting for us. The intent was to prevent people from voting on things that only serve self interests. However, the system is definitely no longer working as our Representatives do not represent us any longer.

In a Democracy, people have direct control over the Govt and everything Govt does. This is where voting on Laws is enabled, but also has a problem. Once people figure out that they can vote themselves fund from the public coffers, this Democracy will consume itself. Democracies are also notorious for saying only the majority of any select group has rights, meaning that if a group thinks they are the majority, they have a valid authority to take away the Rights of the minority group.

The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and concept of a Republic are intended to create a Balance between the Govt and the People. One person alone can not hold a Govt accountable, but a majority can. Other side is that a Govt operating with the concent of the governed is granted the Authority as a permission to hold a single individual responsible for actions deemed unlawful. What we have today is not a Republic but a Plutocratic Oligarchy. The power of Govt resides with a few individuals who do not listen to the needs of those they govern. They look out for themselves and themselves alone.

Next issue: every Law that is passed does not get 100% support of every citizen. Now just because a person did not vote for that Law doesnt mean that person is no longer expected to abide by that Law. In a balanced society, this works pretty well, not perfect, but well enough that society can survive. The situation we have today, the Law is abusive. None the less, those same Laws expect everyone to abide by them, even the abusive ones.

In order to maintain that critical balance of power between Govt and the People, not all Laws are considered valid, even if they were passed. The Limits of these Laws is defined by the Constitution. One such limitation that isnt applicable to this case would be the Direct Unapportioned Tax. Direct Taxes are limited to being Direct Apportioned, or Indirect and Unapportioned. Taxes on Alcohol vs Income Tax. And well, we all know how that turned out in the end. Point still remains that a Law that exceeds the powers granted to Govt by the Constitution are supposed to be considered Invalid. And it happens a lot more than people think. A Federal Judge just ruled that Californias Death Penalty is Unconstitutional, thus Invalid and does NOT have to be abided by. Many such Limitations exist. Ex Post Facto: Retroactive Laws. I cant pass a Law today for something you did yesterday, then hold anyone accountable for it. Burden of Proof. Habeus Corpus. This list of Limits is quite long. Of course, our Govt no longer abides by ANY Limitations to its power, and damn near EVERYTHING is considered a Crime.

What is really at stake here isnt whether or not the victim of the Cops actions as he applied his interpretation of the Law were voted on by that individual, by you, or by me, but the Constitutionality of said Law, which is where a Law can be deemed Invalid because it violates the Limitations of the Powers of Govt when Govt operates with the concent (permissions) of the Governed as a whole.

This isnt intended as a Rant, but a minor correction that can be heavily expanded on. We all know the Cops are very often in the wrong and even more rarely held accountable for their violations of the Laws they apply. Feel free to expand on the idea in a manner that Balances the power. A generalized idea of balance is easy, but when it gets down to the nitty gritty specifics of specific situations, that generalized idea of Balance is a bit harder to see clearly; cant see the Forest through "all the damn Trees".

The "Just-Us" System.
 
This seems so insane to me. At every step of this process there was someone with the chance to stop it. The police officer, with a good head on his shoulders and a sense of morality. The judge, the jury, the prosecutor, the mayor, all of them human beings with a sense of right and wrong. Every single person that had the power to stop this can recognize that this woman is not any sort of threat and that the whole situation is a mistake.

And yet the process marches on towards it's insane goal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Swordsmyth
Trump Victory Breathes New Life Into Massie’s National Constitutional Carry Act
Replies
0
Views
304
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
jmdrake
Monica Lewinsky seeks to blow past her reputation with a new pod cast.
Replies
1
Views
156
unknown
unknown
Anti Federalist
Woman stabbed in the throat in Grand Central station: "No one would help"
Replies
5
Views
3K
Anti Federalist
Anti Federalist
Anti Federalist
Mass. Transqueeer turns himself in to Capitol Police after fizzled firebomb attempt
Replies
4
Views
670
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
CaptUSA
Top Biden Official Funneled Billions to Migrants
Replies
3
Views
233
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Back
Top