Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Ideologies > Big Government

Big Government Big Government Forum - Political Philosophy Forum


Thanks Tree32Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 6th, 2016, 09:50 AM   #51
Senior Member
 
locke23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Endtherepublic View Post
Thank you. I respect others opinions. I just wish others would respect mine.
You have every right to have that opinion, and I would give my life so that you may keep that liberty.

However, I do not have to respect your opinion.
locke23 is offline  
Old October 6th, 2016, 04:01 PM   #52
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: In the mind of liberal hippies
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by locke23 View Post
Also, disturbing the peace is a very ambiguous law, so I don't see anything wrong with the officer telling the woman to be cautious. Now, I think that if what the woman claims he said is true, he was a little rude. Still, that doesn't mean we should blow this outta proportion.
Disturbing the peace laws are not ambiguous laws, but broad laws to meet the challenge of whatever random event that may occur. This concept and law is in the Constitution in Article I, Section 6 as one of only three reasons to detain a US congressman from attending a session of Congress via a local or state law. It was important enough to be included in the Constitution:
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
The bill of rights does not establish the rights of the citizens but sets limitations on the state.
This almost correct; it was much more severe: there were no limits, but 100% non-intervention by the state. The word “infringe” meant to break, abolish, or cancel. Today the word means to limit or restrict, but that is not what it means in the Constitution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by locke23 View Post
The Constitution contains the Bill of Rights, which are the established inalienable rights that every American citizen has. Therefore, if the US government were to go against the Bill of Rights, they'd be going against the rights of Americans.
It's pretty sad that you, as an American, don't know about the Bill of Rights.
Actually, the Constitution does not contain the Bill of Rights. They are a separate document. Madison’s proposal inserted the Bill of Rights into the body of the Constitution. That is why they are in sequential order of where they would be inserted. This was soundly rejected. This protected the Bill of Rights from Article V’s amendment process, legislation, and federal courts. The very nature of the Bill of Rights was to be outside the purview of the government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by locke23 View Post
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_rights
"A bill of rights...is a list of the most important rights to the citizens of a country."

"The purpose is to protect those rights against infringement from public officials and private citizens."
And so, it's both. DUH
The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to prevent the federal government from creating any legislation regarding the Bill of Rights. Public officials and private citizens were never discussed. Private citizens were immune from the Bill of Rights. Public officials are not subject to the Bill of Rights, but the agency they are attached to is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by locke23 View Post
Legal.

Legal.

Still under investigation, most believed to be sketchy but still mostly legal

Legal.

Prove it.

That is necessary if we're talking about rights. The law is what determines rights, which is determined by the people through their representative government. Since the Constitution is the supreme law, we have to talk about it in order to have a discussion about rights.

How many times am I going to have to state the obvious?
Sabcat listed federal laws regarding their constitutionality. Whether a law is legal or not is not a constitutional argument. The argument is to point out where in the Constitution can the power for a law be found under the intent of the Constitution.
Thanks from excalibur

Last edited by Jimmyb; October 6th, 2016 at 04:13 PM.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old October 6th, 2016, 04:30 PM   #53
Banned
 
excalibur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 24,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by locke23 View Post
You have every right to have that opinion, and I would give my life so that you may keep that liberty.

However, I do not have to respect your opinion.

I would not give my life to defend Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist rhetoric. Rhetoric that resulted in 100+ million dead in the 20th century.


excalibur is offline  
Old October 6th, 2016, 06:32 PM   #54
Senior Member
 
locke23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
I would not give my life to defend Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist rhetoric. Rhetoric that resulted in 100+ million dead in the 20th century.


That's the biggest difference between you and me.

Yeah, I despise it, but I don't get to decide what determines one's freedom to be more valuable than someone else's. There's no fine print to freedom of speech.
locke23 is offline  
Old October 6th, 2016, 06:51 PM   #55
Banned
 
coke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: nunya
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by locke23 View Post
That's the biggest difference between you and me.

Yeah, I despise it, but I don't get to decide what determines one's freedom to be more valuable than someone else's. There's no fine print to freedom of speech.
To bad your government does not feel the same.

Quote:
Hate speech laws in Canada include provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada, provisions in the Human Rights Act and in other federal legislation, and statutory provisions in each of Canada's ten provinces and three territories. The Criminal Code prohibits "hate propaganda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_s...laws_in_Canada
Thanks from Sabcat
coke is offline  
Old October 6th, 2016, 07:03 PM   #56
Take a number
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 22,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by coke View Post
To bad your government does not feel the same.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_s...laws_in_Canada
and if the state commands him to kill them it is not murder.
Sabcat is offline  
Old October 6th, 2016, 07:11 PM   #57
Banned
 
coke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: nunya
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
and if the state commands him to kill them it is not murder.
From a legal standpoint definitely not. I think it is a subjective opinion from a moral stand point. I agree with Locke on this point.
coke is offline  
Old October 6th, 2016, 07:17 PM   #58
Take a number
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 22,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by coke View Post
From a legal standpoint definitely not. I think it is a subjective opinion from a moral stand point. I agree with Locke on this point.
once the military is unleashed on the people under the guise of public safety. it is the next step.
Sabcat is offline  
Old October 6th, 2016, 07:19 PM   #59
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 18,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
I would not give my life to defend Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist rhetoric. Rhetoric that resulted in 100+ million dead in the 20th century.


No one's asked you to. *shrug*
Hollywood is offline  
Old October 6th, 2016, 07:21 PM   #60
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 18,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by locke23 View Post
You have every right to have that opinion, and I would give my life so that you may keep that liberty.

However, I do not have to respect your opinion.
It's as if everyone has forgotten the noble adage, "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your RIGHT to say it."
Hollywood is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Ideologies > Big Government

Tags
arrest, breastfeeding, cop, infuriating, mother, threatens, “offensive”



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Warrant Issued for Mother’s Arrest for Selling Homeade Tamales to Her Neighbors Sabcat Big Government 8 August 15th, 2016 12:49 PM
Debate ignited on FB page after sharing photo of mother breastfeeding friend’s child Panther91 Social Issues 17 August 13th, 2015 10:49 AM
City Threatens Veteran with Arrest for Living off Grid ZakCarter Current Events 2 June 27th, 2015 06:06 PM
New Data Offer First Infuriating Glimpse At How The Richest 0.001 Percent Pay Income LongWinded Current Events 7 June 6th, 2015 07:22 PM
Obama Administration Threatens to Arrest Sheriff's Who Back the Second Amendment.... Jbird Current Events 85 April 9th, 2013 10:00 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.