Georgia man arrested for weapons possession in Great Valley

[Marine Cpl]

Okay. My posts are being deleted now when responding to a post which that I was called out on. Guess I’m out of this particular thread.

 

[GOPerfect]

Okay. My posts are being deleted now when responding to a post which contained that I was called out on. Guess I’m out of this particular thread.

Sons of bitches!

We killed it anyway. I'm gonna start a new thread in a minute in regards to weight loss....

 

[spat]

I’m no part of this at all. When has you heard me argue for the tyranny we have now? My argument has never even been that cops who actually choose to enforce these laws are free from scorn.

All you see me argue is the stupid mindset that the mere existence of police is what allows our politicians to operate. I reject that notion on the grounds that it is the citizenry repeatedly voting these people in who hold the responsibility for where we are today.

On a side note, the deletion of one of my posts got my thinking about the time Will said something like “I’m sure over a beer we’d be friends” of some such and I was like, “yeah no, I’d never share a beer with you.” Lol.

The citizens who vote for these people are responsible, you are right.

As are the legislators who enact them, the presidents and governors who ratify them, the courts who uphold them, *and* the cops who enforce them.

It's not an either or proposition. All are guilty.

Your defense is the same as a mob hitman saying "I'm not guilty of the murder, the boss ordered it, I was just following orders. The boss and the people who put him in power are the ones who are really responsible".

At the same time, mob bosses without enforcers would be as impotent as tyrants without police. There is no oppression possible except that which you guys implement.

 

[Airborneguy]

The citizens who vote for these people are responsible, you are right.

As are the legislators who enact them, the presidents and governors who ratify them, the courts who uphold them, *and* the cops who enforce them.

It's not an either or proposition. All are guilty.

Your defense is the same as a mob hitman saying "I'm not guilty of the murder, the boss ordered it, I was just following orders. The boss and the people who put him in power are the ones who are really responsible".

At the same time, mob bosses without enforcers would be as impotent as tyrants without police. There is no oppression possible except that which you guys implement.

Nope, re-read what I wrote or adjust your post. The mob hitman is the cop who actually enforces these laws - as mentioned above in my post.

The mob hitman is not the cop who just by his mere existence elicits the scorn of left wing nuts and their delusional buddies.

You guys have shifted to blaming ALL cops. And for that, I consider you a danger to my life quite frankly.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Lol

 

[Robin]

Again, for the God knows how many times, I will refrain from posting.
Robin

 

[John Stark]

You guys have shifted to blaming ALL cops. And for that, I consider you a danger to my life quite frankly.

Your premise is flawed, but like many you have arrived at a reasonable conclusion even though you have not used logic to get there.

The People are ultimately, as far as the power and authority their numbers can wield, the ultimate arbiters of the laws and government over them. Those in power rightly and wisely fear them, whether its because the People are bat shit crazy commies or because they are principled patriots who do not like the government that has developed to rule them in violation of their principles and traditions and beliefs.

The elites in France failed to fear their countrymen because they thought they held all of the cards and power, and did not reckon on the power of the mob.

The British elites failed to fear the colonial rubes, underestimating their Protestant belief in Almighty God and their determination to have the Rights they were entitled to under British law as loyal subjects of the crown and the hard-fought efforts of prior Protestants to secure those Rights during civil war where a different British king was deposed.

Two different revolutions, one that brought on Napoleon and wars that engulfed Europe, and another that created a great nation that has fallen in short in latter days.

All kings have feared an uprising of the People, even benevolent kings who cared about their nation; likewise, kingsmen also rightly feared the people they ruled in the name of the king.

The People can be dangerous to both kings and the general welfare.

It's the powers that be who forget that the People ultimately hold the trump cards, which is what we are seeing in our own nation. Even the leftist fools in this country understand that there is something wrong here, they simply approach it from the wrong perspective, the wrong principles, the wrong facts, and the wrong end goals, having allowed a corrupt cycle of government and education and entertainment steer them the wrong way.

What regular everyday people are saying is they do not like how their government "servants" are treating them with their service, rightly or wrongly.

That certainly puts the enforces of the king's edicts in jeopardy, and you are right to feel the threat level rising.

Whether we are going to set things to rights, or the mob is going to take over, remains to be seen.

However, the authorities are obviously adrift and derelict in their duties and obligations they supposedly represent. This is why they are building a police state subtly over time in a slow burn before too many of the People catch on and hang them from lamp posts.

The wise course for the king's men is to gauge which way the wind is blowing, and whether serving the king is better than serving the People.

Even if the perceptions of the people are wrong and they mean no good, and they overthrow their government for something evil like the French did in their revolution, its still wise for public "servants" to know the power those people hold.

Jefferson recognized this clearly as a student of the Bible and other history (especially of governments throughout history), as well as human nature.

You ought to be glad that the People on this forum are at least generally supportive of the Constitution and talking about it.

A large number of NYers and other godless leftists across America can't wait to turn the United States into China, and the powers that be they are following are trying to bring that to fruition for their own gains and desires for centralized power.

For good or bad, law enforcement have been feeling the heat, but almost exclusively from leftist scum who hate America. Dead cops in Dallas could attest to that if they could speak from the grave.

When you guys completely lose the support of the right wing gun nuts who at least have a certain allegiance to the Constitution, you'll be in serious trouble because we not only have most of the civilian arms and ammo, but the skill and will to use them, even if we lose.

You don't like guff you get from Americans, fair enough.

But we don't like the guff we get from our so-called public servants either, let alone the vicious, corrupt way they are going about dismantling everything this country once stood for.

Rightly or wrongly, public opinion against law enforcement is tarnished and even broken in many states.

While sheriffs in Virginia are saying they absolutely will not confiscate Arms, cops in NY often shrug and state clearly that they don't care that their "fellow" citizens get "jammed up" (read: their lives ruined).

When those of us who believe in the balance between the law and order and the Liberty that we're supposed to have according to our Constitution is out if balance, and we decide our public servants are part of the problem, then you are right to finally take notice when the rattlesnake shakes his tail.

Caveat Empor.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I had to come back just to say that someone here has gone Full Retard!

 

[nortatoga]

As the chief law enforcement officer of the nation, the President of the United States has this exact power at his disposal and discretion.The fact that presidents have failed to exercise that power against laws lawfully passed by the legislature that violate our Rights does not take away the principle that all free men have the right to read the Constitution and interpret it.System and "process" fidelity is not synonymous with fidelity to either the Constitution or to First Principles.I'll ask you a similar question.Where in the Constitution is the veto power to reject laws passed by the legislature and signed by the President of the United States, a power that resides solely with the authority and discretion granted to the office of the POTUS, also granted to the courts, whether Supreme or otherwise?Let me know when you've found that for me.

Sorry was away from my lap-top most of the weekend. Here is what you asked , so now how does this apply to this thread?

U.S. Constitution – Article 1 Section 7 – The U.S. Constitution Online – USConstitution.net - U.S. Constitution.net

U.S. Constitution – Article 1 Section 7 Article 1 – The Legislative Branch Section 7 – Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto <<Back | Table of Contents | Next>> All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur...

www.usconstitution.net

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 7



Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

​

 

[John Stark]

Sorry was away from my lap-top most of the weekend. Here is what you asked , so now how does this apply to this thread?

U.S. Constitution – Article 1 Section 7 – The U.S. Constitution Online – USConstitution.net - U.S. Constitution.net

U.S. Constitution – Article 1 Section 7 Article 1 – The Legislative Branch Section 7 – Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto <<Back | Table of Contents | Next>> All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur...

www.usconstitution.net

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 7



Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Well you've proven that the President has veto power over all legislation, unless the special circumstances dictated by the Founders kick in by which super majorities of both chambers of Congress can override that veto.

Which, in point of fact, as a matter of the percentage of bills that become laws passed through the override of a presidential veto, are very, very few.

No mention whatsoever in that passage on an enumerated power granted to the Supreme Court for nine black robes to use their authority to veto a duly passed and signed law, or one passed by overriding a presidential veto.

Keep looking.

 

[nortatoga]

Well you've proven that the President has veto power over all legislation, unless the special circumstances dictated by the Founders kick in by which super majorities of both chambers of Congress can override that veto.

Which, in point of fact, as a matter of the percentage of bills that become laws passed through the override of a presidential veto, are very, very few.

No mention whatsoever ever in that passage on an enumerated power granted to the Supreme Court for nine black robes to use their authority to veto a duly passed and signed law, or one passed by overriding a presidential veto.

Keep looking.

You didn't ask that!

Your new ?

That would be Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia

 

[John Stark]

You didn't ask that!

My original question was precisely that:

Where in the Constitution is the veto power to reject laws passed by the legislature and signed by the President of the United States, a power that resides solely with the authority and discretion granted to the office of the POTUS, also granted to the courts, whether Supreme or otherwise?

Hint: Marbury vs. Madison is an Opinion of the Court, an opinion expressed specifically and limited only to the opinions of those Supreme Court justices who wrote it, or other justices who concur with it at a current or future time.

All Opinions of the Court can be struck down by other current or future judges, and has happened many times.

Please answer the question I was asking.

 

[nortatoga]

Yes I am aware that Marbury vs Madison was just that an opinion of the court, that established judicial review.

Article Three of the United States Constitution

Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. Under Article Three, the judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as lower courts created by Congress. Article Three empowers the courts to handle cases or controversies arising under federal law, as well as other enumerated areas. Article Three also defines treason. Section 1 of Article Three vests the judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court, as well as inferior courts established by Congress. Along with the Vesting Clauses of Article One and Article Two, Article Three's Vesting Clause establishes the separation of powers between the three branches of government. Section 1 authorizes the creation of inferior courts, but does not require it; the first inferior federal courts were established shortly after the ratification of the Constitution with the Judiciary Act of 1789. Section 1 also establishes that federal judges do not face term limits, and that an individual judge's salary may not be decreased. Article Three does not set the size of the Supreme Court or establish specific positions on the court, but Article One establishes the position of chief justice. Section 2 of Article Three delineates federal judicial power. The Case or Controversy Clause restricts the judiciary's power to actual cases and controversies, meaning that federal judicial power does not extend to cases which are hypothetical, or which are proscribed due to standing, mootness, or ripeness issues. Section 2 states that federal judiciary's power extends to cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, federal treaties, controversies involving multiple states or foreign powers, and other enumerated areas. Section 2 gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction when ambassadors, public officials, or the states are a party in the case, leaving the Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction in all other areas to which the federal judiciary's jurisdiction extends. Section 2 also gives Congress the power to strip the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction, and establishes that all federal crimes must be tried before a jury. Section 2 does not expressly grant the federal judiciary the power of judicial review, but the courts have exercised this power since the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. Section 3 of Article Three defines treason and empowers Congress to punish treason. Section 3 requires that at least two witnesses testify to the treasonous act, or that the individual accused of treason confess in open court. It also limits the ways in which Congress can punish those convicted of treason.

 

[John Stark]

I would note that even Wikipedia states that "judicial review," that is, the "power" of the Supreme Court to veto (strike down, overturn) laws duly passed by Congress and signed by the Chief Executive is a "power" the Supreme Court gave to itself.

It is not an Enumerated Power (i.e., a power in any given numbered Article or Amendment) at all.

You have done nothing more than play fast and loose with the written instrument in question.

I did not ask when or how the Supreme Court decided it could veto laws (I already knew that); I asked you where in the written instrument is it an Enumerated Power (which you still have not answered, because you cannot).

The Courts do have both the power and duty to interpret the Constitution and any law passesd theoretically in the light of the Constitution.

However, that does not in any way alter the written instrument to give the Supreme Court the power to veto laws or throw them out.

All written instruments require that they be read and understood both by the written letter (what does the law state in fact), and by the Spirit of the law (the intention and purpose in which the law was made.).

This is accomplished by those who care about truth and facts by reading any given instrument in its original language, and by means of proper grammar and historical context as much as possible. From this, we draw our conclusions as best we can.

That is, we then interpret, which means simply to decide exactly what the written instrument means with the best grammatical and historical evidence available.

Any combination that equals 5+ in our current and traditional make of the Court could decide tomorrow that Marbury vs. Madison is an overturned precedent, and there is nothing either the Congress could do (except impeachment of judges) or the President (except ignore it) without then Amending the written instrument that governs this nation.

Frankly, the duty of the Court is to decide cases based on the applicable law if there is one, or the Constitution if there is not. If the Supremes decide that a law fails Constitutional muster, they should rule for either the plaintiff or the defendant where they see a violation of the Constitution by any given law making decision and send it back to Congress so they can either repair that law or Amend the Constitution to allow that law.

The Court would gets its say by stating that they will rule thus in any case brought before them until Congress fixes their "flawed" law.

The Supreme Court has absolutely no Enumerated Power to make or break a law. They are explicitly not lawmakers, and thus not lawbreakers.

Granting the Supreme Court the power to strike down laws should have been an Amendment duly ratified if that is what the Founders wanted.

The fact that they did not reign in the Court at that time (even though many recognized at the time that Marbury vs. Madison had a huge potential for bad actors to strike laws they did not like) does not mitigate the fact that technically, by the letter and the spirit of the Articles and Amendments of the Constitution, the written instrument does not grant the Supreme Court the "power" to strike (and thus make) law.

"Judicial Review" has allowed the Federal Courts to run amok ever since Marbury vs. Madison, and has turned our umpires who are only supposed to call balls and strikes into a super-legislative body of owners over the entire ballfield whenever they feel like it and have the numbers to do so, in direct disregard for the Will of the People as expressed through their elected representatives in Congress and the White House.

It was never intended that the United States of America was to be run by a small oligarchy who can thwart and subvert the power of both the legislature and the executive branches at their own whim.

Never.

 

[@thewheels]

It is not an Enumerated Power (i.e., a power in any given numbered Article or Amendment) at all.


"Judicial Review" has allowed the Federal Courts to run amok ever since Marbury vs. Madison, and has turned our umpires who are only supposed to call balls and strikes into a super-legislative body of owners over the entire ballfield whenever they feel like it and have the numbers to do so, in direct disregard for the Will of the People as expressed through their elected representatives in Congress and the White House.

^^^THIS^^^

Relying on a 3rd political body to make the right call with powers they took for themselves?
INSANE

 

[Robin]

The way it stands now, the Supreme Court is a de facto politburo.
Robin

 

[John Stark]

I would like to add that, just as the Founders decentralized power between the three branches and gave them each their own area of power and influence, creating at least a quasi-adeversarial relationship to one another, that does not preclude any or all of the branches from working together to uphold and defend the Constitution and for the best interests of the People and to create "a more perfect Union."

This is why I mentioned how the Court could rule a certain way to uphold the Constitution without outright striking down a law.

They keep their power to review and interpret all law (including the Constitution) while letting the other two branches rework laws rather than having them completely destroyed.

The legislative process is already very onerous without one branch completely overruling that with virtual carte blanche.

The three branches ought to be adversarial when one or more of them is really stepping over their bounds and trampling upon the bailiwick of the other branches. This is obvious when, for example, Congress exceeds and abdicates its own powers and gives the executive branch alphabet soup agencies the power to regulate with the force of law. Or when Congress fails to impeach and remove justices who clearly crap on the Constitution.

The fact that Congress gives legislative power away to the executive or the judiciary ought to be a clear clarion call that shenanigans are going on, and the branches are cooperating when they shouldn't be and not cooperating when they ought to be.

What if we had representatives who actually cared about our nation and duked it out over the actual principles this nation was founded upon, rather than their own hack financial and political power objectives as they vie for position to the detriment of everyone else.

Our government has mostly become nothing more than a gigantic credit card for our political masters to live off of the sweat of our backs.

People often say socialism (incremental communism) is coming and that it's going to lead to despotism.

I say socialism, that is a command economy and culture mostly run by elites, is already here. We are only missing the next Stalin or Mao or Hitler, or if you like, a king George or Emperor Nero.

We need to get off the totalitarian train before the whistle blows and we find ourselves in the damn camps.

We must restore our Constitutional order and common decency before it gets worse. If we wait longer, it's going to get out completely out of hand.

Its already bad. It will get much worse.

 

[GOPerfect]

I would like to add that, just as the Founders decentralized power between the three branches and gave them each their own area of power and influence, creating at least a quasi-adeversarial relationship to one another, that does not preclude any or all of the branches from working together to uphold and defend the Constitution and for the best interests of the People and to create "a more perfect Union."

This is why I mentioned how the Court could rule a certain way to uphold the Constitution without outright striking down a law.

They keep their power to review and interpret all law (including the Constitution) while letting the other two branches rework laws rather than having them completely destroyed.

The legislative process is already very onerous without one branch completely overruling that with virtual carte blanche.

The three branches ought to be adversarial when one or more of them is really stepping over their bounds and trampling upon the bailiwick of the other branches. This is obvious when, for example, Congress exceeds and abdicates its own powers and gives the executive branch alphabet soup agencies the power to regulate with the force of law. Or when Congress fails to impeach and remove justices who clearly crap on the Constitution.

The fact that Congress gives legislative power away to the executive or the judiciary ought to be a clear clarion call that shenanigans are going on, and the branches are cooperating when they shouldn't be and not cooperating when they ought to be.

What if we had representatives who actually cared about our nation and duked it out over the actual principles this nation was founded upon, rather than their own hack financial and political power objectives as they vie for position to the detriment of everyone else.

Our government has mostly become nothing more than a gigantic credit card for our political masters to live off of the sweat of our backs.

People often say socialism (incremental communism) is coming and that it's going to lead to despotism.

I say socialism, that is a command economy and culture mostly run by elites, is already here. We are only missing the next Stalin or Mao or Hitler, or if you like, a king George or Emperor Nero.

We need to get off the totalitarian train before the whistle blows and we find ourselves in the damn camps.

We must restore our Constitutional order and common decency before it gets worse. If we wait longer, it's going to get out completely out of hand.

Its already bad. It will get much worse.

This current impeachment is a perfect example of what you just posted.

 

[spat]

Nope, re-read what I wrote or adjust your post. The mob hitman is the cop who actually enforces these laws - as mentioned above in my post.

The mob hitman is not the cop who just by his mere existence elicits the scorn of left wing nuts and their delusional buddies.

You guys have shifted to blaming ALL cops. And for that, I consider you a danger to my life quite frankly.

You are correct, the cop who silently refuses to enforce these laws is not the mob hitman. He is a member of that mob though. He may not be the guy pulling the trigger, but he stands behind the guy pulling the trigger.

Also, you *should* consider almost everyone a danger to your life when you're in uniform. With the laws the way they are today you represent a real threat to a lot of good people. They can't tell by looking if you are a "good guy" or someone who is going to try to send them to prison for years over a 15 round magazine. Your uniform says your the second guy, it's dangerous for them to second guess that.

Anyone carrying a weapon, without the right paperwork has a good reason to fear anyone wearing that uniform.

Just like you can't tell if some random person on the street has an illegal weapon, they can't tell if you're going to enforce those unconstitutional laws against them or not.

As far as they know, you are going to abduct them and lock them in a cell with a bunch violent maniacs for years.

We're on the cusp of a drastic shift in society. From one based on respect for the rule of law, to one based on the fear of government power.
You do not want to live in the latter, not even if you're an agent of that power.

Wasn't the world a much better place when only real bad guys had to fear the police, and the police only hand to fear real bad guys ?

Most of us on this site have gone to extraordinary lengths to stay on the "legal' side of the unconstitutional infringements in this state. We do not want to end up in the position where we need to choose between our ability to defend ourselves and the potential to have to defend ourselves from agents of the state.

I follow all sorts of ridiculous and unconstitutional laws just so I can avoid being put in that position. I am about to upend my whole life and move to another state to avoid it.

So, when some poor guy gets raked over the coals for not following some patently unconstitutional edict of the state I have no sympathy for the people enforcing that edict. Right now, most people would side with the police if this guy had chosen to defend himself instead of cooperating.
That may not last much longer. I honestly hope you manage to retire before we get to that point, but I think we are headed there.

There were agents of the state attempting to shut down the underground railroad in the 1800's. I think we can all agree that Harriet Tubman was justified in killing any of them that tried to stop her.

 

[Airborneguy]

I’ll just keep assisting my victims, who actually understand what the police exist for, while continuing to prepare to confront violently anyone who blames all cops for their shortcomings in life. Doesn’t matter to me.

What I won’t do is pretend that the differences I have with people who think this way don’t stop us from being friendly. They do.

 

[Darth]

I had to come back just to say that someone here has gone Full Retard!

Did I just see the famous "I feared for my life"/"He's coming right fou us!" used in an Internet forum context!?