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

rjhenn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because the 5th Amendment only applied to the federal government.

The Department of Justice Offices of the U. S. Attorneys supports this long established fact:

"States are not required to charge by use of a grand jury. Many do, but the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to only require the federal government to use grand juries for all felony crimes (federal misdemeanor charges do not have to come from the federal grand jury)."

https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/charging

"Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884),was a landmark case decided by the United States Supreme Court that allowed state governments, as distinguished from the federal government, to avoid using grand juries in criminal prosecutions."
 
rjhenn said:
Then why didn't they phrase the amendments to clearly only apply to the federal government, like they did the first?
Click to expand...

"Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833), is a landmark [unanimous] United States Supreme Court case in 1833, which helped define the concept of federalism in US constitutional law. The Court ruled that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the state governments, establishing a precedent until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

"To demonstrate that Constitutional limits did not apply to states unless expressly stated, Marshall used the example of Article I, Sections 9 and 10:

The third clause (of Section 9), for example, declares that "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed." No language can be more general; yet the demonstration is complete that it applies solely to the government of the United States.... the succeeding section, the avowed purpose of which is to restrain state legislation... declares that "no state shall pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law.” This provision, then, of the ninth section, however comprehensive its language, contains no restriction on state legislation."
 
Port Tack said:
He said the virus was a democratic hoax. That is calling the virus a hoax.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Flash said:
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).
Click to expand...

The 1st amendment does not apply to any other amendment.
You do not get to speak for the dead. Only the Constitution itself is the authoritative reference.
 
Flash said:
Because the 5th Amendment only applied to the federal government.
Click to expand...
Nope. It applies to the States as well. It always has.
Flash said:
The Department of Justice Offices of the U. S. Attorneys supports this long established fact:

"States are not required to charge by use of a grand jury. Many do, but the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to only require the federal government to use grand juries for all felony crimes (federal misdemeanor charges do not have to come from the federal grand jury)."

https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/charging

"Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884),was a landmark case decided by the United States Supreme Court that allowed state governments, as distinguished from the federal government, to avoid using grand juries in criminal prosecutions."
Click to expand...

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

You cannot use either one as a reference. You cannot speak for the dead either. Only the Constitution itself is the authoritative reference of the Constitution. Only the owners of that Constitution (the States) are allowed to interpret it.
 
As vile as the Nazi and Confederate flags are, many of the buffoons waiving them don't really subscribe to the kind of depravity represented by those rags.

They actually subscribe to Libertarianism, the ideology that seeks freedom from any kind of social responsibility.
Try to imagine these slugs actually trying to survive under the system they purport to want.

Some of them carry firearms while they break the municipal requirements for social distancing and gatherings of over ten people.
Despite the 2nd Amendment, carrying firearms during the commission of a crime is not merely a misdemeanor but a felony in most states.
If the authorities called in SWAT teams to take them down, they would be completely within their rights.

The degree to which Trumpanzees are mentally deficient is truly amazing.
 
Flash said:
"Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833), is a landmark [unanimous] United States Supreme Court case in 1833, which helped define the concept of federalism in US constitutional law. The Court ruled that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the state governments, establishing a precedent until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

"To demonstrate that Constitutional limits did not apply to states unless expressly stated, Marshall used the example of Article I, Sections 9 and 10:

The third clause (of Section 9), for example, declares that "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed." No language can be more general; yet the demonstration is complete that it applies solely to the government of the United States.... the succeeding section, the avowed purpose of which is to restrain state legislation... declares that "no state shall pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law.” This provision, then, of the ninth section, however comprehensive its language, contains no restriction on state legislation."
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution of the United States. The 14th amendment changed nothing about the first 10 amendments.

Amendment 14 said:
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Click to expand...

This was ratified in 1868 and became law. It is not ex post facto law.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
As vile as the Nazi and Confederate flags are, many of the buffoons waiving them don't really subscribe to the kind of depravity represented by those rags.

They actually subscribe to Libertarianism, the ideology that seeks freedom from any kind of social responsibility.
Try to imagine these slugs actually trying to survive under the system they purport to want.

Some of them carry firearms while they break the municipal requirements for social distancing and gatherings of over ten people.
Despite the 2nd Amendment, carrying firearms during the commission of a crime is not merely a misdemeanor but a felony in most states.
If the authorities called in SWAT teams to take them down, they would be completely within their rights.

The degree to which Trumpanzees are mentally deficient is truly amazing.
Click to expand...

Carrying a firearm is completely legal. Any kind of firearm.
The crime is the misdemeanor or felony, not the firearm.

TDS
 
Into the Night said:
The 1st amendment does not apply to any other amendment.
You do not get to speak for the dead. Only the Constitution itself is the authoritative reference.
Click to expand...

As interpreted and applied by the courts. Your interpretations are completely at odds not only with history but current constitutional law. Disagreeing with court decisions does not make them wrong, especially since they determine the law which governs us daily.

If a state unconstitutionally restricts free speech and the SC strikes down that law, you can say it is an "illegal" decision but that law is still null and void and no longer enforced by the states which accept that decision as law.
 
Into the Night said:
Nope. It applies to the States as well. It always has.

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

You cannot use either one as a reference. You cannot speak for the dead either. Only the Constitution itself is the authoritative reference of the Constitution. Only the owners of that Constitution (the States) are allowed to interpret it.
Click to expand...

Only revisionist historical interpretation would make this unsubstantiated claim.
 
Flash said:
As interpreted and applied by the courts.
Click to expand...
The courts do not have authority to change or interpret the Constitution.
Flash said:
Your interpretations are completely at odds not only with history but current constitutional law.
Click to expand...
History is not involved. The ONLY Constitutional law are the constitutions themselves. They are the ONLY authoritative reference to constitutional law.
Flash said:
Disagreeing with court decisions does not make them wrong, especially since they determine the law which governs us daily.
Click to expand...
Courts do not have authority to write law.
Flash said:
If a state unconstitutionally restricts free speech and the SC strikes down that law, you can say it is an "illegal" decision but that law is still null and void and no longer enforced by the states which accept that decision as law.
Click to expand...
That is up the State constitution and only the State constitution. The federal Constitution does not apply here. See Amendment 1 and Amendment 10 and Article III.
 
Into the Night said:
The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution of the United States. The 14th amendment changed nothing about the first 10 amendments.
Click to expand...

It did not change the meaning of the Constitution. It interpreted the Constitution exactly as it was intended and written.
 
Into the Night said:
The courts do not have authority to change or interpret the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Courts are the only legitimate bodies to interpret the Constitution. Otherwise, there is no limit on the powers of the legislative an executive branches.

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)?

They can't both be correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top