Oath Keepers

[Old-T]

Interesting read. Some parts are sane, some are borderline, and some are just a clever way to argue a very strong form of gun rights.

But let's be real about one thing: this is "non-partisan" just like the Tea Party was non-partisan.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Interesting read. Some parts are sane, some are borderline, and some are just a clever way to argue a very strong form of gun rights.

But let's be real about one thing: this is "non-partisan" just like the Tea Party was non-partisan.

I say it is partisan. Try taking off your Ozombie brain filters.

[IIFFOFRDB]

THIS IS NOT ABOUT SECEDING FROM THE UNION ok

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Interesting read. Some parts are sane, some are borderline, and some are just a clever way to argue a very strong form of gun rights.

But let's be real about one thing: this is "non-partisan" just like the Tea Party was non-partisan.

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

I say it is partisan. Try taking off your Ozombie brain filters.

Try reading. I'm saying it's not non-partisan. You're saying it is partisan.

In other words, you are agreeing with me!

That is allowed (you ARE authorized to be right occasionally), but at least wake up and realize you are agreeing with me. Talk about someone trying to pick an argument....

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Try reading. I'm saying it's not non-partisan. You're saying it is partisan.

In other words, you are agreeing with me!

That is allowed (you ARE authorized to be right occasionally), but at least wake up and realize you are agreeing with me. Talk about someone trying to pick an argument....

OK, you got me.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Try reading. I'm saying it's not non-partisan. You're saying it is partisan.

In other words, you are agreeing with me!

That is allowed (you ARE authorized to be right occasionally), but at least wake up and realize you are agreeing with me. Talk about someone trying to pick an argument....

thanks, it's not about secession.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

OK, you got me.

Peace.

[Yssup Rider]

Way to moderate your own thread, Simple Jack.

Unfortunately, you're a fucking idiot...

[Porter57]

It is also evident that the members of Boston's Law enforcement are not members of Oath Keepers. The house to house searchers for one man went way over the line.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

And the reality of your hypothetical would have so many constitutional issues swirling around that it is impossible to say what the prevailing facts would be in (legal or illegal) order to put down said "insurrection."

It would have to work it's way thru the courts and SCOTUS before anyone can say such an order would be legal and constitutional. Are you psychic to know how some unknown SCOTUS would rule ?

Actually, no, there wouldn't be very many constitutional issues.

If a state is asserting it's "sovereignty" against the federal government, that means it is in open rebellion. Perhaps it is trying to secede, perhaps it is using force to prevent the federal government from exercising constitutionally-delegated federal powers. Either way, the state is not obeying the Constitution.

And just as you cannot be a "little bit pregnant", a state cannot be lawfully violating the Constitution or lawfully preventing the federal government from exercising its own constitutional powers.

And it won't "work its way through" the courts, either. If it is a case involving a state as a party, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. So the case will be decided directly by the Supreme Ct.

So, if Texas decides to sue the US because Obama sent in troops to reopen the Mexican border after Rick Perry exercised Texas sovereignty by closing it with the Texas National Guard, then Congress/Obama will be putting down an insurrection.

And the order to the military to enter Texas and re-open the border will be LAWFUL and no solder will be able to disobey such an order.

And if Texas decides to sue to stop them, it will get to the Supreme Court far faster than Bush v. Gore. And Texas will lose.

BTW, the issue of secession has been decided by the Supreme Court - definitively so. There is no right to secede. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

No matter how much Confederate sympathizers may fantasize about it.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Way to moderate your own thread, Simple Jack.

Unfortunately, you're a fucking idiot...

At least I am not a POT LICKING Ozombie, Ssassik Rider...say Hi to Mamasita for me. .....LOL

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Actually, no, there wouldn't be very many constitutional issues.

If a state is asserting it's "sovereignty" against the federal government, that means it is in open rebellion. Perhaps it is trying to secede, perhaps it is using force to prevent the federal government from exercising constitutionally-delegated federal powers. Either way, the state is not obeying the Constitution.

And just as you cannot be a "little bit pregnant", a state cannot be lawfully violating the Constitution or lawfully preventing the federal government from exercising its own constitutional powers.

And it won't "work its way through" the courts, either. If it is a case involving a state as a party, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. So the case will be decided directly by the Supreme Ct.

So, if Texas decides to sue the US because Obama sent in troops to reopen the Mexican border after Rick Perry exercised Texas sovereignty by closing it with the Texas National Guard, then Congress/Obama will be putting down an insurrection.

And the order to the military to enter Texas and re-open the border will be LAWFUL and no solder will be able to disobey such an order.

And if Texas decides to sue to stop them, it will get to the Supreme Court far faster than Bush v. Gore. And Texas will lose.

BTW, the issue of secession has been decided by the Supreme Court - definitively so. There is no right to secede. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

No matter how much Confederate sympathizers may fantasize about it.

You can't GET IT, "Republican in name only". NowRino is more appropriate...

Calling us "Confederate sympathizers" that's funny and ignorant

[The_Waco_Kid]

What i said ...

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I'll agree with that. based on this portion of text from wikipedia ..

The federalists acknowledged that national sovereignty would be transferred by the new Constitution to the whole of the American people—indeed, regard the expression, "We the people ...". They argued, however, that Henry exaggerated the extent to which a consolidated government was being created and that the states would serve a vital role within the new republic even though their national sovereignty was ending. Tellingly, on the matter of whether states retained a right to unilaterally secede from the United States, the federalists made it clear that no such right would exist under the Constitution.[28]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secessi..._United_States

The article is, as you'd expect, rather long reading. the issue goes back to the very forming of the United States, and of course the Civil War and other attempts to secede. Texas in fact seceded from Mexico, to join the Union. There's a lot to read but this portion seems to make it clear the States, once joined into the Union, do NOT have a Constitutional right to secede.

What i do like about the video is the second amendment, which the Supreme Court has consistently held that individual citizens do have the right to own arms. For all this so-called Militia only talk, Clinton tried that argument and got trounced by the Circuit court in New Orleans.

here is text from a 2008 ruling by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia V Heller ..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distri...mbia_v._Heller

Decision

The Supreme Court held:[43]
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.


So what do i take from this?

1) The States do not have a right secede from the Union and if any State attempted it, the Military can be given a LAWFUL order to suppress.

2) Citizens in good standing (i.e. not a felon) do have the right to bear arms. If the Government tried to order the Military to confiscate legally sold guns under current law, it would be an UNLAWFUL order and the Military would refuse.

3) if the Government issued an UNLAWFUL order to the Military that was in violation of the Constitution, the Military would refuse.

What else would the Military do? let's hope we don't have to find out. There has never been a Military coup in the history of the United States .. yet.

I do believe and have faith that if needed the Military WOULD take action against the Government .. to restore the Constitution. And nothing more.

what NY said ..

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Actually, no, there wouldn't be very many constitutional issues.

If a state is asserting it's "sovereignty" against the federal government, that means it is in open rebellion. Perhaps it is trying to secede, perhaps it is using force to prevent the federal government from exercising constitutionally-delegated federal powers. Either way, the state is not obeying the Constitution.

And just as you cannot be a "little bit pregnant", a state cannot be lawfully violating the Constitution or lawfully preventing the federal government from exercising its own constitutional powers.

And it won't "work its way through" the courts, either. If it is a case involving a state as a party, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. So the case will be decided directly by the Supreme Ct.

So, if Texas decides to sue the US because Obama sent in troops to reopen the Mexican border after Rick Perry exercised Texas sovereignty by closing it with the Texas National Guard, then Congress/Obama will be putting down an insurrection.

And the order to the military to enter Texas and re-open the border will be LAWFUL and no solder will be able to disobey such an order.

And if Texas decides to sue to stop them, it will get to the Supreme Court far faster than Bush v. Gore. And Texas will lose.

BTW, the issue of secession has been decided by the Supreme Court - definitively so. There is no right to secede. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

No matter how much Confederate sympathizers may fantasize about it.

Basically the SAME thing. the states do not have the right to secede.

now here's my problem ..

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

Sorry IIFFOFRDB but you can't use the word sovereignty. the term sovereignty applies to Nations, not states. the States gave up sovereignty (which they never had to begin with, being colonies of the English Crown) when they formed the Union ..

The Colonies when directly from being colonies of the English Crown to a sovereign Nation.

from my post ..

"The federalists acknowledged that national sovereignty would be transferred by the new Constitution to the whole of the American people .."

i don't see anything about states or state's sovereignty in that ...

Now if you say in number 5 ... State's RIGHTS .. i'm ok with that, are you?

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

What i said ...



what NY said ..




Basically the SAME thing. the states do not have the right to secede.

now here's my problem ..

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

Sorry IIFFOFRDB but you can't use the word sovereignty. the term sovereignty applies to Nations, not states. the States gave up sovereignty (which they never had to begin with, being colonies of the English Crown) when they formed the Union ..

The Colonies when directly from being colonies of the English Crown to a sovereign Nation.

from my post ..

"The federalists acknowledged that national sovereignty would be transferred by the new Constitution to the whole of the American people .."

i don't see anything about states or state's sovereignty in that ...

Now if you say in number 5 ... State's RIGHTS .. i'm ok with that, are you?

Listen up LAWYERS it's not difficult. "Sorry IIFFOFRDB but you can't use the word sovereignty" HUH?


1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people

3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Listen up LAWYERS it's not difficult. "Sorry IIFFOFRDB but you can't use the word sovereignty" HUH?


1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people

3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its RIGHTS.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

All good now. and i won't bill you either.