Reply With Quotethere are as many lawyers protecting you as there are lawyers (and non-lawyers) causing you injury......
Verified User
Prohibit Lawyers
Activist judges (lawyers) alter the Constitution all of the time, and they do it with the blessings of lawyers in Congress.
"No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." — Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Last year, a detainee at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, filed a writ of habeas corpus in a federal district court in Washington, D.C. — to which all cases from Guantanamo have been assigned — and it was denied because he was not in the United States.
XXXXX
The right to due process — written notice of allegations, a hearing before a neutral jury with constitutional protections, an objectively fair process that includes the right to appeal— expressly protects all persons; thus, it is not limited to citizens. The government's assaults on liberty are unending.
Lawyer Napolitano goes on and on about habeas corpus. It matters not if enemy combatants are in Guantanamo Bay, in the Lincoln Bedroom, or on a space ship in outer space —— THEY HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. The same is true of illegal aliens. The original 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights was written for the protection of American Colonists. There is no mention of protecting foreign enemies, and certainly not “. . . protects all persons . . .”.
Napolitano plays fast and loose with the language “. . . not treat any persons . . .” even though he admits the Founders were talking about Colonists:
This is so because the Framers, who knew of summary incarceration by British authorities, made certain that the new government here could not treat any persons as the British government had treated the colonists.
Can the Federal Judiciary Alter the Constitution?
By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano Thursday
13 May 2021 06:42 AM
https://www.newsmax.com/judgeandrewp...13/id/1021218/
In recent years the courts invented protection for illegal aliens —— in addition to enriching ACLU lawyers fighting those cases in our courts.
Finally, lawyers write the laws. No legislation can see the light of day without their support. That is why they should be prohibited from holding public office since the Constitution prohibits rather than grants. In fact, the lost 13th Amendment called for that prohibition:
If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain, any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument, of any kind whatever, from any person, King, Prince or foreign Power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.1
The Lost 13th Amendment
by : Joshua Horn April 15, 2013
http://discerninghistory.com/2013/04...3th-amendment/
Who does more for foreign powers (the United Nations) than all of those lawyers in Congress?
Missing 13th Amendment Found: “No Lawyers In Public Office”
July 27, 2018
This article was posted by TLB Staff
https://www.thelibertybeacon.com/mis...public-office/
p.s. How does the loyalty of these lawyers grab you —— Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and China Joe Biden?
The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer
fully immersed in faith..
there are as many lawyers protecting you as there are lawyers (and non-lawyers) causing you injury......
Isaiah 6:5
“Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”
Verified User
To PostmodernProphet: Lawyers protect the rich. Lawyers indirectly harm the people who cannot afford to pay them. ACLU lawyers paid with tax dollars only protect Communism's agenda.Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet
The ACLU is one more result of the foulest president in America’s history 1913 through 1920.
The ACLU was at it long enough to put one of their own on the US Supreme Court in the person of Ruth Ginsburg. Other justices fudge a bit on issues near and dear to their hearts. Liberal justices favor broad themes like Socialism, non-existent International law, and so on, while Ginsburg was the only one who represented a specific organization advocating a precise religious ideology hidden behind the myth:
Consider the doublespeak inherent throughout the Left's flowery self-representation:
The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.
Now contrast that depiction with ACLU founder Roger Baldwin's candid vision:
I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.
March 24, 2011
ACLU v. Religious Liberty
By J. Matt Barber
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/...s_liberty.html
Roger Baldwin (1884 - 1981) the ACLU’s first director, laid out the ideology for all time irrespective of the ACLU barring Communists from leadership and staff positions in 1940. There was a reason for his ploy.
By the time WWII ended American Communists knew better than to join the Communist party since membership was the only way they could be defined as a Communist short of a confession. Their strategy was simple: Work for Communism in every way possible, but do not join the party.
In order to advance the Communist agenda without being weighed down by party membership the techniques of doublespeak, newspeak, outright lies, and destroying everyone who was wise to them became SOP. American Socialists/Communists along with their pals in the media were so successful in destroying Senator Joseph McCarthy (1908 - 1957) few dared challenge them.
A counterattack has been mounted on the Internet. Will it succeed in cancelling out the Left’s weapon of personal destruction? My guess is that the Net is already having a positive effect, but there is still a long way to go.
The beauty in Net Warfare is that Socialists do not control it. Plenty of Libs spew their garbage on the Net to be sure, but they are no longer the only game in town as they were are in their glory years when the media-education-entertainment complex was the only game in town.
NOTE: Even Big Tech is facing the public’s disgust along with Communism itself:
The "Big Tech" companies. From left: Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._companies.jpg
Big Tech, also known as the Tech Giants, the Big Four, and the Big Five, is a name given to the five largest and most dominant companies in the information technology industry of the United States—namely Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft. These companies have been among the most valuable public companies globally, each having had a maximum market capitalization ranging from around $500 billion to around $2 trillion USD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Tech
The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer
Verified User
What's the difference between a lawyer and a 20 lb bag of fertilizer?
Flanders (05-19-2021)
Verified User
It is long past time for the Supreme Court to right this grievous wrong. The justices in Brown did not flinch in the face of withering political criticism and the assertions by some that reversing Plessy would disrupt entire educational systems that relied on segregation. Today’s justices should do likewise and keep faith with their oaths to impartially interpret the Constitution by overturning Roe and Casey.
I have never been wrong predicting the outcome of Supreme Court cases involving tax dollars:
Finally, defenders of the U.S. Constitution on the High Court will never rule against dirty little moralists stuffing themselves with income tax dollars:
Supreme Court justices are creatures of the federal government; so predicting the outcome of Supreme Court cases involving tax dollars, and/or Wall Street’s income, is a walk in the park.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...78#post2761678
I pray that this decision proves me wrong for the first time:
On May 17, 2021, the Court agreed to hear a dispute regarding a younger line of precedents—namely, Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)—that has for many decades forbidden states from extending the basic, fair and equal protection of the law to every member of the human family, born and unborn. By granting certiorari in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and agreeing to answer directly “whether all pre-viability restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional,” the Court has the opportunity to finally end its failed and constitutionally unjustified experiment as the nation’s de facto abortion regulatory agency of last resort.
A Time for Courage on the Supreme Court
Published in Newsweek
May 20, 2021
By Carter Snead
https://eppc.org/publications/a-time...supreme-court/
For the record. My altruism is founded on my own self-defense:
To justify taking an innocent individual’s life opens the door to governments murdering millions. If the tens of millions of murders done by governments in the last century taught anything it is that there is no slope slipperier than cultivating the government’s bloodlust. Bottom line: Never, never, never, give the government the authority to kill innocent people.
The road to governments slaughtering their own people begins with the public’s acceptance of things like mercy killing, doctor-assisted suicide, abortion on demand, and so on. The sheer number of abortions makes it the worst mass murder. Slaughtering tens of millions of infants (hundreds of millions worldwide) became doing a kindness for mothers.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...26#post2786426
The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer
Verified User
Hooray for Ho:
An appeals judge in the abortion case that is now before the U.S. Supreme Court declared in a separate opinion that there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that provides for a "right" to abortion, as the high court famously found in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
Judge James Ho of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the other two judges on the 5th Circuit panel in affirming Judge Carlton Reeves' decision to throw out Mississippi's Gestational Age Act because of Supreme Court precedent.
But in a separate concurring opinion, Ho weighed in on the constitutionality of Roe.
"Nothing in the text or original understanding of the Constitution established a right to an abortion," he said.
"Rather, what distinguishes abortion from other matters of health care policy in America – and uniquely removes abortion police from the democratic process established by our Founders – is Supreme Court precedent."
Nor is there anything in the Constitution that puts the government in charge of health care:
This country was not built by parasites. It was built by a free people working for themselves and their loved ones. Either you believe in the Constitution, or you believe in the tax collector’s morality:
In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...54#post2791454
His comment addresses the progressive practice of using courts to create laws that cannot be passed through legislation. Similarly, the Supreme Court, by a single vote, created a right to same-sex marriage. The chief justice, John Roberts, said in his dissenting opinion that the ruling was not based on the Constitution.
Life News reported Ho explained he was "deeply troubled by how the district court (in the abortion fight) handled this case."
"The opinion issued by the district court displays an alarming disrespect for the millions of Americans who believe that babies deserve legal protection during pregnancy as well as after birth, and that abortion is the immoral, tragic, and violent taking of innocent human life," he wrote.
Ho said that in such cases, citizens "may rightfully wonder whether judges are deciding disputes based on the Rule of Law or on an altogether different principle. "
"Replacing the Rule of Law with a regime of Judges Know Better is one that neither the Founders of our country nor the Framers of our Constitution would recognize."
The Supreme Court said Monday when it accepted the case that it will review "whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortion are unconstitutional."
Judge: Nothing in Constitution 'establishes a right to an abortion'
WND Staff By WND Staff
Published May 23, 2021 at 12:19pm
https://www.wnd.com/2021/05/judge-no...ight-abortion/
The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer
Posting Rules
Bookmarks