US Militia Movement - Page 4

US Militia Movement

This is a discussion on US Militia Movement within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by quantum36 I've got an idea! Hopefully by 2012 Obama will be thrown out and with a Republican President and Republican controlled Congress, ...

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 80
  1. #46
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,663

    It would be constitutional until

    Quote Originally Posted by quantum36 View Post
    I've got an idea! Hopefully by 2012 Obama will be thrown out and with a Republican President and Republican controlled Congress, Senate and Supreme court, we can pass a new tax law.

    "All prior registered democrats will pay taxes, while Republicans will not have to pay taxes" .

    Since it will be properly brought into law it will be "constitutional".
    And people who don't like this law should never speak against it, since there is nothing "patriotic" about speaking against the government.
    It certainly would be constitutional until such time as it was overturned, which of course would happen rather quickly if the supremes gave value to the equal protection clause as they have in the past.


  2. #47
    Member Array Tombstone55's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    144
    The know-it-all trolls are everywhere. They are too smart for their own good.

  3. #48
    JT
    JT is offline
    Distinguished Member Array JT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,425
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    It certainly would be constitutional until such time as it was overturned
    I don’t care how many times you make that claim, it is still incorrect.

    We are dealing with absolutes here.

    A law that violates the constitution is not constitutional. It doesn’t matter if Congress, the President, or even the Supreme Court make a mistake, if a law violates the Constitution, it is not constitutional.

    For example

    1/1/2010 - Congress passes a law declaring all guns illegal.
    2/1/2010 - The President signs it.
    6/1/2010 - The Supreme Court rules the law is constitutional.
    7/1/2011 – The Supreme Court rules the law is unconstitutional.

    So according to your logic, the law was constitutional until 7/1/2011, when it became unconstitutional. This is not the case. The law always violated the constitution, and as such, was not constitutional. It was mistakenly ruled to be constitutional prior to 7/1/2011, but that did not make it constitutional. The only way that a law can in actuality be constitutional at one point in time, and unconstitutional at another point in time, is by a change in the Constitution.

    Things have substance. “A is A.”
    Blessed be the Lord my rock who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle. Psalm 144:1

    Si vis pacem, para bellum

  4. #49
    Distinguished Member Array ErnieNWillis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Willis, TX
    Posts
    1,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Tombstone55 View Post
    The know-it-all trolls are everywhere. They are too smart for their own good.


    Their pretty liberal too.

  5. #50
    Ex Member Array quantum36's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Southern Alabama
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    It certainly would be constitutional until such time as it was overturned, which of course would happen rather quickly if the supremes gave value to the equal protection clause as they have in the past.
    Yes it would get overturned, because people would speak out loudly against the government and the officials wouldn't get re-elected if they didn't listen to their constituents.

    But, according to you, people shouldn't be allowed to question the government. This "behavior" is deemed as "unpatriotic" by you.

  6. #51
    Ex Member Array quantum36's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Southern Alabama
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by JT View Post
    I donít care how many times you make that claim, it is still incorrect.

    We are dealing with absolutes here.

    A law that violates the constitution is not constitutional. It doesnít matter if Congress, the President, or even the Supreme Court make a mistake, if a law violates the Constitution, it is not constitutional.

    For example

    1/1/2010 - Congress passes a law declaring all guns illegal.
    2/1/2010 - The President signs it.
    6/1/2010 - The Supreme Court rules the law is constitutional.
    7/1/2011 Ė The Supreme Court rules the law is unconstitutional.

    So according to your logic, the law was constitutional until 7/1/2011, when it became unconstitutional. This is not the case. The law always violated the constitution, and as such, was not constitutional. It was mistakenly ruled to be constitutional prior to 7/1/2011, but that did not make it constitutional. The only way that a law can in actuality be constitutional at one point in time, and unconstitutional at another point in time, is by a change in the Constitution.

    Things have substance. ďA is A.Ē
    +10

  7. #52
    Member Array M203Sniper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by quantum36 View Post
    +10
    I have to add at least +1 more.
    "Words can be as lethal as bullets; Choose them carefully, Aim them well & Use them sparingly."

  8. #53
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by JT View Post
    I donít care how many times you make that claim, it is still incorrect.

    We are dealing with absolutes here.

    A law that violates the constitution is not constitutional. It doesnít matter if Congress, the President, or even the Supreme Court make a mistake, if a law violates the Constitution, it is not constitutional.
    More to the point, the ONLY determining factor whether a law is Constitutional is the Constitution itself. Not Congress, not the President, nor The Supreme Court can determine the Constitutionality of a law. Each branch can provide OPINIONS as to Constituionality but once a law is passed and signed it is the LAW.

    The Court has NO POWER to overturn a law no matter what anyone thinks.

    In the final analysis, the People determine whether a law is Constitutional as it is up to the People to effect the Founder's design of self governance. Case in point is homosexual marriage in California. The People passed a law to prevent homosexuals from marrying. The California court overturned that law. (I have no idea if the California constitution provides that power to their court. I KNOW the Federal courts have no such power.) The People then amended the California constitution to prohibit the judges from infringing on the inherent rights of the People.

    It is the responsibility of the People to choose the laws they prefer to live under. That is the essence of self governance and it has nothing to do with any supposed 'rights.'

  9. #54
    Distinguished Member Array ErnieNWillis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Willis, TX
    Posts
    1,230
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    More to the point, the ONLY determining factor whether a law is Constitutional is the Constitution itself. Not Congress, not the President, nor The Supreme Court can determine the Constitutionality of a law. Each branch can provide OPINIONS as to Constituionality but once a law is passed and signed it is the LAW.

    The Court has NO POWER to overturn a law no matter what anyone thinks.

    In the final analysis, the People determine whether a law is Constitutional as it is up to the People to effect the Founder's design of self governance. Case in point is homosexual marriage in California. The People passed a law to prevent homosexuals from marrying. The California court overturned that law. (I have no idea if the California constitution provides that power to their court. I KNOW the Federal courts have no such power.) The People then amended the California constitution to prohibit the judges from infringing on the inherent rights of the People.

    It is the responsibility of the People to choose the laws they prefer to live under. That is the essence of self governance and it has nothing to do with any supposed 'rights.'

    Amen!!!!!

  10. #55
    Member Array natticarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    cincinnati
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    O.K. So we agree. We have an oligarchy. That was the original intent.
    I never said that I do believe we have a republic. A true Oligarchy is a form of government where only a very few are allowed to participate in the process and are not accountable to anyone other than their small group. I do believe the right to vote for representatives for all citizens eliminates the Oligarchy. Even for the original intent of the senate. As stated at length in my last post the senate was actually more accountable to the people because it has always been much more simple for citizens to contact their local authorities than national ones. The true assumption is your state reps are elected by the people for their principals and they will elect people to the senate based on those same principals. If you like their choices and philosophy at a local level you are most likely going to like it at a national level.

    I think most people can agree the farther the government is moved from the local level the less people are able to understand and influence it. Everyone has their own jobs and its too hard for them to keep track of every issue. The original idea was you would make it your state government's job to keep track of national issues and ensure they are in line with the peoples ideas within their state. If they do a bad job you vote them out, the new people vote out the people at the national level.

    The founding fathers also had the foresight to help balance the states power by giving the general populace a direct vote on part of the legislature we now know as the house of representatives.

    This whole system sounds like it was set up to ensure the people got a government accountable to them. This frame work is slowly being subverted with arguments that seem fair on the surface but create real problems and in-balances in power in favor of the far removed national government. The crowning pieces of subversion are the czars built upon the subversion of the continued addition of agencies that are empowered to make their own regulations without input from the legislature.

    As for the constitutional issues discussed I think there is a disconnect between us between constitutional in effect and constitutional in fact. There are many things that are and have been constitutional in effect but not in fact. Self defense is correct that it is the people's responsibility to ensure compliance with the constitution because the founding fathers instructed us that the government will try to take as much power as it can because that is its nature. "We have given you a republic if you can keep it"

    I admit this post is highly political but I do not believe its partisan. Republicans and Democrats are guilty of these incursions and it is not clear to me how to fix the problems since so much of the power has been removed from the people at this point. I do not think the militia movement is justified at this point however. I do not think it is unconstitutional or unpatriotic to criticize the government or its constitutionality. I also do not think it would be unconstitutional to remove that government by what ever means if it subverts the constitution to the point where the right of vote is removed or basic rights are violated. (see the American Revolution from the eighteenth century for guidance).

  11. #56
    Member Array natticarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    cincinnati
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tombstone55 View Post
    The know-it-all trolls are everywhere. They are too smart for their own good.
    If you are referring to me I am just responding to statement I disagree with and I try to make a logical argument (at least in my mind) against them.

    If you are referring to others I say let them express their opinion as long as its not insulting ( I try to keep it respectful). Its educational to see how some people think (however wrong many of us think they are). I found the following especially insight full.

    "But even in the K- 12 schools, most of our problems have less to do with who is running them than with who is going to them and what we expect from them. The mean IQ is 100. One third (the bunch with a
    roughly 90 or lower IQ) are not capable of learning much and we waste our resources attempting to force them through to a HS degree, let alone have any expectation that they attend college. If we had realistic expectation of our kids, and didn't try to turn hopelessly brainless into scholar, many of the problems would disappear. But that discussion is for another time."

    combined with the below statement I am starting to see a picture.

    "It beats anarchy and it beats having the least aware, least involved, least familiar with issues, and least of us, messing with the rules--precisely what the founders feared even as they set up a limited democracy that pretty much kept us riffraff out of the game."

    The only thing that annoys me about them (if you are referring to who I think you are) is that once they have run out of rebuttals they start grumbling about "off topic" or "too much politics on the board" and "the thread should be closed". Especially since over half the thread is filled with their posts. If they don't think that politics should be discussed then they should not engage in the discussion and make political statements. If you want to have a debate I am all for it, but don't try and shut it down 10 pages later after you get the last word.

  12. #57
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,663

    Natticarry, I don't think he was referring to you

    Quote Originally Posted by natticarry View Post
    If you are referring to me I am just responding to statement I disagree with and I try to make a logical argument (at least in my mind) against them.
    Don't know for sure who he was referring to but I don't think it was you, and more likely it was me.

    Anyway, you articulated the following very well, "As for the constitutional issues discussed I think there is a disconnect between us between constitutional in effect and constitutional in fact. There are many things that are and have been constitutional in effect but not in fact. "

    There is no disagreement here between us as I had used the word "presumetively" to modify the word constitutional. Laws passed by Congress and signed by The Executive are presumetively constitutional.

    The problem of course is that we can not allow individuals to rage against government, urge on rebellion, talk sedition to our troops, and form potentially violent militias based ON THEIR OWN personal interpretations of constitutionality. To do so would be to bring anarchy on ourselves and the destruction of our society.

    As things stand now, we have constitutional governance and laws are presumptively constitutional 'in effect' as you refer to it. If we can persuade a court, or enough critters, that something is "not in fact" constitutional, more power to us. That is what happens in a free democracy, persuasion of those in power to take one course or another.

    The one choice we don't have is violent
    rebellion, at least not as things currently stand. Because as long as the courts function, The Executive honors their rulings, and the legislative bodies meet, we have constitutional governance. That is why I refer to those who urge rebellion, urge sedition among the troops, and urge others to rage against government as unpatriotic. Indeed they are advocating violation of the law (against forum rules btw) as well as rebellion against the very constitution they claim to be upholding.

    And yes, this isn't partisan politics in my opinion too.

  13. #58
    Member Array Pinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    90
    "The stress of a poor economy and a liberal administration led by a black president are among the causes for the recent rise, the report from the Southern Poverty Law Center says".

    Why do liberals always have to bring race into the equation? What parts of the statement from the Southern Poverty Law Center really makes sense? If militia groups are growing, it would mostly be I believe due to the perception that this country is moving more towards totalitarianism and maybe being governed by some global group(s) than anything else. If race was a factor, then wouldn't the media be reporting lots of stories about racial confrontations and oppression in general (I can bet they're salivating for that chance)?

    There's certainly terrorist groups out there and maybe some are taking the opportunity to make some headway, and for that we all need to stay alert. But all this talk about race being a factor..excuse me, my eye is twitching...
    Last edited by Pinger; August 16th, 2009 at 08:22 AM. Reason: clarification
    The first rule of self-defense is to avoid the situation. The second rule is Train and Prepare.

  14. #59
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802
    OH BOY, Here we go again! I remember back in the 90's when last this topic reared it's ugly head in the media. I was teaching middle school and eating my lunch quietly and alone in the teachers lunchroom when one of the female commies stuffing her face YELLED at me from across the room: "HEY MR______, you're a gun nut ex baby killer, are you a member of a MILITIA?"

    To which I responded as the entire room went dead silent and the 40 odd teachers turned to stare at me. "Well, no. But it's not because I disagree with their goals or philosophy. Actually they can't teach me anything NEW!" As she fled the room screaming, I resumed eating and so did the other faculty. I've had a similar question posed over the years at other schools and expect I'll get it this year (school begins next week) and I usually respond with the above quote or something along the lines of: "Those wusses are too liberal for me...."
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  15. #60
    Member Array natticarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    cincinnati
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by Pinger View Post
    There's certainly terrorist groups out there and maybe some are taking the opportunity to make some headway, and for that we all need to stay alert. But all this talk about race being a factor..excuse me, my eye is twitching...
    Couldn't agree more its classic diversionary tactics. If you are trying to discredit an idea rather than use facts and logic just search for a tie to race no matter how tenuous and spend time pushing that point.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Lets talk Militia (The US Code Militia)
    By paramedic70002 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: July 9th, 2010, 01:12 AM
  2. Militia movement's heroes will be packing heat at rally on the Potomac
    By WhoWeBePart1 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: April 21st, 2010, 08:00 PM
  3. 'What is the Militia?'
    By Janq in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: February 14th, 2008, 09:53 AM
  4. Second Militia Act of 1792
    By raevan in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: March 17th, 2007, 03:23 PM
  5. Movement
    By Glockman21 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: August 4th, 2006, 05:07 PM

Search tags for this page

arizona certified militias groups
,
lucky 13
,
malisha groups good or bad
,

militia movement

,
militia movement in dayton ohio
,
san angelo tx militia
,
the militia movement
,
u.s militia movement
,

us militia

,
us militia movement
,
whenshtfmalita
,
why would someone think the militia movement was justified?
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors