4,487
18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
44 U.S.C. 2202 - The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
LOCK HIM UP!
Administrative subpoena
Stop playing pretend on message boards...it makes the rest of your arguments look even shittier.
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
christiefan915 (09-21-2018)
Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
pain in abortion.
Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
which has begun. To abort life is to end it.
Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
pain in abortion.
Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
which has begun. To abort life is to end it.
TOP (09-21-2018)
4,487
18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
44 U.S.C. 2202 - The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
LOCK HIM UP!
evince (09-21-2018)
4,487
18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
44 U.S.C. 2202 - The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
LOCK HIM UP!
Even if you have a valid point here, if your intended point is that Kav should be vetted first, and then his accuser should be heard, that's absurd."So in any court of law that you have been in, name a time when a defendant goes first. Can you name one time?" TD #193
Our Supreme Court is a powerful law interpreting, and law making body. It is not a legislature. But in some cases it might as well be, the way Stare Decisis is applied in the U.S.
These are legal standards. But these and others do not emanate directly from a legislature.It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect;... Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1803)
Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived."
Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment."
Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right."
Hertado v. California, 110 US 516.
"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."
Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60.
"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."
Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights."
Instead they were established as the correct legal interpretation in a court of law.
In what way would it be considered prudent to refuse to review the best available evidence?
"It should be obvious to anyone why conservatives and libertarians should be against Trump. He has no grounding in belief. No core philosophy. No morals. No loyalty. No curiosity. No empathy and no understanding. He demands personal loyalty and not loyalty to the nation. His only core belief is in his own superiority to everyone else. His only want is exercise more and more personal power." smb / purveyor of fact 18/03/18
Bookmarks