If "Our Creator" endowed us with rights...

My position has remained consistent throughout this thread if anyone here really wants to know. Nice try with that amateurish political psychology ploy, however.

 

This is not a thread about the 14th Amendment, so I won't be going down another rabbit hole with you on that one. I can, however, show where the 14th Amendment completely nullified the Bill of Rights and changed our form of government. Where do YOU get your Rights from?

 

The only thing you're consistent with is inconsistency. So you're riding my back because you appear to be projecting. Here you are extolling the virtues of a democracy and giving us that representative democracy line when just a few posts back, you were all for the United States Supreme Court legislating from the bench. You can't have it both ways.

 

I don't even understand what the guy is babbling on about. I'd do a thread on the subject, but you already know the material and WillReadMore is an empty promise. He won't read anything that doesn't support his position. We cannot have an honest discussion when he doesn't access the links I leave. So, as a favor, can you rephrase his post so that I get something out of it? Thank you in advance.

 

Or that we as a society recognize and respect.

That's the fundamental conflict, those on the Left that want to control everyone, and the rest of us, that want to mind our own business and the "progressives" to do the same.

As Ben Franklin good naturedly warned "A Republic, if you can keep it." It's up to us, to keep it.

The folks who refuse to accept the results of the 2016 election, who threw everything they could at our President to overturn the election, Mueller failed, Rosenstein failed, Comey Failed, Brennan failed, Schiff failed, Pelosi failed, Schumer failed. Now the ‘Resistance’ Has Become Insurrection.

After nearly four years, we’ve arrived at the end game, the final, violent cry of the “resistance” as it continues to try to overturn the results of the 2016 election and tip the United States of America irreversibly toward anarchy and then socialism.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/resistance-has-become-insurrection_3374486.html

Aided and abetted by the Fake News media and a surprisingly large number of Democrat politicians, the current unrest sweeping the country is being presented as “dissent” and “protest” but is, in fact, insurrection. It’s a violation of our inherent rights and it's time to lawfully put down the insurrection.

We’ve dealt with insurrection decisively in the past, and we will again as needed. At the very start of the Republic, President George Washington extinguished the “Whiskey Rebellion,” a revolt in 1791 along the western frontier of Pennsylvania and Kentucky. By 1794, it had become an outright insurrection, and something had to be done.

Washington himself personally led a militia force against the rebels, and in the teeth of overwhelming force, the rebels—including men who had fought alongside Washington in the Continental Army—surrendered peacefully.

​

In 1805, President Jefferson began to fear that his vice president, Aaron Burr, whose term had just ended, was up to no good.

The man who’d shot and killed Hamilton in a duel now wished to collude with territorial governors to foment rebellion and create a new country in the West. But Jefferson’s options involving the use of federal troops were limited. Nonetheless, Burr was finally arrested on Feb. 19, 1807, and charged with treason.

In response to the Burr affair, and to give future presidents more flexibility in dealing with rebellions, Congress passed the Insurrection Act of 1807.

 

Gitlow v New York

What makes it so hard for YOU to know this stuff??

You seem interested, but profoundly incapable.

 

The USA identifies rights that are protected by the federal government in our constitution and the inferior constitutions of the separate states. There are some rights that are supported as immediate outfalls of constitutional logic, though not specifically enumerated such as in the Bill of Rights.

There is also the issue that the constitution of the USA distinguishes between "citizens" and "people". There are rights protections that are extended to noncitizens - for example, rights of trial, but not the right to vote.

 

"Legislating from the bench" is a derogatory term used for court decisions you don't agree with.

I don't agree with the citizenship rights the courts have given corporations. Corporations are not citizens. They have no busines in the decisions made by citizens.

We've come a long way from the original reason for the existence of corporations - that of protecting owners from legal accountability for the acts of the corporation.

 

If you read the case, you've answered a lot of your own questions. The First Amendment Encyclopedia summarizes Gitlow like this:

"In doing so, however, the Court identified free speech and press as “among the fundamental personal rights and ‘liberties’ protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States.” The Gitlow decision marks the beginning of the incorporation doctrine, which extended the scope of speech rights and, later, most of the Bill of Rights."

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/80/gitlow-v-new-york

Now this is a real simple concept. The Bill of Rights guaranteed your unalienable Rights. The word unalienable means that the Right cannot be aliened. Unalienable Rights are absolute, inherent, irrevocable, God given, natural Rights that above the reach of government. Let me give you some legal precedents to support the truth.

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted."

BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

You used a First Amendment case and the case that marked the beginning of the incorporation doctrine. So, what was established law BEFORE this incorporation doctrine? The whole Bill of Rights is one law... one BILL. So, let's follow the Second Amendment to see how an illegally ratified Amendment changed our laws:

According to Wikipedia
"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822.) The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States
In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So we DID have absolute unalienable Rights consistent with the words of the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Under the de jure / legal / lawful / constitutional Republic that we the people were promised were Rights that were literally above the reach of government. You can always be prosecuted for abusing the Right, but the government has NO authority to limit an unalienable Right. But, with the help of the illegally ratified 14th Amendment, the real purpose of that Amendment begins to be seen, thanks to WillReadMore.

In this "incorporation doctrine," the courts abandoned the use of the word unalienable. In its place, they substituted a synonym AND then they changed the laws via the courts by defining that synonym to mean something other than unalienable. Watch this as we see the courts defining this synonym:

“Inalienable Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights” Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101 (1952)

You cannot surrender or transfer an unalienable Right. Blacks Law Dictionary defines unalienable as:

"...incapable of being being aliened, that is sold and transferred." (Emphasis mine, of course)
Unalienable Rights cannot be aliened, that is sold or transferred... Inalienable rights CAN BE aliened with the owner's consent. Well now, Black's Law Dictionary has dropped the word unalienable from its legal lexicon. It's not even a word any more since the law does not recognize such a Right. The incorporation doctrine to which you allude took unalienable Rights, reduced them to privileges and immunities and now the government claims they are in the rights granting business. That contradicts every foundational principle upon which the Republic rests. The courts have usurped the Rights of the people and we are being governed by an illegal / de facto government out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption. Those critics who benefit off the current corrupt system should listen to what our founders had to say relative to this:

"...on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, & instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was past (sic)"

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." George Washington, Farewell Address

I am under no obligation to obey unconstitutional laws nor illegal acts by any branch of the government. If you think you are, by all means feel free to kiss the boots of your master.

An edit here - Anyone who says that legislating from the bench is me (or anyone else) simply disagreeing with the law is uneducated. The United States Supreme Court interprets the law. Once they've done that, their job is done. When they reinterpret the same law, it is legislating from the bench. If they can reinterpret their decisions, you can send 535 federal legislators home and eliminate the United States Senate and the House of Representatives. Heed the words of Washington.

 

That is a damn LIE.

 

You're just explaining incorporation. That's not new in this discussion.

Then, you want to readdress this bit about where rights come from - attempting once again to claim that we have some sort of rights that can not be abridged - a ridiculous concept as noted by a brief review of all the governments one might want to bother reviewing.

And, I don't agree with your idea of what constitutes "legislation from the bench". It can just as easily refer to cases where there was no previous ruling by any court - as comes up as various new technology emerges or other changes occur.

Rejecting Plessey didn't require "legislating from the bench". It was a crystal clear blunder by a court that held racist motives not supported by our constitution. It didn't need action by our legislature.

 

Pure nonsense. Your response isn't even a serious attempt to disagree with the facts.

 

Yep!
When he posted gitlow in response to my request for citations, I started laughing out loud with the realization this is a total waste of time, that is that there is nothing that will be accomplished by discussing this with that level of cluelessness.

The cases you posted in your previous post articulates how they stole our rights and converted them to privileges and he simply does not get it. If he does not get that he damn sure cant discuss the cases I have which are not that blunt in that they dont outright say that our rights are outside their jurisdiction like yours does. If he does not get yours, he wont stand a chance where you need a legal mentality to draw the correct conclusions of the case.

Anyway something most people never look into. For your own knowledge, see if you can find any statement of the king 'divesting' himself of any of the original land grants. Another avenue you will enjoy, if we can call it that, check out the difference between soil and land in the USA. There is more but I expect that will be enough to fill in the cracks if you do not know it already.

I can tell you that you are wasting your time here trying to debate him since he is just using this as a mouth piece to spread disinformation about our lovely kleptocractic republic.

 

He opened the door and I gave him a brief tour of the facts of life. All he can do is comment on the work I've done. What is posted in that long winded post came solely from my own legal research and not from something gleaned on a website. Unable to present a cogent argument as WillReadMore cannot shepardize legal cases much less find them without Google, he is the only one that is going to remain clueless.

Again, if Rights are not unalienable; if they are not natural, inherent, God given, absolute, irrevocable and above the power of government, then our forefathers crossed an ocean, fought a war, lost untold numbers of lives and didn't accomplish a damn thing except allow us to be put under a yoke of tyranny because absolute doesn't mean absolute and unalienable doesn't mean unalienable. Most reasonable people, even Democrats know something isn't right, but they can't put their finger on it. WillReadMore will continue to deny the facts put right in his face, unable to figure it out. You understood what I said and if someone else is confused or just know and wants to know, they have enough links in this thread to find the facts versus the fiction.

We've allowed an unconstitutional government to operate in this country. It is NOT a democracy when the United States Supreme Court can grant powers when no such authority exists in the Constitution. Still waiting on someone to show me that clause. It's NOT a democracy when presidents try to rule by Executive fiat and the next president undoes what the previous one did. It certainly is not a democracy when the United States Supreme Court can declare what is legal today (BY THEIR RULINGS) to be illegal tomorrow just because they like "making new law" (as the Justices call it.) There is NO constitutional authority for Congress to delegate their duties to private corporations and bypass the American electorate (as in the case of the Federal Reserve - which is not "federal" NOR does it hold any reserves.) So, we have people that argue that the aforementioned is somehow legitimate and then claim we live in a democracy... I don't have to debate them. They've discredited their own position.

A democracy is hordes of uneducated nutjobs destroying private property and victimizing the citizenry because a cop killed a civilian. A democracy is a mob claiming their lives matter and ignoring the fact that they are not the only race that has gotten a crappy deal out of Uncle Scam. Mobocracy never works. So, despite what you've read on this board, when stores are shutting down and regular people are going bankrupt because protesters are looting and shooting instead of lobbying and petitioning that id democracy in action. I'm not appealing to ignorance, just to those who want to examine WHY the Republic broke down. Without unalienable Rights all you have is a government willing to use force to get you to comply.

 

Few people even know the deck has been stacked against them. I forget which scrotumus maximus judge said it but he said in open court that he takes his marching orders from the king!

We have a contract that we can wipe our asses with simply because they did not design the gubmint in a manner that accommodates us, only the Just-Us club.

I know one thing for a fact! I would love to be in that catbird seat! Have the power to suck the blood out of people, and be the final supreme judge of the contract I am party to! **** yeh! Big League racketeering at it finest.

 

Good points.

And, I'm not sure what it could possiby mean to "have a right" that, were I to exercise it, I would be locked up in jail.

If I get locked up for speech, I might claim that I have speech rights - but what I'm claiming is the constitution, not the existence of god.

Surely our founders were referring to innate characteristics of humans that demand certain protections. As you point out, they certainly didn't find our rights in the bible - a book that is about duty, not rights.

 

Then its not a right, unalienable rights are not granted, then its a privilege that is granted to you. PLease take the time to understand the difference.

You are claiming neither. You do not seem to comprehend that you are trying to discuss law, law is very specific, its not the shuck-n-jive metaphors and euphemisms you are posting here, sorry.

The constitution protects nothing, thats courtroom jingoism, you would be claiming your reserved right which is 'memorialized' in the BoR that the constitution was dependent on before they voted passed in the first place. That means no BoR no constitution, reserved rights.

The rights were demands of the people, the kleptocracy agreed to uphold the contract, and began ******** all over it before the ink was dry. (that is as soon as the so called founders were dead)

 

I'm reasonably sure that in legal parlance, "reserved rights" are execptions.

An insurance company may make a statement of reserved rights that limit the insurace covarage - situations that are NOT covered. The federal government granted autonomy to the states except with respect to reservations that are stated in the constitution - such as the bill of rights, which is just as much a part of our constitution as any other part. They are the first 10 amendments to the original constitution.

If they aren't the fundamental basis for legal protection of our rights then they serve no significant purpose.

Unlike the legal structure we helped establish in Iraq and other places where religious documents overshadow the constitution, our SC is tasked with interpreting the constitution alone. If our constitution contiained no rights protections, then that would be something entirely left to the states to address or simply ignore. We know for practice that is just not the case - the bill of rights absolutely DOES have relavence to every citizen. States can't override that - they are reserved.

 

1) do tell how does a piece of paper protect you?

2) how is scrotumus maximus any different than the kings court?

I would love to be in that catbird seat! Have the power to suck the blood out of people, and be the final supreme judge of the contract 'I' am party to! **** yeh! Big League racketeering at it finest

3) what amendment gave scrotumus maximus the lawful authority to adjudicate ANYTHING NOT 'UNDER' the constitution?

4) as a side note what was the legal status of the blacks after they were freed

 

The SC interpretation of the constitution is the method by which illegal behavior is divided from legal behavior by federal government, corporations, and citizens.

That is our only protection.

As you allude in your weird and disrespectful way, there are certainly cases where there isn't actually any protection evident.

But, that's not the point. The point is that the SC interpretation of our constitution is our only protection. Without that, it falls to the KKK, George Wallace and other popular movements.

 

nonresponsive strawman
Again the question is: 1) do tell how does a piece of paper protect you?
Again the question is: 2) how is scrotumus maximus any different than the kings court?

Again the question is: 3) what amendment gave scrotumus maximus the lawful authority to adjudicate ANYTHING NOT 'UNDER' the constitution?

Why should I have respect for the crooks that stole, converted and today maintain the conversion our 'reserved rights' to mere privileges?

Thats a bit of stretch dont you think? Oh wait I almost forgot, thats the democratic party!

Again the question is: 4) as a side note what was the legal status of the blacks after they were freed

You wanna talk law then lets talk law, answer the questions!

 

I don't think that any piece of paper protects you. At best the Declaration of Independence set forth presuppositional principles that the signers believed in enough to pledge to each other their Lives, their Fortunes and their sacred Honor (sic.)

Those who agreed with those principles fought a war to break free of the tyranny of King George wherein the Articles of Confederation were ratified culminating in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It has been called a social contract. When the United States government fails to make good on the contract, then we, the people are under no obligation to obey an unconstitutional law. AND just because the party in the most powerful position (government) declares illegal, immoral, unconscionable, unconstitutional and indefensible acts to be law does not mean they are law. Sooo... if you can show where the government did not live up to the guarantees and the spirit of the social contract, then you are justified - morally and legally to resist the abuse of power. There is a process you go through, but at no time do you relinquish a Right that is unalienable. Otherwise, only a war will give you any chance of reclaiming said Right.

 

Which has been your personal opinion. And that fails.

 

In the latest list of equal rights for all, as well as every other, who was against the gay marriage equality?
Republicans, aka conservatives.
As with all other non white males seeking equality.
Conservatives fight all non whites seeking equality. Always have.

 

What does unalienable right mean, to you? If not granted?