What do Nazi and Confederate Flags have to do with ending the lockdown?

[Into the Night]

FreeSpeech is a Trump drone. All you'll get from him is Trump propaganda and fake news.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

TDS

 

[Into the Night]

So were Germans, Jews, Irish Catholics & Italians.

But, only 2 of those groups since the 1960's have been so belittled by the Jewish media & Jewish Hollywood, being largely Poles & Italians.

Bigotry. Racism.

 

[Into the Night]

The only reason the Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution was to restrict the powers of the federal government

WRONG. The Bill of Rights clarified some restrictions that were already there, and placed the States under some of those same restrictions.

to get the support of the Anti-Federalists to ratify the document who feared the increased powers of the central government compared to the Articles of Confederation.

History revisionism, and irrelevant.

So, it was clearly intended to only restrict the federal government and the court reinforced this understanding in Barron v. Baltimore. The court distorted this meaning when they made free speech applicable to the states in 1925 and started the whole incorporation process.

The court does not have any such power.

The founders did not think the Bill of Rights were needed because they did not think the Constitution gave the federal government the power to infringe on any of those rights.

It doesn't.

So, why would they restrict the states since they were not worried about state power?

They were.

 

[Into the Night]

The Supreme Court's incorporation doctrine has made almost all the Bill of Rights applicable to the states today.

Nope. The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution.

That effectively changed the interpretation of the due process clause.

The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution.

It is current law today

It is not law. The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution.

and states cannot infringe on 1st Amendment freedoms (or any other) and there have been multiple court cases
applying those standards.

The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution.

The Supreme Court just issued a ruling prohibiting the less than unanimous (10-2) jury verdict in Oregon and Louisiana.

Irrelevant. They do not have authority to issue any such ruling.

Again, since the founders were not concerned about excessive state power they had no reason to limit states under the 2-8 amendments.

They were.

The Supreme Court refused to apply the 3rd Amendment to the states in an earlier case.

Irrelevant. The 3rd Amendment applies to the States and always has. The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

Ruby Ridge standoff lasted for 10 days, and before that the legal procedures lasted for three years.

The court does not have authority to change the Constitution of the United States or the constitution of the State of Idaho.

There was three years worth of search warrants and arrest warrants authorizing everything,

Illegally.

and then 10 days for Barr to hurn on the news and realize something was happening that he was against. Instead, he authorized everything.

He did not authorize any of it.

The Waco raid also had complete legal authorization, secured by Barr.

Lie. Janet Reno and Bill Clinton was directly responsible for the disaster at Waco.

 

[Into the Night]

The test prevents spread. It allows for containment.

Testing does not prevent infection or spread.

 

[Port Tack]

Trump never called it a hoax he said that the Democrat and media's portrayal of his response was a hoax which it is. Testing is going well we have performed more tests than any other country by a wide margin.

When he said it was a democratic hoax that is calling it a hoax just the same. There was nothing about "media's portrayal of his response", he called the fucking thing a democratic hoax, that is calling the virus a hoax unless one is a brainwashed fucking dumbshit.

 

[Port Tack]

Wrong again:

We’ve reached the coronavirus plateau. So when will the numbers begin to decline?
By Martin Finucane Globe Staff,Updated April 28, 2020, 5:52 p.m.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/04...oronavirus-plateau-now-can-we-please-get-off/

We act like we have this beat and they will go up again.

 

[Port Tack]

Way to leave out the line directly proceeding that quote you lying duplicitous piece of shit:

, “Now, the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus,"

So like I said, Trump never called it a hoax he said that the Democrat and media's portrayal of his response was a hoax which it is. Testing is going well we have performed more tests than any other country by a wide margin.

If he said it was a democratic hoax then what type of hoax did he call it? Regardless of what type, he called the virus a hoax. his comments nowhere included that "medias portrayal of his response" was a hoax, you made that shit up because trump supporters always have to make shit up to cover for their dumbshit.

 

[Flash]

WRONG. The Bill of Rights clarified some restrictions that were already there, and placed the States under some of those same restrictions.

History revisionism, and irrelevant.

Not revisionism. That is mainstream history and I have never seen any other historical explanations of why the Bill of Rights were added.

Those that worried about the increased central government power in the Constitution were the Anti-Federalists who opposed ratification. They wanted more power in the states and would not have favored adding anything that restricted the states.

Since the founders did not think the Bill of Rights were needed to restrict federal power, they had no reason to restrict state power. And, since they did not think the federal government had the power to restrict any of those rights, they did not need to clarify any restrictions the document already included.

While you do not think the court had any power to incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states, it did so and that is current law and has been so for years.

If amendments 2-8 already restricted the states, the Supreme Court would not have needed to apply those rights to the states to limit their powers.

For example, NYC prohibited handguns in the city and they had that power because the 2nd did not limit state (and local) power. In 2010 the SC made the 2nd Amendment applicable to the states and struck down that NYC law. If the 2nd already restricted the states NYC would never have been able to pass that law.

 

[Flash]

Irrelevant. The 3rd Amendment applies to the States and always has. The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution.

But no state has ever been prohibited from abridging that right (because it does not restrict the states).

Trial by jury in civil cases and grand jury indictment have never been applied to the states. If 2-8 already applied to the states, why do some states choose not to use grand juries or guarantee jury trial in civil cases?

Is there no way to require the states to follow (your interpretation) of the Constitution? What is that method?

 

[Walt]

Soviets killed more than Nazis, like it's so much better Ukrainians starved to death in the Holodomor as Stalin stole their grains?

The Ukrainian resistance was CRAZY!!! They declared war on both the Nazis and the Soviets (along with all the rest of the allies), so no one was on their side. Then they got worse, and tried to commit genocide against the Poles. I still do not understand why the Ukrainians hate the Poles, and neither do the Poles I know. The Ukrainians start by accusing the Poles of being evil Catholics, and claiming the Ukrainians are the real victims. I agree the Ukrainians are victims of history, but I do not think they are victims of the Poles.

 

[Flash]

The 1st amendment has never applied to the States, and it still doesn't.

You need to see these cases which applied individual rights from the 1st Amendment to the states:

Speech: Gitlow v. NY (1925)
Press: Near v. Minnesota (1931)
Assembly: DeJonge v Oregon (1937)
Freedom of Religion: Cantwell v Connecticut (1940)
Establishment of Religion: Everson v Board of Education (1947)

The SC did not change the meaning of the Constitution--the 14th Amendment created (the basis) for those changes.

I understand you disagree with the court decisions, but that does not mean it is not current law followed by all the courts and legal proceedings.

Many state laws and policies have been declared unconstitutional because they violated one of those rights. If they did not apply to the states, those laws would never have been struck down.

 

[BattleofHodow]

The Ukrainian resistance was CRAZY!!! They declared war on both the Nazis and the Soviets (along with all the rest of the allies), so no one was on their side. Then they got worse, and tried to commit genocide against the Poles. I still do not understand why the Ukrainians hate the Poles, and neither do the Poles I know. The Ukrainians start by accusing the Poles of being evil Catholics, and claiming the Ukrainians are the real victims. I agree the Ukrainians are victims of history, but I do not think they are victims of the Poles.

Ukrainians tried to commit genocide upon Poles?

They did, in the Massacres of Wolyn & Eastern Galicia about 100,000 Poles killed by Ukrainians.

This was actually perhaps the worst anti-Polish genocide in WW2, because they hacked Poles in half, and burned their villages, and most of the victims were women & children.

The Ukrainians were killed by about 4 million by Nazis, and by over 4 million by Soviets.

Yet, they killed mostly Poles, rather than Soviets, or Nazis?

Ukrainians were murderous cowards in WW2.

 

[Into the Night]

If he said it was a democratic hoax then what type of hoax did he call it? Regardless of what type, he called the virus a hoax. his comments nowhere included that "medias portrayal of his response" was a hoax, you made that shit up because trump supporters always have to make shit up to cover for their dumbshit.

Lie. Trump always meant the media is perpetrating the hoax. It is a hoax. The virus is real, but the mass hypochondria induced by the fear mongering in the media and the Democrats is the hoax. Trump never meant it any other way.

 

[Into the Night]

Not revisionism.

Lie.

That is mainstream history

There is no such thing as 'mainstream history'. Buzzword fallacy Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

and I have never seen any other historical explanations of why the Bill of Rights were added.

Argument of ignorance fallacy.

Those that worried about the increased central government power in the Constitution were the Anti-Federalists who opposed ratification. They wanted more power in the states and would not have favored adding anything that restricted the states.

Irrelevant. They're dead. You do not get to speak for the dead.

Since the founders did not think the Bill of Rights were needed to restrict federal power, they had no reason to restrict state power.

You cannot speak for the dead.

And, since they did not think the federal government had the power to restrict any of those rights, they did not need to clarify any restrictions the document already included.

The federal government has no authority not specifically given by the Constitution of the United States. The Bill of Rights is a clarification of some particular inherent rights the federal government is not to mess with, and some of them are also agreements between the States.

While you do not think the court had any power to incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states, it did so and that is current law and has been so for years.

The Supreme Court does not have the authority to change the Constitution.

If amendments 2-8 already restricted the states, the Supreme Court would not have needed to apply those rights to the states to limit their powers.

Amendments 2-8 are not rights. They are limitations upon the federal government and agreements between the States. The Supreme Court is compelled to those amendments upon the States. It always was.

For example, NYC prohibited handguns in the city

Illegally.

and they had that power

They never had that power.

because the 2nd did not limit state (and local) power.

Yes it does. It always has.

In 2010 the SC made the 2nd Amendment applicable to the states and struck down that NYC law.

The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution of the United States nor the New York State constitution.

If the 2nd already restricted the states NYC would never have been able to pass that law.

Sure they can pass such a law. It can be ignored too. It's an illegal law. Any police officer or city agent trying to enforce such an illegal 'law' is breaking the law, including the Constitution of the State of New York and the Constitution of the United States, not enforcing it. The Supreme Court correctly nullified the action by NYC. They were compelled to.

 

[Into the Night]

But no state has ever been prohibited from abridging that right (because it does not restrict the states).

It does restrict the States.

Trial by jury in civil cases and grand jury indictment have never been applied to the states.

Yes it has.

If 2-8 already applied to the states, why do some states choose not to use grand juries or guarantee jury trial in civil cases?

They do. All of them do.

Is there no way to require the states to follow (your interpretation) of the Constitution? What is that method?

The other States, and the people of that State. In the end, the right of self defense, even against a rogue government.

 

[Flash]

There is no such thing as 'mainstream history'.

If there is no mainstream history then there can be no "revisionism." What was it a revision of?

The Supreme Court did not nullify the NYC law until 2010 because it was not an illegal law until the SC made the 2nd apply to the states.

I thought the Supreme Court didn't have the power to declare laws unconstitutional because it is interpreting the Constitution????

 

[Into the Night]

You need to see these cases which applied individual rights from the 1st Amendment to the states:

Speech: Gitlow v. NY (1925)
Press: Near v. Minnesota (1931)
Assembly: DeJonge v Oregon (1937)
Freedom of Religion: Cantwell v Connecticut (1940)
Establishment of Religion: Everson v Board of Education (1947)

The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution.

The SC did not change the meaning of the Constitution--the 14th Amendment created (the basis) for those changes.

They did, liar. You listed the cases yourself. The 14th amendment does not change anything in the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment still only applies to the federal government.

I understand you disagree with the court decisions,

The court has not authority to change the Constitution.

but that does not mean it is not current law followed by all the courts and legal proceedings.

It is not law. Courts do not write laws. They have no authority to.

Many state laws and policies have been declared unconstitutional because they violated one of those rights.

Irrelevant. You can't use past violations of the law to justify future violation of the law.

If they did not apply to the states, those laws would never have been struck down.

Void argument fallacy. What laws are you referring to?

 

[Into the Night]

When he said it was a democratic hoax that is calling it a hoax just the same. There was nothing about "media's portrayal of his response", he called the fucking thing a democratic hoax, that is calling the virus a hoax unless one is a brainwashed fucking dumbshit.

It is a hoax. All of the fear mongering is a hoax. Trump never called the virus a hoax.