Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

That is just more of your delusionary babbling.

No, it isn't, Siggy.

Everything I talk to you about is represented, one way or another, already in the public records.

"Books, based on information gotten out of the CIA under the freedom of information act, testimony before the Congress, hearings before the Senate Church committee, research by scholars, witness of people throughout the world who have been to these target areas ... ."

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/StockwellCIA87_1.html

But you already knew this and as is your manner, you choose dishonesty, lying, anything to avoid the truth.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Well, as a matter off fact, the states of the southern confederacy
did not leave the union--they simply tried to . . .

As a matter of "fact", that is false, deceptive, erroneous, and bogus. (Its also fake.)

If that had been true,
then the Lincoln government cud have
controlled events in Alabama & Texas in 1862. It cud NOT. It did NOT.
As a matter of LAW, judged from a Union perspective,
the Southern States remained within the US,
because Lincoln 's government chose to look at it that way.

Setanta wrote:

and failed, at great cost of blood and treasure.

The South was conquered by the North.

Setanta wrote:

As someone who is always whining about the constitution,

EVERYONE: notice his choice of words
qua a citizen 's reference to the Supreme Law of the Land,
as tho to imply that sometimes other considerations shud be elevated above it.
If he does NOT mean that,
then he is free to express what he means.

Setanta wrote:

and indulging often hilarious flights of fancy about "originalism,"

I have it on good authority
that that's supposed to be spelled: "hi-lar-i-ous".

Setanta wrote:

i'm surprised that you fail to recognize
that the southern confederacy was unconstitutional

Setanta, u appear either not to KNOW, or not to UNDERSTAND
the historical background of the adoption of the Constitution.
The States who chose to join up did not intentionally lock themselves in forever.

In vain will u search the Constitution for a declaration
that its like entering a jail whose door goes only ONE way
and that after u enter, no matter how claustrophobic u get,
u can never get out again. If u allege that it DOES,
then please cite us to that provision. Rather, the temper of the times,
was like joining SEATO, or joining the UN, or joining Oprah's fan club.
Presumably, the right of secession was within the 1Oth Amendment.
Can u think of a competent refutation of that theory
(other than successful military brutality), Setanta ??

Indeed, during the War of 1812, there were rumblings of secession
from the New England States.

This spirit of independence and freedom
was expressed in the Instruments of Ratification
of some of the States that joined the Union, including New York, thus:
"NY INSTRUMENT OF RATIFICATION
00/04/17 NY Instrument of Ratification of the Constitution

Record Group 11, The National Archives, Washington, DC

“ That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people

whensoever it shall become necessary to their happinesss ....

That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms;
that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People
capable of bearing Arms,
is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State;
That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law, except in time of
War, Rebellion or Insurrection."
THEN: Be it known that We the People of the State of New York, Incorporated in
statehood under the Authority of The Constitution of the United States of America
by the New York Instrument of Ratification, thus are graced by the
full benefits and liberties predicated under that document; or we are made
and held captive under Unlawful Powers to which Under God we cannot, must
not, and do not submit.” [All emfasis has been added by David.]

Setanta wrote:

--leaving aside that they attacked United States troops and installations without provocation.

OK. We 'll leave that aside.

Setanta wrote:

Article One, Section Ten, reads, in its entirety:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

These provisions apply to States which are MEMBERS
of the United States. Thay do not apply to non-members.
The provision itself does not allege that it applies to non-members.
The Southern States quit, resigned, disaffiliated & separated themselves
from the US government, thereby avoiding its jurisdiction, like successfully wealthy men
who renounce their citizenship to avoid financial abuse by government.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

I have to agree with Dave in the sense that, if the original break from GB was because of an oppressive overlord, it stands to reason that a break from another oppressive overlord is well within reason.

Quote:

The South was conquered by the North.

Here Om and I disagree. Like that ever happened/happens, the US conquering other states/nations. Preposterous!

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Sorry David but the states joined a Federal government that was supreme at least in certain areas over them and there was no out of that union written into the constitution.

If the states had wish to maintain the right to leave whenever they would feel like it they could had that,power written into the constitution.

Hell if anytime any state does not care for the actions of the Federal government they could just leave we would only had have a very very temporary government indeed.

New England would had broken away in 1811 over the trade embargo as they was at the time threatening to do and during the Jackson administration North Carolina threaten to leave over taxings issues and President Jackson told them he himself would lead troops and hang them from trees if they try to do so.

Off hand I can not think of any nation state in history where the sub political units could leave at whim in a peaceful manner.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Sorry David but the states joined a Federal government
that was supreme at least in certain areas over them

Yes; e.g., coining money, as per Article I Section 8.

BillRM wrote:

and there was no out of that union written into the constitution.

The hell there wasn 't, Bill. How about the 1Oth Amendment ?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

BillRM wrote:

If the states had wish to maintain the right to leave whenever they would feel like it
they could had that, power written into the constitution.

Thay DID. It was the 1Oth Amendment.
It was admitted at the time that the 2 most important States
for the viability of the new Constitution were Virginia and New York.
Virginia refused to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights. Indeed, the Virginia
delegation (not including George Washington, the President of the Convention) walked out
of the Constitutional Convention in protest against failure to enumerate a Bill of Rights. The Federalists put up the White Flag
and James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights to be added as a block of amendments, which is what happened.

Concerning NY, I have already cited to and QUOTED hereinbefore
the libertarian reservations of rights set forth in the NY Instrument of Ratification.
(Obviously, New Yorkers proved to be hypocrits a few decades later,
invading the South for doing what New Yorkers themselves expressly reserved the right to DO.)

BillRM wrote:

Hell if anytime any state does not care for the actions of the Federal government
they could just leave we would only had have a very very temporary government indeed.

Maybe. That 'd be a matter for political negotiation,
as in any club.

BillRM wrote:

New England would had broken away in 1811 over the trade embargo as they was at the time threatening to do and during the Jackson administration North Carolina threaten to leave over taxings issues and President Jackson told them he himself would lead troops and hang them from trees if they try to do so.

Bill, r u suggesting that the Constitution can be retroactively amended by threats of felonious brutality ????
(I did not see that in Article 5.)

BillRM wrote:

Off hand I can not think of any nation state in history
where the sub political units could leave at whim in a peaceful manner.

R u telling us that American Constitutional history
is controlled by what has happened in OTHER jurisdictions, alien jurisdictions???

( Incidentally, the concept of federalism was that the federal
and state governments were JOINT SOVEREIGNS ` not "sub political units".)

[ALL emfasis has been added by David.]

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Sorry David but the power to leave the union was never in the constitution no matter how hard you try to find it and if it was important to the founders it would had been spell it out as a matter of course.

Oh and the Federal Government had many powers spell out such as the power to make war, treaties, control interstate commerce and so on..............

Second only a fool would had such an ability to leave placed in the Constitution as it would had resulted in the union and the nation disappearing in decades after the signing of the Constitution not waiting until 1862.

Everytime the Federal government did anything that a state did not care for it would had pull out of the union and the North would had done so sooner then the Southern states as a matter of fact.

The US could not had exist for more then a decade or two as a nation with the rights you are claiming in the Constitution.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Sorry David but the power to leave the union was never in the constitution no matter
how hard you try to find it and if it was important to the founders
it would had been spell it out as a matter of course.

U ignore my cite to the 1Oth Amendment, without even any COMMENT on it??????

BillRM wrote:

Oh and the Federal Government had many powers spell out
such as the power to make war, treaties, control interstate commerce and so on..............

I already cited to that in Article I, Section 8.
Did u find somewhere that it was granted power
to keep States IN the union, against their will??????

BillRM wrote:

Second only a fool would had such an ability to leave placed in the Constitution
as it would had resulted in the union and the nation disappearing in decades
after the signing of the Constitution not waiting until 1862.

Bill, how many States wud have joined up
if thay 'd been told that:
"this union is a TRAP, whose door swings in ONLY 1 direction?????? This is not for the claustrophobic."

Did u find that in the Constitution???
Did the Federalist Papers say that, like quicksand
or the La Brea Tar Pits, once u get in, u get stuck and u never get out???????
The temper of the times was shown in the declaration
of the right to leave expressed in the NY Instrument of Ratification.
IF u disagree, then please indicate THE REASON that u disagree
that this was what the States had in mind.

BillRM wrote:

Everytime the Federal government did anything that a state did not care for
it would pull out of the union and the North would had done so sooner
than the Southern states as a matter of fact.

Kinda like the UN, wud u say, Bill ??
R u saying that Lincoln was right to FAKE IT,
pretending that something was agreed, which really was NOT???

BillRM wrote:

The US could not exist for more than a decade or two
as a nation with the rights you are claiming in the Constitution.

Maybe, but that does not amend the Constitution retroactively.

David

3 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

U ignore my cite to the 1Oth Amendment, without even any COMMENT on it??????

So a catch all clause would be how the founders would had handle the rights of the states to leave the union in your opinion!!!!!!

Come on this was not a document written a thousand or two thousands years ago we have the public and in many cases the private writings of those who created the Constitution and the first 10 amendment so I am waiting for you to defend your position that the 10 amendment had such a hidden power by the words of those who created it in the first place.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

By the way David a lot of legal relationships are trap door functions in this society and was even more so in our legal past so why a lawyer would have a problem with such a "trapdoor" is kind of beyond me.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Judicial interpretationThe Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution, is often considered to be a truism. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court asserted that the amendment "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified."States and local governments have occasionally attempted to assert exemption from various federal regulations, especially in the areas of labor and environmental controls, using the Tenth Amendment as a basis for their claim. An often-repeated quote, from United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941), reads as follows:

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.....

1 Reply

@BillRM,

DAVID wrote:

U ignore my cite to the 1Oth Amendment, without even any COMMENT on it??????

BillRM wrote:

So a catch all clause would be how the founders would had handle the rights of the states
to leave the union in your opinion!!!!!!

Yes. Y not?? I don 't see a problem.
As I already pointed out, the Amendment says:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That includes the power to secede.
There in nothing in American history that when
the NY Instrument of Ratification was received,
the Federalists rejected it, complaining:
"O, no! If u join this union, then u r in FOREVER."

( By citing only to the New York Instrument of Ratification,
I do not mean to imply that OTHER States failed to do likewise,
but I do not have immediate access to their ratifications
n I don 't wanna do the work of hunting them down and studying them all, because I 'm too lazy for that.)

BillRM wrote:

Come on this was not a document written a thousand or two thousands years ago

So what???

BillRM wrote:

we have the public and in many cases the private writing of those who created the Constitution and the first 10 amendment so I am waiting for you to defend your position that the 10 amendment had such a hidden power by the words of those who created it in the first place.

U r distorting what I said.
I never said that the power to secede was "HIDDEN" in the 1Oth Amendment.
That amendment is universally comprehensive of ALL powers not
granted to the federal government, including keeping States IN, against their will.

Being born in NY, I grew up in an environment of belief that
the Union was Constitutionally justified in its invasion and conquest of the South.
Upon calm n dispassionate analysis, I changed my mind.
The applied principle was: "might makes right."
In my opinion, after meticulous examination of the Constitution,
an impartial court 'd find that the North had no jurisdiction to invade the South.

David

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Judicial interpretationThe Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution, is often considered to be a truism. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court asserted that the amendment "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified."States and local governments have occasionally attempted to assert exemption from various federal regulations, especially in the areas of labor and environmental controls, using the Tenth Amendment as a basis for their claim. An often-repeated quote, from United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941), reads as follows:

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.....

I think that 's reasonable.
The amendment was valuable in clarifying the relationship
and giving it appropriate EMFASIS!

David

1 Reply

By the way David if you play within the rules of the Constitution 2/3 of the states have the power to call a Constitutional convention and if they care to they could in that convention offer amendments to nullify the Federal government or allow any part of the US to break away or even re-introducted slavery for that matter.

But no one state or a group of states ever had the right to just leave the union in the 10 amendment or outside the 10 amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Sorry David the power is not there and no Federal court is going to rule otherwise and the military power of the Federal government did not allow it to happen once and it would not allow it to happen in the future.

If you prefer to live in a fantasy world so be it however.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

By the way David if you play within the rules of the Constitution 2/3 of the states have the power to call a Constitutional convention and if they care to they could in that convention offer amendments to nullify the Federal government or allow any part of the US to break away or even re-introducted slavery for that matter.

I 've read the Constitution 1ce or 2ice.
I know what is in it.

BillRM wrote:

But no one state or a group of states ever had the right to just leave the union
in the 10 amendment or outside the 10 amendment.

From your analysis, I must dissent.
That appears not to be how the Founding Generation saw it.
U yourself admitted that THE NORTH 'd was thinking of leaving.
As a matter of a good faith consideration of the subject,
I am compelled to find for freedom of the States to leave.

David

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Sorry David the power is not there

My point was that the federal government was not granted that power,
by the very same States that 'd be thereby IMPRISONED,
if thay DID grant that power. Reason it out, Bill.
Wud u grant power to some government to incarcerate YOU??
In your mind, what wud motivate the States to either propose
or to ratify such limitations on their own freedom???

BillRM wrote:

and no Federal court is going to rule otherwise

Agreed, but it is against a basic principle
to try a party to litigation in his or its own courts.
Its not fair. It has happened, but its not fair.

BillRM wrote:

and the military power of the Federal government did not allow it to happen once
and it would not allow it to happen in the future.

We agree about the future.

BillRM wrote:

If you prefer to live in a fantasy world so be it.

Thank u, Bill. I 'll keep that in mind.

David

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

By the way David a lot of legal relationships are trap door functions
in this society and was even more so in our legal past so why
a lawyer would have a problem with such a "trapdoor" is kind of beyond me.

The lawyers of the Southern States wud not and did not
throw those States down into the pit below the trap door, getting screwn out of their freedom.

Its odd that u think thay 'd wanna do that.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

We all enter into relationships every day that have rules on how you can or if you can leave that relationship and under what terms.

I am still waiting for you to quote some of the authors of the Constitution and or the first ten amendments that support your position that a state can leave at will or a Federal court ruling for that matter tending in that direction.

The opinions of some New Englanders piss off by the trade embargo does not matter unless they happen to be the ones who also took part in authoring the foundering documents.

Here is the comment of someone who did natter.

President Jackson:

"Our Union: It must be preserved."--After-dinner toast at the Jefferson Day banquet in the midst of the nullification crisis"

"If one drop of blood be shed in South Carolina in defiance of the laws of the U.S., I will hang the first of the nullifiers I can get my hands on."

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

who also took part in authoring the foundering documents.

Truer words you've never spoken, Bill.

0 Replies

MALICIOUS NUDISM
or NUDISTIC MALICE ??

A Marine stationed at Camp Lejeune was at home with his family
in Jacksonville, N.C., when a naked man, who was high on drugs,
started walking up and down the street shouting that he was on
a “bad trip.” After the family turned on a porch light, the naked man
approached the Marine’s house and began demanding that the
Marine and his wife let him inside. The Marine refused, locked the door,
and retrieved a 1911 pistol. At first, the crazed man tried to knock down
the front door, but he eventually moved on to a nearby screened window,
which he punched out and dove through headfirst. The Marine responded
by shooting and killing the home invader.

After reviewing the case, District Attorney David Lee announced,
“The occupants of the residence were justified in using deadly force
against [the intruder] because the actions of [the intruder] caused
the occupants to reasonably believe it necessary to use deadly force
to protect their lives.” (The Gaston Gazette, Gaston County , N.C. May 14, 2012)

2 Replies

Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know