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

[Flash]

They do. All of them do.

Not true. In 25 states grand juries are optional for criminal indictments. CT and PA have abolished grand juries for criminal indictments. Others use grand juries for only certain types of crimes.

So, they obviously are not bound by the 5th Amendment grand jury provision that requires the federal government to use grand juries for felonies.

"The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires a grand jury indictment for federal criminal charges. Only about half the states now use grand juries." [ABA]

https://web.archive.org/web/2011042...org/2010/03/faqs-about-the-grand-jury-system/

 

[Flash]

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

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.

Glad to see you recognize those court cases extended 1st Amendment rights to the states.

It is not changing the Constitution if one of the purposes of the 14th was to make all the Bill of Rights applicable to the states as many believed including several SC justices.

You fail to realize what the Constitution means is subject to interpretation.

What laws are you referring to?

The hundreds of state cases struck down by the federal courts for violating 1st Amendment freedoms.

 

[Into the Night]

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

History.

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.

It was illegal when the law was passed. The Supreme Court does not have authority to change (or ignore) the Constitution of the United States.

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

It has the authority to resolve disputes between citizens and their State, dumbass. It cannot interpret the Constitution itself.

 

[Into the Night]

Not true. In 25 states grand juries are optional for criminal indictments.

All States have grand juries. So does the DC.

CT and PA have abolished grand juries for criminal indictments.

But they still have grand juries.

Others use grand juries for only certain types of crimes.

All States have grand juries, as required by the Constitution of the United States.

So, they obviously are not bound by the 5th Amendment grand jury provision that requires the federal government to use grand juries for felonies.

The 5th amendment does not say any such thing.

"The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires a grand jury indictment for federal criminal charges. Only about half the states now use grand juries." [ABA]
...deleted Holy Link...

The 5th amendment does not say any such thing.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[Into the Night]

Glad to see you recognize those court cases extended 1st Amendment rights to the states.

Lie. I do not recognize any court case that extends the 1st amendment to any State. Such a ruling is in and of itself illegal. No court has the authority to change the Constitution.

It is not changing the Constitution if one of the purposes of the 14th was to make all the Bill of Rights applicable to the states as many believed including several SC justices.

The 14th amendment says no such thing.

You fail to realize what the Constitution means is subject to interpretation.

You fail to recognize who the owners of that Constitution are. It is not the Supreme Court. Only the owners of the Constitution can interpret it, change it, or even abolish it altogether (and thus dissolve the federal government).

The hundreds of state cases struck down by the federal courts for violating 1st Amendment freedoms.

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

 

[signalmankenneth]

 

[Flash]

History.

Yes, (mainstream) history. Revisionist history deviates from the general consensus.

It was illegal when the law was passed. The Supreme Court does not have authority to change (or ignore) the Constitution of the United States.

To determine the law was illegal required an interpretation of the Constitution that it violated 2nd amendment provisions after it determined that the 2nd should restrict the states.

It has the authority to resolve disputes between citizens and their State, dumbass. It cannot interpret the Constitution itself.[/QUOTE]

 

[Flash]

All States have grand juries. So does the DC.
All States have grand juries, as required by the Constitution of the United States.

Simply having a grand jury is not what the Constitution requires. It requires any federal indictments be made by a grand jury.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,

But it does not require that of the states so many of them do not use grand juries for indictments.

The 5th amendment does not say any such thing.

Didn't say it did. It clearly lists the source of that statement to the ABA and a link to the ABA site.

So, the 5th grand jury provision does not apply to the states and many of them do not use grand juries for indictments.

Surely you don't think simply having a grand jury meets constitutional provisions....

 

[Flash]

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

You thought it was legal when the SC struck down the NYC handgun provision as unconstitutional. They did the same thing for those many 1st Amendment cases.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Simply having a grand jury is not what the Constitution requires. It requires any federal indictments be made by a grand jury.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,

But it does not require that of the states so many of them do not use grand juries for indictments.



Didn't say it did. It clearly lists the source of that statement to the ABA and a link to the ABA site.

So, the 5th grand jury provision does not apply to the states and many of them do not use grand juries for indictments.

Surely you don't think simply having a grand jury meets constitutional provisions....

Dude, all the states use grand juries to indict for Federal crimes. Most crimes are not Federal crimes.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, (mainstream) history.

No such thing. There is just history, or there is fiction.

Revisionist history deviates from the general consensus.

History does not require consensus. Consensus is only used by religions. History revision is simply fiction. Nothing else. You are trying to revise history. You are also claiming to speak for the dead.

To determine the law was illegal required an interpretation of the Constitution that it violated 2nd amendment provisions after it determined that the 2nd should restrict the states.

It cannot. It can only interpret the law in dispute. The 2nd amendment has always applied to the States.

 

[Into the Night]

Simply having a grand jury is not what the Constitution requires.

It is what the Constitution requires.

It requires any federal indictments be made by a grand jury.

No, it doesn't.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,

Read that again, real carefully this time.

But it does not require that of the states so many of them do not use grand juries for indictments.

Correct. It does, however, require grand juries. All States have grand juries.

Didn't say it did.

Yes you did, liar.

It clearly lists the source of that statement to the ABA and a link to the ABA site.

The ABA does not have the authority to change the Constitution.

So, the 5th grand jury provision does not apply to the states and many of them do not use grand juries for indictments.

It applies to the States. All States have grand juries.

Surely you don't think simply having a grand jury meets constitutional provisions....

Yes it does.

 

[rjhenn]

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

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

Then why didn't they phrase the amendments to clearly only apply to the federal government, like they did the first?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

Which enemies? How does a protest march give aid and comfort to anyone?

Nazis and Confederate sympathizers. All those who spout "Sic semper tyrannis".

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

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.

Wow! You understand FreeSpeech!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

Simply having a grand jury is not what the Constitution requires. It requires any federal indictments be made by a grand jury.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,

But it does not require that of the states so many of them do not use grand juries for indictments.



Didn't say it did. It clearly lists the source of that statement to the ABA and a link to the ABA site.

So, the 5th grand jury provision does not apply to the states and many of them do not use grand juries for indictments.

Surely you don't think simply having a grand jury meets constitutional provisions....

The 5th doesn't say what you claim it says and you even quoted it to prove that you're wrong. Where does it say "federal indictments"? It says "a capital, or otherwise infamous crime". Nothing more and nothing that limits it to the feds.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Port Tack]

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.

He said the virus was a democratic hoax. That is calling the virus a hoax.

 

[Flash]

Dude, all the states use grand juries to indict for Federal crimes. Most crimes are not Federal crimes.

We are not talking about federal crimes. The 5th Amendment requires grand jury indictment for federal felonies.

States do not prosecute federal crimes, those are done in federal courts; so, states do not use grand juries to indict for federal crimes.

 

[Flash]

No such thing. There is just history, or there is fiction.

That makes your version of the Bill of Rights and its application fiction since we know for a fact incorporation has occurred and you even acknowledged all the "illegal" court decisions which applied the entire 1st Amendment to the states.

 

[Flash]

Then why didn't they phrase the amendments to clearly only apply to the federal government, like they did the first?

Because they already included that wording in the 1st amendment and did not need to repeat it in each one and they were being written as a unit. Also, because it was widely understood (with no dissent) that the purpose of adding the Bill of Rights was for the purpose of restricting federal power to appease the Anti-Federalists who opposed the increased powers of the central government. Madison was the main author and clearly believed they only restricted federal power.

The courts and legal scholars have always accepted that intent. There was some contention by some SC justices that the 14th intended to make all the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, but they were always in the minority.

Madison actually wanted three of the rights to apply to the states but he was unsuccessful in getting them accepted: "“No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases,”

Since the amendments were written to appease those favoring more state power it would have been politically foolish to limit state power.

See the congressional debates on the amendments and correspondence between Jefferson and Madison over the need of the Bill of Rights (Jefferson wanted term limits).