Autolycus
Member
Skeptic
This thread is over a year old.
This thread is over a year old.
New London property thieves demanding rent. (Kelo)
- Thread starter Warren
- Start date
- Status
DRZinn
Member
Did you misspeak, or do you really believe that removing constitutional protection of a right removes the right itself?
ravinraven
Member
HUH?
"Did you misspeak, or do you really believe that removing constitutional protection of a right removes the right itself?"
I thought I stated clearly that the removal of protection does NOT remove the right. If this is not clear, please point it out so that I can get my own head on straight. The right to your property or your right to bear arms, etc. can only be removed by amendment and amendment involves a lot of publicity among other things. The deliberate misinterpretation action is done quietly and reflects on the ethics of the group doing the misinterpreting. In this case, the ethical standards of the Dishonorable Five are damn sure beyond question. They are dispicable, filthy vermin who have managed to slap the face of every American who ever donned a military uniform and they have managed to p*ss on the graves of every person who ever died defending liberty anywhere.
There are not words in any human language dirty and vile enough to properly describe the D-5 or their political siblings on any city or town council who use false immunity to remove YOUR rights. These people are enemies of America and at the very least should be reviled and haunted for ever by their corrupt actions. They are worse than rapist and murders or the 9/11 attackers because the damage they do is on going and getting worse.
This crap will continue and get worse until we the people put a stop to it. There is NO OTHER possible solution.
I have to stop here because I am literally quivering with RAGE at these lowlifes.
ravinraven
"Did you misspeak, or do you really believe that removing constitutional protection of a right removes the right itself?"
I thought I stated clearly that the removal of protection does NOT remove the right. If this is not clear, please point it out so that I can get my own head on straight. The right to your property or your right to bear arms, etc. can only be removed by amendment and amendment involves a lot of publicity among other things. The deliberate misinterpretation action is done quietly and reflects on the ethics of the group doing the misinterpreting. In this case, the ethical standards of the Dishonorable Five are damn sure beyond question. They are dispicable, filthy vermin who have managed to slap the face of every American who ever donned a military uniform and they have managed to p*ss on the graves of every person who ever died defending liberty anywhere.
There are not words in any human language dirty and vile enough to properly describe the D-5 or their political siblings on any city or town council who use false immunity to remove YOUR rights. These people are enemies of America and at the very least should be reviled and haunted for ever by their corrupt actions. They are worse than rapist and murders or the 9/11 attackers because the damage they do is on going and getting worse.
This crap will continue and get worse until we the people put a stop to it. There is NO OTHER possible solution.
I have to stop here because I am literally quivering with RAGE at these lowlifes.
ravinraven
DRZinn
Member
I'm still not sure what you're saying. First:
which seems to say that the right exists independent of the state's recognition of it, which would be my position. Then:
which seems to say that an amendment ending the state's recognition of that right means you no longer have the right. Which is wrong.
ravinraven
Member
True, DocZ
To be clear, the BoR guarantees rights in writing. These rights exist and have existed long before governments existed. In the legal sense, if the US constitution is amended to remove a guarantee of a right, that means that the people no longer want the right guaranteed. But the SCOTUS by merely refusing to guarantee a right does not make that right disappear nor does it reflect the will of the people. It does sound a terrible alarm bell, however. If we do not wake up and take our rights back by guaranteeing them ourselves, WE disappear.
I'd rather it be done by legal means, but it must be done. This rights erosion will continue until we the people put an end to it. There is NO alternative to that idea. Relying on the government to suddenly reverse itself in the matter of guaranteeing rights is right up there with hiring Col. Sanders to baby sit your chickens.
rr
To be clear, the BoR guarantees rights in writing. These rights exist and have existed long before governments existed. In the legal sense, if the US constitution is amended to remove a guarantee of a right, that means that the people no longer want the right guaranteed. But the SCOTUS by merely refusing to guarantee a right does not make that right disappear nor does it reflect the will of the people. It does sound a terrible alarm bell, however. If we do not wake up and take our rights back by guaranteeing them ourselves, WE disappear.
I'd rather it be done by legal means, but it must be done. This rights erosion will continue until we the people put an end to it. There is NO alternative to that idea. Relying on the government to suddenly reverse itself in the matter of guaranteeing rights is right up there with hiring Col. Sanders to baby sit your chickens.
rr
DRZinn
Member
Just wanted to clear that up. I'm with you.
romma
Member
I saw this Bumper Sticker in town Tonight
Welcome To New London Your Home Is Our Home!
Welcome To New London Your Home Is Our Home!
- Status
