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

Flash said:
It did not change the meaning of the Constitution. It interpreted the Constitution exactly as it was intended and written.
Click to expand...

It does try to do so all the time. It has no authority to. It has no authority to change or interpret the Constitution. Only the States have that right.
 
Flash said:
Courts are the only legitimate bodies to interpret the Constitution.
Click to expand...
WRONG. They do not own the Constitution. They are created under it. They do not ANY authority over it. Only the States can interpret the Constitution.
Flash said:
Otherwise, there is no limit on the powers of the legislative an executive branches.
Click to expand...
The Constitution of the United States.
Flash said:
Which interpretation changed the meaning of the Constitution--the one (Plessy) that said states can racially segregate the schools or the one that ruled it is unconstitutional for the states to have segregated schools (Brown)?
Click to expand...

The Constitution does not address this issue, so both rulings are illegal. They must rule according to the State constitutions, if addressed there at all.
Flash said:
They can't both be correct.
Click to expand...
They are both illegal.
 
Flash said:
There are no Nazi or Confederate enemies of the U. S. we are at war with. Sympathizers cannot be punished for their political beliefs.
Click to expand...

I agree that we should not legally punish even Nazis for their political beliefs. We obviously can, but should not.

But, the first statement is somewhat subjective. Neo-Nazis and Neo-Confederates regularly declare war on the USA. We subjectively decide they are just kidding, and that their violence is just crimes, and not warfare.

If it gets worse, then we subjectively start considering it warfare. At that point, the government can start shooting anyone in an enemy uniform, and even kill civilians who support the war effort. Right now 10 Alt Righters can put on a uniform and walk into a government building. Even if one of them shoots a legislator, the others would be presumed innocent. If there is a war, all ten can be shot if they are not surrendering immediately.

If I were in the Alt Right, I would stop calling for a war. It really seems to have a bad outcome for them.
 
Into the Night said:
The Constitution does not address this issue, so both rulings are illegal. They must rule according to the State constitutions, if addressed there at all.

They are both illegal.
Click to expand...

The Constitution does address the issue. The 14th says no state shall deny equal protection of the law and the states violated that provision with legislation establishing racial inequality.
 
Walt said:
I agree that we should not legally punish even Nazis for their political beliefs. We obviously can, but should not.
Click to expand...

Not without violating the 1st Amendment. We've been through that issue with restrictions on communists, NAACP,.........

Our political and religious beliefs are absolute.

Walt said:
But, the first statement is somewhat subjective. Neo-Nazis and Neo-Confederates regularly declare war on the USA. We subjectively decide they are just kidding, and that their violence is just crimes, and not warfare.

If it gets worse, then we subjectively start considering it warfare. At that point, the government can start shooting anyone in an enemy uniform, and even kill civilians who support the war effort. Right now 10 Alt Righters can put on a uniform and walk into a government building. Even if one of them shoots a legislator, the others would be presumed innocent. If there is a war, all ten can be shot if they are not surrendering immediately.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure those same rules apply when it is not an enemy nation or military force rather than a group of people with Nazi uniforms. I think we have to declare war on them before those rules apply.
 
Walt said:
So states are allowed to execute people without a trial? Or force people to testify against themselves?
Click to expand...

I was referring to only the grand jury provision of the 5th Amendment which the SC ruled did not apply to the states in 1884.

The self-incrimination and double jeopardy provisions were applied to the states in 1964 and 1969. They are considered "fundamental to justice" but grand juries are not as long as a fair and impartial method is used to bring charges against a person.
 
Into the Night said:
Carrying a firearm is completely legal. Any kind of firearm.
The crime is the misdemeanor or felony, not the firearm.

TDS
Click to expand...

Wrong.
Carrying a firearm during the commission of a crime is itself a crime.
If you're legally carrying a firearm, you can't commit a crime while carrying that firearm without the carrying of the firearm itself becoming a crime as well.
This doesn't apply to being cited while carrying a firearm--a speeding ticket, for instance--
but if you do something for which you will be arrested, having a firearm in your possession becomes an additional crime.
 
Flash said:
The Constitution does address the issue. The 14th says no state shall deny equal protection of the law and the states violated that provision with legislation establishing racial inequality.
Click to expand...

Nowhere does the Constitution of the United States address the issue. Where a person goes to school is not 'racial inequality'.
 
Flash said:
I was referring to only the grand jury provision of the 5th Amendment which the SC ruled did not apply to the states in 1884.

The self-incrimination and double jeopardy provisions were applied to the states in 1964 and 1969. They are considered "fundamental to justice" but grand juries are not as long as a fair and impartial method is used to bring charges against a person.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Wrong.
Carrying a firearm during the commission of a crime is itself a crime.
Click to expand...
Such a law is illegal.
NiftyNiblick said:
If you're legally carrying a firearm, you can't commit a crime while carrying that firearm without the carrying of the firearm itself becoming a crime as well.
Click to expand...
Such a law is illegal.
NiftyNiblick said:
This doesn't apply to being cited while carrying a firearm--a speeding ticket, for instance--
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.
NiftyNiblick said:
but if you do something for which you will be arrested, having a firearm in your possession becomes an additional crime.
Click to expand...
Such a law is illegal.

Only the use or brandishing of a weapon during a commission of a crime is a crime in and of itself.
 
Into the Night said:
The Constitution is plainly written. So are the constitutions of each State. I suggest you actually read them.
Click to expand...

You also have to keep up with the court cases that have clarified and reinforced its meaning assuming you believe in the rule of law rather than declaring court decisions "illegal."
 
Into the Night said:
Nowhere does the Constitution of the United States address the issue. Where a person goes to school is not 'racial inequality'.
Click to expand...

If a states requires a race to attend schools with lower teacher qualifications and salary and no library that is denying equal protection of the law which the 14th prohibits states from doing.
 
Flash said:
You also have to keep up with the court cases that have clarified and reinforced its meaning assuming you believe in the rule of law rather than declaring court decisions "illegal."
Click to expand...

Courts do not have the authority to change or interpret the Constitution. See Article III.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top